User:Jameswang323/sandbox

Peer review (lilmeowmeow3161)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Jameswang323
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Identity replacement technology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
I like that you included some more up to date examples! (SUCH AS MASKS!)

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes. No.

Content evaluation
I think that your content is good, however, I would recommend that you fix some of the tags with "disambiguation" because it can be a bit misleading!!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral which is good, I notice that you mention ethical concerns in your lead as well as some political sections, but overall the balance is relatively unbiased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
A lot of sources are added which is great for the first draft. Fix citations though!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Clear, can be easier to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, suggested above.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
I like that your headings are consistent (i.e bolded in the right places, etc)

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not sure.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
I like the guy fawkes imagery!

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

New Article Evaluation
Not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Much more detailed explanation of content related to the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? Fix some grammatical issues, shore up any broken links

Overall evaluation
I really liked the imagery of the article! It has some great content, and your organized it in a cohesive and consistent manner that was in line with Wikipedia! Good job :-)

Peer review(Plusoneplusone)
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? jameswang323
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jameswang323/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It is a new article, all of the content in the lead section is relevant.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Given the article is pretty long, I think the lead section is just the right amount. I would recommend to add a table of content section to help the readers navigate such a long article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, I can see many cited sources that are from recent years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article is new so it filled one of Wikipedia's content gap.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, there is a wide spectrum of sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are rarely grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Mostly yes, but just be careful with the ones that are in the public domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?There are abundant sources cited in this article.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It's a new article. In general, the content added is very complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? In general, this article is vey impressive! Sufficient amount of sources are cited and the information provided is thorough and neutral. Great work!
 * How can the content added be improved? I guess you might need to be careful with the images in the public domain and add a table of content to help readers navigate. It's a great work so I'm almost running out of things to say.

Article Feedback (Leadership)
Really great job with your article! It is great that you incorporated all 20 sources from your bibliography, and it is also great that you added 7 images to your article! I really like how you broke your article down into various subsections that represent Identity replacement technology well. I like the addition of the “See Also” section, and I like how you maintained a neutral tone throughout the article. It is evident that you conducted thorough research.

Here are some suggestions:


 * The “Features replacement” and “Identity change and biotech enhancement” sections of your article are slightly shorter than the other sections, so I would consider adding a little more to these sections to maintain balance.
 * I would also consider adding more hyperlinks throughout the article, for example, “hacking” and “biotech” in the lead section.

Lead
I liked how you mimicked other Wikipedia articles by bolding the name of your topic. You have lots of good information and present a nice intro to the rest of your article. I think most of my suggestions will be copy edits since the content in your lead is set to go. For the second paragraph, the first sentence is a little bit confusing? I can sort of see how it relates to your topic but maybe add the intro before listing the different methods(so just switch up beg and end). For example, "There are methods used by hacker to....., and some examples are online identity theft..." Another thing is that maybe define obfuscation since it is used a lot so that it is not as confusing to the readers. (You don't have to say too much just a little bit since you may go more in depth later)

copy edit: Maybe use all instead of a whole? Also you can probably take out all the to's and list it normally. Be sure to also say the whole word "technology" and "biotechnology instead of tech.

copy edit: Biometric in second paragraph can be Wikilinked!

Content
I think in your deepfake section, there is a lot of repetition with the word deepfake. I'm not sure if there is another nickname for this word that you can use, but maybe try using identity replacement technology, etc. so that it doesn't seem like you are shoving the word into the reader's face. I really liked how you added the subsection on Identity theft in politics, and I think it would be interesting to expand more on this, especially with the current topics in the U.S. and the focus on politics today. I think there could be more to add such as more examples that could interest the readers.

copy edit: ",goals, and purposes of identity theft" In identity theft section omit the "and" and add a comma.

Tone and Balance
The tone of the article is neutral, and there seems to be no apparent bias in the writing. I think my suggestion for the balance of the article would be for the biotech enhancement section, the part where it says, "Individuals maintain the right to make personal choices" seems that it could only apply to certain areas in the world? Be sure to look into if this really applies to everyone, and maybe you can find how biotechnology is perceived differently in different parts of the world.

Organization
There is a lot fo information and also a lot of organizational headings that you use, which is good!. Some suggestions would be to possibly add subsections within your spoofing and methods of obfuscation section since there is a lot of dense information. As a reader, it was hard to get through everything and understand how all of it related to the topic, so more subheadings could possibly help make it more clear how each paragraph is different from the other. I also think that the section on "Olympus: an example of obfuscation technology" can be moved to be after the methods section that way you are able to go more in depth with the process and then end it with an example. My last suggestion would be for the biotechnology enhancement section. I think you should look at the second paragraph and think if you could possibly put it under a subsection with a title. It doesn't seem to flow well from the introduction of biotechnology enhancement to the second paragraph with the social transformation to the ethics of it. Since you already have a section on ethics why not put the rest under its own section!

New Articles
The article meets the notability requirements by having significant coverage, using reliable sources, and follows a similar format to other Wikipedia articles. Only suggestion would to try to break down some of your big chunks of information into smaller sections if possible.

Overall Impressions
Overall, I can really see how much time you have put into it to research and write up everything. It looks really good! My suggestions are not really on what else to include but more of how to restructure your article/reword things to be more direct. Wikipedia is written very directly, so just keep that in mind when continuing to edit and look over your finished work. Keep up the good work and I hope to see how it ends up in a few more weeks! ~

Peer Review (Madssnake)
(week 9 review)

Lead
I think you have a really great lead, and I was able to understand what identity replacement technology is after your introductory sentence. You do a good job of prefacing the following sections, although I think the identity theft section in your lead seems a bit long compared to the amount of information you give to other topics, which in my opinion, are more relevant to your article. I think it is a good length for a lead though––both descriptive and concise.

copy edit: “This could range from” I feel like “could” is not really necessary as all of the things listed / following are considered identity replacement technology––my suggestion would be to change it to “this ranges / can range from __ to __ to __”

copy edit: “prevent government or entities” → “prevent the government or various entities”

In earlier sections of your lead you use “could (be/ be used)” a lot, so the sentence structure gets a bit repetitive––maybe change to “can”, “has use for”, or omit the word altogether on some occasions? Something like that.

Content
I really like how you define each subtopic in the beginning of your sections. Overall, you do a great job of providing a lot of information and examples of each section. However, I would suggest that you check for certain topics and if they already have wikipedia articles (such as deepfakes), because I don’t think it’s necessary to go as in depth when there is already another article on them? Up to you, but I think for the deepfakes section it would be better to focus on the actual identity replacement aspect of deepfakes rather than more specific scenarios of crimes with deepfakes. Similarly with spoofing, there already exists a many wikipedia articles for that, so I’m not sure you would need to go super in depth with the mechanics of spoofing // the second and third paragraph in that. Same with identity theft?

copy edit (in features replacement): I think the “etc” sounds a bit casual––maybe consider changing the sentence to start with “this can include but is not limited to” for the first “etc” appearance, and something similar for the second use.

copy edit (in applications of 3D face and..): change 3d to 3D

copy edit (in definition of obfuscation): change Obfuscation to obfuscation

Tone and Balance
I like how you discuss both criminals and law-abiding citizens, and present both sides, as well as discussing the strengths and weaknesses / ethical concerns of biotech enhancement. I think because this topic has a more negative connotation in my mind, it is good to discuss both POVs on the matter. I really liked the obfuscation section for its more positive approach to identity replacement technology. Overall, you have a consistent neutrality in the article.

Sources and References
It’s super awesome that you have a lot of content, but I would make sure to cite a source at least once in every paragraph (a few paragraphs are missing some citations). Also, I love how you linked many Wikipedia articles, but I think you could add even more! I also see that you have a wide range of sources, a lot of which are really recent / current.

Organization
Also, I’m not sure how much it matters, but the order of subtopics you mention in the lead is not the same as the article, which may interrupt the flow a bit (I was expecting obfuscation a lot earlier because it was mentioned before the biotech bit, but not the biggest worry?). I think you did a really good job of breaking this very broad topic into smaller subsections, and each section is pretty similar in length.

For New Articles Only
This article is a great new article––you support your content with credible sources and have a similar format as other Wikipedia articles. I would suggest adding a See Also section at the end for people to get a smaller, comprehensive list of other topics to check out––that way, you can also use those related articles to place links back to your article once it’s in the mainspace!

Overall impressions
Overall, I am super impressed with this article, and it was a really interesting read! I definitely learned a lot. I think you do a great job of explaining things, but occasionally it can seem like a lot of information at once. You don’t have to follow my suggestions, but for the content part where I mentioned adding Wikipedia links and cutting out some less relevant stuff, this was just what immediately came to mind when reading your article. I would just comb through and ask if this paragraph is super relevant, or if simply linking the Wikipedia article would suffice. Also, your images do a great job of contributing to the reader’s understanding. I like how you used multiple images as well. Lastly, a writing suggestion would be to check for language patterns that become repetitive “this can range from”, “could”, and any other patterns that pop up. It’s still great encyclopedic writing, though! Great job! Madssnake (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead
The article has an introductory sentence that is concise and described well what the overall topic is. The article also does a good job of introducing the topics that will be introduced later in the article. Overall the lead is a good introduction to the article and is well written.

Content
All of the content is relevant and up to date. The article provides multiple ways of identity replacement technology. To my knowledge, there was no content that is missing.

Tone and Balance
The article maintains a neutral tone throughout. The links in the works

Sources and References
Some of the pages you link seem to not exist, this includes political hacking and adversarial network. The links in the references lead to the correct source, but is there a way to make it a hyperlink so that readers do not have to copy and paste the URL?

Organization
The organization is done well and groups the relevant technology.

Images and Media
The article uses images well to help the reader understand article topics. The articles seem to be filed from Wikipedia so they probably adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Overall impressions
Overall this a great draft. I can see the extensive work you have done through the thoroughness of the topic.

Peer Review!
Hey James, here's my completed peer review!

General info I will be reviewing Jameswang323's article on Identity Replacement Technology Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Since this is a new article and not editing an existing one, yes the lead contains all new information.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the existing sentence of the lead is concise and gives a simple, understandable definition of the topic.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, it discusses all the topics that are present in the sections of the article. It doesn't specify how the sections are split, per say, but I think it accomplishes its goal without needing to.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

There was a mention of an anti-mask governing law at the end of the first paragraph in the lead section, and that wasn't explored further in the article.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead evaluation

It accomplishes it's job very well. There is a punctuation error on the last sentence of the first paragraph, as it has a "/" instead of a period. Also, I'm unsure if the mention of the anti-mask governing law should be present in the lead, as it doesn't really get expanded upon in any of the other sections. Overall, it had a neutral tone and I could see no bias towards one party in the language thus far.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, all the content is relevant. I can tell by reading, but it was also nice how the content was connected to the topic in the lead section well.

Is the content added up-to-date?

I see a few articles from the early 2000s, which may be a little out-of-date, but nonetheless it doesn't detract from the overall quality of the article writing. Also, a majority of the articles do seem up-to-date.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No content that doesn't belong in my opinion, but I would like to know more about how the anti-mask governing law and how that fits in to any of the subtopics at hand, since it was mentioned in the lead.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

It does, as it is an article that did not exist on Wikipedia before this. The article didn't mention how the topics were related to historically underrepresented populations, but I don't think it was supposed to.

Content evaluation

I was able to understand the language in the overall content very well. In the last section of the entire article, I think there is a typo: "this rype of image privacy protection" instead of "this type". For the last section of the "Face authentication and biometric identification section", there is a claim about mass crimes related to the subtopic can cause "serious damage to the international landscape". I think this might be a bit too general and hard to picture for people unaware about foreign affairs, so perhaps adding a specific example to demonstrate this would make the claim more clear. Also, I'm unsure if "serious" is not neutral enough, although I would air on the side that it is fine. Up to you if you would like to keep it or not.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

The content added is neutral. It seems like they are just summarizing the sources they got the information from, which is how it's supposed to be.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No specific claims, other than the one mentioned in the content evaluation section.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I see none that are overrepresented or underrepresented. Both how the technology mentioned can be positive and negative are written about, as well as explaining any unusual terms.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No

Tone and balance evaluation

The tone and balance is good, and there is no strong stance taken for or against any particular side.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, but source 11 seems like a law journal and I'm unsure if we are allowed to use law journals for citations. That might just be purely for the annotated bibliography and not our article, though.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, they are all research-based.

Are the sources current?

Some from the early 2000s, but overall current.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

It is hard to tell if the authors are diverse, since just their names are present. The titles of the articles don't help me gage either, but I don't feel like this has affected the quality of the article in any way.

Check a few links. Do they work?

There are no links to be clicked, but searching up the articles online give me accessible articles in-return, so the sources work.

Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

It is well-written and clear, but I think it could be improved if within each section it was split into sub-sections, like one for 3D sensor cameras and one for fingerprinting, just for the sole purpose of being more clear in how the information is split up and when it transitions to a new topic within the section.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Yes, they have been mentioned throughout the other questions in this peer review. There is also this sentence: "there are global political, ethical, and economical threats spoofer that goes beyond a country's borders.", and I don't think that the word "spoofer" makes the sentence make sense. Is this where the word is supposed to go? This is in the "Face authentication and biometric identification" section.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, although I think it could be broken down into further sections as mentioned previously.

Organization evaluation

Overall good, minor grammar/punctuation errors that have been mentioned throughout this peer review. A recommendation would be to split content in sections further into sub sections, at your discretion.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Images and media evaluation

If you feel that images would enhance the article and/or make it more easy for the reader to understand, then I suggest adding them. Maybe a picture of fingerprinting/how it works or one of the other techs you mentioned would be good as an image. Overall, an image isn't necessary, but would add to the article in my opinion.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?

Yes

How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

It is an appropriate amount for the size of the article, all the sources seem relevant to the topic.

Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?

Yes, but it could benefit with more sub-sections within the already-split sections.

Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Yes, it does, although I'm unsure if I just didn't catch it but maybe "spoofing" would be another good term to link your article to.

New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, it feels like a complete article.

What are the strengths of the content added?

The content was written in an understandable matter for the most part, and the sections themselves were split well.

How can the content added be improved?

Clarity could be improved by splitting the sections further within each one, also perhaps adding an image would improve the article as well. HanMiKC (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Jameswang323
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jameswang323/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead does have an introductory sentence about the article's topic. It has a great description of the article's major content and all the information is relevant. However, diving the lead into even smaller sections might make it even easier for readers, since now the content is relatively long.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added in the article are all relevant and up-to-date. There are no missing content.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added are neutral and not biased toward a specific position. No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are abundant sources to back up the content and they are current, such that some of them are newly in 2020.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content added are well-written and easy to read. I can see you correct many of the grammatical mistakes in the original form and made many adjustments such as changing images' size to make the article easier to read.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article includes lots of images that help the reader better understanding the topic. Each image has a clear caption.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the content added improve the quality of the article by making it easier to read and more complete. The lead section can be made into a more concise form and adding an image about the topic would be appealing in the first place.

Peer review (Brian)

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Jameswang323
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jameswang323/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is both concise and easy-to-read. It offers a brief but comprehensive introduction to the article and also offers its application to the biotechnology realm.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content in the draft are all relevant and up-to-date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance of the draft are neutral and unbiased. I think you did a good job giving readers a good understanding of the topic without including your personal bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All the sources are relatively recent and fairly diverse.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The draft is organized well, without any obvious grammatical errors. All sections are very detailed.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
Yes, the draft does include images that enhance my understanding of the topic. However, I found some of the graphs to be too small and hard-to-read. Perhaps enlarging them in the article will give readers a better understanding of the information present without having to click in the graph.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
Yes, the article does meet the notability requirements and includes an extensive list of sources. The article is also unique and does link itself to other articles so it will be more discoverable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, this draft is extensive, detailed, and organized well. My only suggestion will be adding more visuals and links to other articles to make it more discoverable.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Jameswang323
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Identity replacement technology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The Lead has concise information on the topic but it would be great if citations can be added.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes. No.

Content evaluation
A lot of information on the topic is added. Here are some suggestions I have on the content:

Article First draft section

1st  paragraph: “or entities tracking private” to “or entities from tracking private”

3rd paragraph: “areas of research in biotechnology” to “areas of biotechnology research”, “identity of am offspring “ to identity of an offspring”

Features replacement section

3rd paragraph: “cybercriminals or real life criminals” to “cyber criminals or real-life criminals” (there are a few more within the article), “a mask to hide themselves from” to “a mask to hide from”

4th paragraph: “(either online or in person)” to “(either online or in-person)”, “a gray area for if a person” to “a gray area if a person”, “as much as hide their identities” to “ as much as hiding their identities

Deepfakes and synthetic media section

1st paragraph: “face replacement is deepfakes” to “face replacement are deepfakes”, “Through editng techniques” to “through editng techniques“, “and crime purposes.” to “and criminal purposes.”

2nd paragraph: “media is usage for political” to “media is used for political”, “industry wide experts” to “industry-wide experts”

Spoofing and Anti-spoofing section

2nd paragraph: “fake physical artefacts” to “fake physical artifacts”

3rd paragraph: “identification involves advanced” to “identification involve advanced”

Biotech enhancement section

2nd paragraph: “change are also associated” to “change is also associated”

3rd paragraph: “evolve over time” to “evolve overtime”

3D camera and analysis method section

1st paragraph: “Wide range” to “A wide range”

2nd paragraph: “based on an UV plain” to “based on a UV plain”, “for identities of individuals” to ”the identities of individuals”

Fingerprint biometric identification

1st paragraph: “from the a fingerprint scan” to “from the fingerprint scan”

Obfuscation and privacy protection section

1st paragraph: “it’s important for many users to maintain their privacy.” to “many users need to maintain their privacy.”

2nd paragraph: “sensitive to data stealing” to “sensitive to data-stealing”, “anonymous pseudo codes” to “anonymous pseudo-codes”

5th paragraph: “certain trade off between” to “certain trade-offs between”, “becomes more effectively.” to “becomes more effective.”

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance is neutral which doesn't make me lean towards any opinions. Here are some of my suggestions:

Features replacement section:

Sentence is complex and might need changes: “Then, said individuals wear a mask in public to conduct fraud and pass a person who passes the security systems.”

Deepfakes and synthetic media

Sentence is complex and might need changes: “multi-stakeholder groups to collaborate in order improve cybersecurity in order to counter deepfakes.”

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
A lot of sources are added which is great for the first draft. Many sentences are not referenced in the paragraphs and it would be nice to add some citations.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Clear, can be easier to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, suggested above.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
You can make use of subheadings to make the sections easier to read as every section has a lot of information which can be overwhelming. But the larger sections you have right now is a good general organisation. There are many grammatical and spelling errors, I would suggest you to copy and paste your article on google docs to change it.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not sure.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
The images added are helpful to understand the topic. It is also placed where it would not affect reading the article.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

New Article Evaluation
Not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Much more detailed explanation of content related to the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? Better organisation and wording.

Overall evaluation
The article is absolutely great and contains many interesting information. I can definitely see your article more appealing with future changes you are going to make. This is a tough semester but you are doing great and is on top of your game! I'm sure the next few weeks would be less work heavy for you because of your great work so far :)

Lead
Great job with the lead. It covers all of your article's main sections, has citations and links, and is concise and detailed. The only thing I would suggest is that, in the first paragraph, the wording "regular people" vs. criminals might indicate that you think criminals are not "regular people" (i.e., that there is something different or abnormal with them). You probably don't mean that. I've tried thinking of alternative phrasing you could use -- non-criminals or law-abiding citizens might work.

Content
The content added is relevant to the topic. It is up-to-date, with the most recent article being published in 2020. The content does not seem to be missing content and does not include any content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance
For the sentence "There is a gray area if a person is not committing a crime and is within one's home but wearing a mask to hide from government tracking," is that your opinion or someone else's? If it's someone else's, give attribution to them.

Otherwise, your tone is very neutral! There are no claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position and you make sure to represent viewpoints fairly and as equally as you can.

Sources and References
The sources are reliable secondary sources of information. They seem thorough. They are current, with the most recent article being published in 2020. Make sure you hyperlink the sources (I saw one URL, but it wasn't hyperlinked).

Organization
Overall, the content added is well-written -- it is concise, clear, and easy to read. The content is also well-organized. You have clear sections and subsections for your article.

In your "Reasons for features replacement" section, I'm a little confused by the sentence "In addition, for religious purposes, people don't replace their identities as much as hiding their identities." Is replacing one's identity particularly problematic for religious people? Do non-religious people find problems with "replacing" and not "hiding" their identities?

Copy-edits:

"Uses of features replacement" section:

- Your first use of "3D" does not have a capitalized "d" ("3d masks that replace body features....").

"Deepfakes and synthetic media" section:

- You can cut out the bolded phrase from the following sentence, "According to one study that assessed various scenarios of deepfake manipulations, it is increasingly easier for hackers and attackers to create fake faces and identities to harm society and the economy given our increasingly technologically advanced society."

- Change "The report concludes that deepfake and synthetic media does not produce significant harm" to "do" if you are referring to deepfakes and synthetic media.

- "Broadcast, on the other hand, is the disperse of deepfake materials to a wide audience." Change to "dispersion" or "dispersal."

- "synthetic social media profiles that contains profiles of fake identities." Change to "contain."

- "deepfakes requires key stakeholder" -- Change "requires" to "require" and "stakeholder" to "stakeholders."

- "There are various methods" -- Uncapitalize "There" because it is neither a quote nor does it begin a sentence.

- "techniques do worse at identity more advanced deepfakes" -- Change to "identifying."

"Spoofing" section:

- "more and more" -- Change to "more often."

- "regions(entire" -- Add a space between the end of regions and the parenthesis.

- "researches are" -- Change to "research is."

- "to discuss modern and most recent anti-spoofing and more secure biometric techniques" -- Add "the" in front of "most" and delete "more secure" (that should be a given).

"Anti-spoofing" section:

- "one attack target; Research" -- Uncapitalize "Research."

"Bio-tech enhancement" section:

- "One study analyzes the categorical oppositions interact" -- Change "the" to "how."

- "Individuals maintains" -- Change "maintains" to "maintain."

"Ethical concerns of bio-tech enhancement" section:

- "current biotech" -- Capitalize "current" as it is the beginning of the sentence.

"Identity theft in politics" section:

- "Identity Theft" at the beginning of the section -- Uncapitalize "Theft."

Images and Media
The images all enhance my understanding of the topic. The captions are apt, but could be more detailed. The images, as far as I am concerned, do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are laid out in a visually appealing way, but you could alternate their placement (right now you have all of the pictures on the right side of the article).

For New Articles Only
The article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements. It has many sources which are peer-reviewed. It contains links to other articles. It does not contain infoboxes. It does contain section headings.

Overall impressions
Excellent job! You have written so much, used many sources, covered a relatively complete area of the topic, and have done all of this with a neutral tone and balance. Awesome job, keep it up!

Article Second draft
Identity replacement technology is any technology that is used to cover up all or parts of a person's identity, either in real life or virtually. This can Include face masks, face authentication technology, and deepfakes on the Internet that spread fake editing of videos and images. Face replacement and identity masking are used by either criminals or law-abiding citizens. Identity replacement tech, when operated on by criminals, leads to heists or robbery activities. Law-abiding citizens utilize identity replacement technology to prevent government or various entities from tracking private information such as locations, social connections, and daily behaviors.

Online identity theft, information stealing, and deepfakes are all methods used by hackers to replace or alter the identity of a victim. Along with these hacking methods are some solutions: face liveness detection, obfuscation of crucial information, and location privacy obfuscation. More advanced obfuscation technology can cover up the location of a person through privacy protection. The main method to achieve these kinds of obfuscation is by replacing personal information such as the location of a person with anonymous identities and operators or trackers. There is also research being done on the effectiveness and use of biometric identity authentication such as fingerprints and faces to replace personal identity authentication such as one's SSN.

For biotechnology identity replacement, gene sequencing and identity adjustments are common areas of research. With cutting-edge technology, it is possible to change the identity of a person or the identity of an offspring. With the advancement of science comes the ethical issues of cloning, identity change, and societal and organizational transformations.

Features replacement
Features replacement technology is any technology that changes, alters, hides, or misrepresent a person's features. This can include feature replacements such as fingerprint replacement, face replacement, pupil authentication replacement, etc. The technology involved in features replacement ranges from masking to creating 3D videos and images.

Criminal uses
3D masks that replace body features, usually faces, can be made from materials such as plastic, cotton, leather, etc. These identity masks can range from realistic imitations of a person to unrealistic characters that hide the identity of an individual. Criminals and hackers tend to use a spectrum of masks depending on their intended objectives of the crime and other environmental factors. Usually, if a crime involves more planning and execution, criminals and hackers put more effort into creating their 3d masks.

There are many intended purposes for feature replacements. Cyber criminals or real-life criminals use masks or 3D generated images of a mask to hide from security systems or pass through security checks. They usually do this finding the identity of a victim who has access to certain security systems. Then, criminals wear masks in public to conduct fraud and passes through security systems as the victim of the identity theft. This usage of masks and 3D printed items to cover certain body features while conducting crime is illegal under laws like anti-mask laws.

Other reasons for features replacement
Another use of face replacement technology is to hide one's identity from third-party trackers, monitors, and government officials. Although uncommonly used by individuals, this method of hiding one's identity (either online or in-person) is mainly used for hiding from government tracking, for entertainment purposes, and for religious purposes. People may decide to wear a mask in-doors to prevent government tracking, for example.

Deepfake usages
Deepfakes, a type of identity replacement technology, are pictures or video edits that replace the identity of a person in the picture or the video. This digital forgery is used to manipulate informations, defame people, and blackmail individuals. Through editing techniques such as face replacement and pixel or coloration implant, deepfakes can resemble the real image closely.

Deepfakes are classified into four types of identity manipulations: face synthesis, identity swap, attribute manipulation, and expression swap. Some more specific examples include face swapping, lip syncing, motion transfer, and audio generation. Although a more common usage of synthetic media or deepfakes is political disinformation, a less known phenomenon is financial fraud committed by cybercriminals who use deepfakes to steal financial data and profit from doing so. Hackers and criminals use deepfakes to penetrate social media accounts, security systems of banks, and individual financial information of wealthy individuals. Two scenarios that are used by hackers and manipulators include narrowcast and broadcast. Some deepfake techniques include deepfake voice phishing, fabricated private marks, and synthetic social media profiles that contain profiles of fake identities. According to research, deepfake prevention requires collaboration from key stakeholder such as internal firm employees, industry-wide experts, and multi-stakeholder groups.

Technology used to deter deepfakes
Some possible methods of deterring deepfakes include early detection of face mismatches, individual feature analysis of the face, identity confirmation of images or videos, and techniques that utilize multi-feature analysis that pinpoint face liveness, etc. There is further research being done on deepfakes techniques such as face morphing and face de-identification. However, deepfake prevention techniques tend to be worse at identifying more advanced deepfakes, identification methods sometimes fail to recognize unseen conditions not related to facial analysis, and databases and technology must be up-to-date based on evolving deepfake techniques.

Deepfakes can be used as weapons to spread misinformation and threaten democratic systems through identity replacement strategies. Some deepfakes, due to low cost and ease of usage, can be used to replace identities and spread misinformation across nations and the international landscape effectively. Hackers can use bots or deepfakes that spread propaganda and disinformation to adversaries, and these attempts could challenge democratic processes internationally. The public will be distrustful due to the potential use of deepfakes by politicians or outside countries.

Spoofing
Spoofing, a concept related to deepfake, is a method of hacking and identity manipulation by impersonating as a known source trusted by a spoof target or system of security. Spoofing attacks can be easily launched due to common uses of face recognition systems in mobile device unlocking and deduplication. One way the hackers get into the system is by using a synthetic-forged biometric that fools sensors and grants a different identity to the hacker who passes through as the real identity.

Spoofing can also involve fake physical artifacts such as fake printouts of masks and fingers that hackers use to manipulate biometric authentication technology. Due to spoofing attempts on a mass scale, there are global political, ethical, and economical threats that goes beyond a country's borders. Mass crimes involving cybersecurity breaches, political hacking, and personal identity thieving can cause damage to the international landscape.

Anti-spoofing techniques
Payment information, personal information, and biometric information are all potential exploitation sources performed on by hackers. There are both feature level and sensor level anti-spoofing techniques. The goal of anti-spoofing is to deter illegitimate users from accessing to important and personal information. 4 main groups of anti-spoofing techniques are widely used by cybersecurity experts: motion analysis, texture analysis, image quality analysis, and hardware based analysis that integrates software components. Another anti-spoofing technique is using color texture to analyze the joint color-texture density of facial features in images and videos. By comparing across databases using replay videos of spoof attacks, many of these methods are able to detect liveness of faces and facial symmetry under a controlled environment. Anti-spoofing and deepfake identification are prone to errors and attacks. For example, one model of attentional adversarial network to generate fake images that match the original pictures in terms of features, face strength, and semantic information. One drawback of such an adversarial network model is it analyzes only one attack target; However, research is being done on using various models to target multiple attacks. Some other shortcomings of anti-spoofing techniques include failure to detect spoofing across databases, failure to apply to real life scenarios, and performance issues related to the limits of the technologies involved.

Biotech enhancement
Gene sequencing and gene therapy are cutting-edge technology used by biotech researchers to discover ways of altering the identities or genes of offsprings and humans. With gene alternating and features enhancement, one can change the structural identities of offsprings. Another related concept is cloning, a more futuristic concept about replicating human beings.

On a broader level, identity change leads to social transformation. Identity change and organization transformations occur sometimes at the same time. For example, there is profound socio-political change related to collective and individual identity change in Ireland. Identity change is also associated with economical, political, and social factors related to the changing environment. Individuals maintain the right to make personal choices, but these choices are often affected by one's surroundings and one's immediate environment. Enhancement and alteration of the human body and identity is thus connected to broader social transformations. If society changes and evolves, then individuals may choose to evolve with it. Generational factors are also considered by researchers as biotech evolves and advances.

Ethical concerns of biotech enhancement
Fundamentally, some current objections to enhancement biotech include questions about authenticity of biotech enhancement and fundamental attributes and values of being human. Some key concerns include safety, ethical distributions, and identity traits violations. Current biotech research is seeking to expand upon what human identity means, the connection between gene alteration and human enhancement, generational offspring alterations. More research is needed in this realm of biotechnology research for scientists to determine the viability and ethical issues revolving around advanced biotechnology.

Face authentication and biometric identification
Biometric identifications, including face authentication technology, is used by firms, governments, and various other organizations for security checks and personal identification. This procedure and technology is especially important to protect private materials and information of a firm or government. Due to evolving security technology, Biometric authentication methods are replacing physical copies of IDs, numbers like SSN, and personal information written on paper.

3D sensor analysis to test face authenticity
3D cameras and depth analysis can be used to detect spoofing and fraudulent datas. Biometric identifications with a wide range of depth and flexility can aid the detection of spoofing attempts by hackers and identity thieves. Liveness assurance and authentication of faces can help prevent face identity manipulation and forgery in that liveness detection of the face can use color, depth, angle of facial features, and other factors to distinguish between fake and real faces. Due to the ease of making a 3D mask and creating deepfakes online, fake identities is increasingly common in the tech industry. Some common methods used to achieve face authentication results include: SVM classifiers, image quality assessment, pupil tracking and color texture analysis. Biometric identification technology with a higher flexibility leads to better detection of spoofing attacks.

3D face reconstruction and face alignment can aid the use of biometric identification systems when authenticating identities of individuals. An end-to-end method called Position Map Regression Network is used to reconstruct 3D facial features from the 3D space such as from an image of a person. Some key metrics in measuring the effectiveness of alignment and reconstruction include face reconstruction speed, runtime of alignments, and accuracy of facial alignment compared to original image. Through restructuring 3D facial structures using density to align faces, position maps can convert a 3D face into a 2D image based on a UV plain analysis. 3D shapes are acquired by 3D sensors and specific features within the face shape are acquired by the sensors to retrieve information. Convolutional neural networks are trained to extract facial and semantic information from the 3D image to the 2D image with a process called regression. Overall, this position-map method of facial reconstruction and alignment can be used in cybersecurity authentication, biometric verification, and identity matching.

Fingerprint biometric identification
Fingerprinting is also a biometric identification method researched on by cybersecurity firms and governments. Fingerprint verification can be used to counter identity theft or potential fraud just like face authentication technologies. One study uses a minutiae-extraction algorithm to develop an identity-authentication system based on how it extracts data and verifiable information from the fingerprint scan. This model is based on alignment, where it matches inputs to stored template to verify the identity of someone faster and more accurately. The goal of all biometric authentication methods, including fingerprint identification, is to have accurate and speedy responses in authenticating data. Systems and alignment technologies are constantly updated to achieve better results. Some drawbacks of fingerprint identification are large distortions in poor image quality, straight line deformations, vague transformations that affects authentication quality, and missing minutiae for some parts of an image. However, multiple biometric authentication tools could be used, such as face and fingerprint, in order to obtain better and more accurate performances.

Applications of 3D sensors and biometrics
The components of 3d sensors such as key electronic parts and sensor systems are increasingly made smaller and better by emphasizing compactness of sensors, effectiveness of detecting shapes, portability, strength of imaging, etc. 3D imaging and optical sensor can be expensive, but the cost can be decreased when manufacturers and suppliers make individual sensor components cheaper and more flexible to fit a variety of sensors and cameras. Virtual renders and prototyping tools are integrated into 3D sensor and camera systems to aid with facial reconstruction, identity search, and shape designs. 3D sensors can be made to form sensor systems where the entire system is more effective at capture an image compared to single sensors or cameras. There are applications for 3D sensors such as in manufacturing, optical uses, and robotic applications. Key industries that could utilize 3d cameras include robotics, law enforcements, automatic authentication systems, and product development.

Identity theft
Identity theft is the concept when a thief steals the identity of a victim and portrays oneself as the victim's identity. Identity theft has many implications both on a small and large scale. Individual identity theft can be limited to a single person when the identity thief takes on the identity of that victim. The reason for identity theft might include pleasure of entertainment, malicious hacking, settling revenge, or for political purposes of sabotage. According to the NCSl, identity theft is considered a federal crime and most states categorize it as a serious felony. Mass scale identity theft can involve political sabotage, financial and economical heists and crimes, and social changes for the worse.

Identity theft and consumer payment
Identity theft and identity replacement has shaped and affected consumer spending over the past years in the financial world. One method used to analyze identity theft is to map identity theft incidents to determine geographical locations, environmental factors, and purposes of identity theft. Payment instruments used by different types of payment systems can affect how identity theft is used to obtain financial information and commit financial fraud. Identity theft has an implication for consumer payment behaviors and adoptions. Although customers have different payment methods, geographical areas with more identity theft occurrences tend to have an increased use of payment methods such as money orders, travelers’ check, prepaid cards, and credit card payments. Electronic payments are widely used by consumers given society's evolving landscape of payment technology. However, these payment systems, including transactions of checks, cards, and cash, require periodic updates to keep up with evolving ways of identity theft. Given our current economy of transactions involving customer data, more opportunities are created for fraudulent transactions since more consumers are shopping online and conducting financial transactions online. A thief could hack data related to common financial derivatives and items such as product payments, loans, mortgages, stocks, options tradin g, etc. One way identity theft can happen is when the thief tries to obtain a service or product but pays it with someone else's financial data or account information. This fraudulent transaction will attribute the cost of the transaction to the identity thief victim. The victim's identity could be used multiple times by different thieves using similar or different identity theft methods. Some solutions to such problems include consumer protections, credit freezes if fraud occurs, credit verification, and penalties and enforcements.

Identity theft in politics
Identity theft can also involve political manipulations and hacking on a large scale that is detrimental to the political wellbeing of international politics. Identity thieves can use identity replacement methods such as biometric replacement, face masks, deepfakes, and personal information stealing to conduct political sabotages. For example, an identity thief could conduct voter fraud by imposing as one or more individuals who cast ballots. The thief could also hack the social media account of a politician and post scandals or defamation about that politician.

Definition of obfuscation
Obfuscation has a technical meaning of code protection and making coding patterns, structures, and lines anonymous to everyone but the code programmer. This way, the programmer deters incoming hacks and shell-injection attacks methods. Another use of obfuscation is protecting a person's identity online, such as protection of privacy, location, and behaviors.

Methods of obfuscation
Obfuscation operators can be used to determine distribution areas, privacy protections, and location preferences. Probabilistic fundamentals such as the joint distribution function are used to test out obfuscation operators and how operators can be used to protect location privacy of individuals without sacrificing certain app features and efficiencies. Thus, obfuscation can be used to make location and related information anonymous and useless to potential hackers who are trying to breach the privacy of individuals. Adversary models can be used to form combinations of operators to test the viability of obfuscation operators based on adversary awareness, utility functions, and robustness of operator families.

Another obfuscation privacy protection method protects images online and through social media. The targeted-identity-protection-iterative method(TIP-IM) is used for this type of image-privacy protection. The method is to feed various adversarial models into TIP-IM and look at the performance of adversarial networks. By simulating an identity-protection system, the method identifies an adversarial network that interacts with privacy protection results. Thus, the TIP-IM can prevent hackers' unauthorized access to images, accounts, and systems that have sensitive information. There is also a trade-off between effectiveness and naturalness of the protected face and identity images: naturalness of faces decreases as image protection becomes more effective.

Obfuscation Categories
Obfuscation can be divided into three categories: construction, empirical, and construction and empirical combination. Mapping obfuscation techniques involves analysis in data, layout, control, and preventive structures of applications. By diversifying systems and obfuscation of data through system analysis, data scientists and security experts can make it harder for hackers to breach a system’s security and privacy settings. Virtualization systems are used by cybersecurity experts to test the effects of various obfuscation techniques on potential cyber attacks. Different cyber attacks on private information require different diversification and obfuscation methods. Thus, a combination of multiple obfuscation methods such as code blocking, location privacy protection, identity replacements can be used. Some further studies in the field of obfuscation include analysis on diversification methods and performing tests on different virtual environments such as cloud and trusted computing.

Olympus: an example of obfuscation technology
One study formed a system of obfuscation operators called Olympus, a system of managing data and protecting privacy of individuals on applications. Olympus's goal is to maintain existing data structures and functionality of the applications while also protecting the privacy of personal information uploaded onto the testing applications. These data usually come from sensors and are uploaded onto the application where it’s analyzed. Through obfuscation operators and certain combinations of them, an individual’s private data can be protected while also being analyzed. Information categories like SSN, birth dates, home locations, age, gender, race, and income that are sensitive to data-stealing and identity thieving are protected. Olympus is an attempt to apply privacy protection to real world applications. By forming adversarial networks between utility requirements and privacy through weighing the tradeoffs between them, data's usability is kept.

See Also:
Privacy protection

Obfuscation

Cloud computing

Identity Theft

Fingerprint authentication

3D sensor systems

Deepfakes

Spoofing and anti-spoofing

Face authentication

Biotechnology

UGBA 39E seminar
Article evaluation: Civic Application

-the content on the page is mostly relevant to the topic of civic technology

-The page isn't biased and remains relatively neutral throughout

-This page somewhat only talks about the advantages of civic application, but didn't mention the disadvantages

-The links from the citation mostly support the content, and they are accessible through clicking

-Most facts are referenced with a source, and most of these sources are unbiased. These sources come from published articles, research papers, and websites. We can trust most of these sources

-The page can add different categories of civic application, provide some more examples for each category, and talk about the disadvantages of civic application.

-This page is a both Wikiproject software and Wikiproject Politics page. The Talk page doesn't have any questions or content on it.

Link to talk page with my evaluation:

Talk:Civic application

Possible Articles to work on:


 * 1) Civic Technology Companies
 * 2) This article only gives a short description of very general civic tech companies without providing the history of these companies, their functions, and examples
 * 3) I can improve this article by using reliable sources and examples to strengthen the content
 * 4) Civic Application
 * 5) This article doesn't go in depth about main functions of civic applications and lacks examples.
 * 6) Education and Technology
 * 7) This article talks about general technology and education in a school environment, but I can write about how technology shapes political educations of citizens around the world.
 * 8) The article only focuses on technology and education on developing counties, I want to also talk about technology and political education in developed countries
 * 9) Civic Intelligence
 * 10) I feel like this article is lacking in depth examples of how civic intelligence has mobilized social movements related to politics
 * 11) this page lacks mentioning of technology's influence on civic intelligence

2 articles that I think are plausible to edit:

Civic intelligence:

-This article is good in that it has the basic definitions of civic intelligence written out, along with some surface examples and content

-It does a good job connecting sources to specific examples and ideas

-It connects the term civic intelligence to social capital, which is pretty cool

-The page lacks any mentioning of civic technology or tech that citizens/people use to exercise civic intelligence

-The article should mention more about different examples of civic intelligences around the world, such as how different civic groups around the world protest the government or form new organizations that contribute to political, economic, or social success.

-The article also needs to talk about the upside and downside of civic intelligence, which is a collective intelligence of society.

Education and technology

-This article lacks mentioning of how technology shaped and can shape political education or participation now or in the future

-This article only briefly mentioned controversies and negative impacts of technology on education (whether it's political or not)

-I can write more about the political uses of technology in education, and the potential side-effects of learning about politics online or using technology

-I can provide more examples of how both developed and underdeveloped countries use technology for education in terms of politics

-I will tackled the article through the perspectives of how political education through technology affects social, economics, and political factors

Finalized Topic: Civic Intelligence

I will extend the introduction to include more definitions regarding economic and political factors. I will add the political elements that is missing from the entire article. Doing so, I will hopefully link economics and politics with regards to civic intelligence, and I will apply new contents to how society uses civic intelligence to participate in politics. I will provide examples of civic intelligence throughout history, including social movements and political action groups/events. Civic intelligence with regards to politics or society can come from both online and offline participation by people, and I want to highlight some examples of recent technological advances that gave rise to more sophisticated forms of civic intelligence. There are similarities and differences between the modern technological world of civic intelligence and pre-modern world of civic intelligence without the internet or advanced tech, and I seek to talk about these continuities and discontinuities. Lastly, I hope to maybe dive deeper into the psychology and sociology of how groups behave, and how civic intelligence emerges from groups.

Sources:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/elea.2014.11.5.518

http://theconversation.com/how-civic-intelligence-can-teach-what-it-means-to-be-a-citizen-63170

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5703/educationculture.33.2.0013

https://technical.ly/2018/06/06/cusp-civic-surge-open-data-pgh-kenny-chen-guest-post

https://www.openglobalrights.org/how-can-AI-amplify-civic-freedoms/

 First Draft of Article Contribution: 

Lead Section Additions:

Civic intelligence can be used in politics by groups of people. Social movements and political engagement in history might have been due to collective thinking and civic intelligence. Education, in its multiple forms, has helped some countries to increase political awareness and engagement. AI and social media is being used by many political entities and societies to tackle problems in politics, the economy, and society at large. Social media has both positive and negative effects on politics. Social media might have increased direct citizen participation in politics, but it might have also opened more room for misinformation and echo chambers.

Civic Intelligence and Politics:
Civic Intelligence connects to politics in that people come together to form collective thoughts or ideas to solve political problems. Historically, Jane Addams was an activist who reformed Chicago's cities in terms of housing immigrants, hosting lecture events on current issues, building the first public playground, and conducting research on cultural and political elements of communities around her. Historical changes in America such as human rights, freeing slaves, and preserving the environment have been started by ordinary citizens, not by governments or businesses. To achieve changes like these, people of different backgrounds, and perhaps with different political backgrounds also, that might have led to these historical events and movements unfolding. Another example of civic intelligence is how governments in 2015 came together in Paris to formulate a plan to curb greenhouse gas emission and alleviate some effects of global warming. Civic intelligence sometimes involves large groups of people, but civic intelligence can also only involve a few people. Small groups might be more coherent than bigger groups, and thus civic intelligence might be seen as more evident in smaller groups compared to bigger groups. From one study, the author suggests that it might be helpful for educational facilities such as colleges or even high schools to educate students on the importance of civic intelligence in politics so that better choices could be made in society regarding politics. Today, social and economic scientists such as Jason Corburn and Elinor Ostrom, continue to analyze how people come together to achieve actions such as sharing natural resources, combating diseases, formulating political action plans, and preserving the natural environment.

Political engagement of citizens and people somewhat comes from civic intelligence and the collective action of engaging local communities. Tradition examples of political engagement can include voting, discussing issues with neighbors and friends, working for a political campaign, attending rallies, form political action groups, etc. Harry C. Boyte, in an article he wrote, argues that schools serve as a sort of "free space" for students to engage in community engagement efforts as describe above. Schools, according to Boyte, empower people to take actions in their communities, thus rallying increasing number of people to learn about politics and form political opinions. He argues that this chain reaction is what then leads to civic intelligence and the collective effort to solve specific problems in local communities. Ultimately, it is shown by research that citizens who are more informed and more attentive to the world of politics around them are more politically engaged both at the local and national level. One article, aggregating the results of 70 articles about political awareness, finds that political awareness is important in the onset of citizen participation and voicing opinion. In recently years and the modern world, there is a shift in how citizens stay informed and become attentive to the political world. Although traditional political engagement methods are still being used by most individuals, particularly older people, there is a trend shifting towards social media and the internet in terms of political engagement and civic intelligence.

Artificial Intelligence and Civic Intelligence:
Recent shifts towards modern technology, social media, and the internet influenced how civic intelligence interact with politics in the world. New technologies expand the reach of data and information to more citizens than before, and citizens can engage with each other or the government more easily through the internet. Civic intelligence can take a form of increasing presence among groups of individuals, and the speed of civic intelligence onset is intensified as well. One recent prominent example of civic intelligence in the modern world is artificial intelligence. In 2018, at the second annual AI for Good Global summit, industry leaders, policymakers, research scientists, AI enthusiasts all came together to formulate plans and ideas regarding how to use artificial intelligence to solve modern society issues, including political problems in countries of different backgrounds. The summit proposed ideas in how AI can benefit safety, health, and city governance. For artificial intelligence to achieve effective use in society and politics, the article mentions, researchers, policymakers, community members, and technology companies all need to work together to use civic intelligence to improve artificial intelligence. The summit also talked about how AI enables people to propose solutions, communicate with each other more effectively, obtain data for planning, and tackle society issues from across the world. In this logic Civic intelligence is thus amplified by artificial intelligence and the internet of connections. According to another article, AI is increasingly being used by governments to limit civil freedom of citizens through authoritarian regimes and restrictive regulations. However, if world communities work together to promote AI through forming international standards, improving AI policies to enable political freedom, and enhancing public AI knowledge, civil freedom might be more easily achieved.

Social Media and Civic Intelligence:
Besides from artificial intelligence, the internet and social media play important roles in civic intelligence around the world. Social Medias like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit become popular sites for political discoveries, and many people, especially younger adults, choose to engage politics online. There are many positive effects of social media and the internet on civic engagement in many countries. According to one article, social media has connected people in unprecedented ways. People now find it easier to form democratic movements, engage with each other and politicians, voice opinions, and take actions virtually. Social media has been incorporated into people's lives, and many people obtain news and other political ideas from online sources. One study explains that social media might help with increasing political participation through more direct forms of democracy and bottom-up organization of solving political issues. The idea is that social media will lead people to participate politically in novel ways other than tradition rights of voting, attending rallies, and supporting candidates in real life. The study argues that this leads to new ways of enacting civic intelligence and political participation. Thus, the study points out that social media is designed to gather civic intelligence at one place, the internet. A third article featuring an Italian case study finds that civic collaboration is important in helping a health government function in both local and national communities. The article points out there seems to be more individualized political actions and efforts when people choose to innovate new ways of participating politically. Thus, one group's actions of political engagement might be entirely different that those of another group.

However, social media and the internet also somewhat negatively affects civic participation in politics in terms of civic intelligence. According to one article, trolling, the spread of false political information, stealing person data, and usage of bots to spread propaganda are all examples of negative consequences of the large network of the internet and social medias. These negative results, along the lines of the article, influence civic intelligence negatively because citizens have trouble discovering the lies from the truths in the political arena. Thus, civic intelligence would either become misleading or vanish if a group is using false sources or misleading information. A second article points out that a filter bubble is created through group isolation as a result of group polarization. False information and deliberate deception of political agendas play a major role in forming filter bubbles of citizens. People are conditioned to believe what they want to believe, so citizens knowing more one-sided political news might lead to more polarization. Next, A research journal found that Twitter increases political knowledge of users while Facebook decrease the political knowledge of users. The journal points out that different social media platforms can affects users differently in terms of political awareness and civic intelligence.

 Response to Peer Reviews: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jameswang323/Civic_Intelligence/Maxack37_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review

Responding to Max:

Thank you for your comments and reviews. From your review, it seems like you want to expand the lead section and improve the tone and the flow of my paragraphs. I will do so by proofreading my sentences and fix the grammar errors! I will put more content in the lead section such as more contents regarding the political and economic aspects of Civic Intelligence.

User:Jameswang323/Civic Intelligence/Melissawwang Peer Review

Responding to Melissa Wang:

From Melissa's comments and feedback, I think I will get rid of some irrelevant contents, as well as make the tone/some phrases of my article more neutral. I also like your idea of dividing my added paragraphs into different sections, and how how I should include an image or two. I will do both of these things in my next draft! Lastly, I will go through and edit my article to make sure there are no grammatical errors.

Responding to Shriniket Maddipatla:

From your suggestions, I realized I should backup some more contents with sources and be more factual in my content by not presenting my opinions. I will definitely fix this and some paragraph organization issues you mentioned!

User:Jameswang323/Civic Intelligence/Brusso7 Peer Review

Responding to Tenzin:

I will definitely improve my tone and content neutrality overall! Thanks for your feedbacks! I will improve the lead section by incorporating contents from my additions of the article. Also, thanks for noticing how my concluding paragraphs are not factual neutral, and I will definitely adjust my tone for these sentences! Thanks!