User:Natasha.Holdt/sandbox

Response to Peer Reviews
Thank you to everyone that provided a peer review/feedback on our article and our proposed changes! Below is a summary of the main points of feedback we received and how we plan to address them.


 * Lead too lengthy

In order to address the fact that the lead is too lengthy, we’ve considered introducing a new section to the article. There is some valuable information that is currently present in the lead and we don’t want to completely eliminate those points by simply deleting them to make the introduction shorter. Instead it might be beneficial to either create a new section for “History” or “Background”, or even utilize the current section called “Process”. We could move most of the content in the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the lead into this separate section. This should shorten the overall lead and allow it to focus more on the main idea of the article’s topic without immediately diving into more details or specifics.


 * Tone seems biased against Facebook (however someone else said tone seems unbiased)
 * “An example of this in your first draft is the sentence, "Nix denied any connections between the two companies despite concerns that the oil company was interested in how the company's data was used to target American voters". In this sentence, the words "denied" and "despite" could be changed to fit a more neutral tone.”

We can definitely try to reevaluate certain word choices, particularly “denied” and “despite” in the case mentioned in a peer evaluation. We might need to further explore word choice options but may simply say that Nix “stated” he had no connections, since this has a different implication than “denied”. This comment about potentially biased tone made us more aware of other sections that might communicate bias. There are certain sentences in the lead that some readers may also think seem biased. One example would be where the article states there was a “huge fall in Facebook's stock price”. This might come across as more subjective and therefore potentially more opinion-based. We could try to find actual numbers and facts about the stock price and present that information instead to ensure that only facts are provided, not opinions.


 * Elaborate more on:
 * “Use of Data”
 * “the use of the data section can be vastly expanded on to include what they did, how they did it, and the processes they used to collect the data. It can go deeper into the technology behind it and expand on the broader implications of people finding this information out.”

We can clean up the use of the data section by creating subsections to cover all the methods and uses of the data that we have found as well as expand on it. This can include the technology used to gather and distribute the data, the parties involved in collecting or distributing data, and how the use of data affected both users and Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. We did attempt to add to this section a lot more with our proposed draft. For example, we wrote paragraphs on the use of the data with regards to how it was harvested, how it was used in the Ted Cruz campaign, and also how it was used in the Trump campaign. We were hoping these additional paragraphs would provide more insight about not only the process of collecting the data, but also what different parties did with the data and how. In terms of the broader implications of people finding this out, we will try to address that in other sections such as “Impact” and “Responses”


 * Elaborate more on:
 * “Impact”
 * “In here, you can delve deep into users' perceptions and connect this article to movements such as #DeleteFacebook.”

Since we have already done a lot of research on the #DeleteFacebook movement, we definitely have a range of information we could add to this area of the article. Some elements of the #DeleteFacebook movement we’re considering adding are:


 * The public reacted to the data privacy breach by initiating the campaign #DeleteFacebook with the aim of starting a movement to boycott Facebook.
 * This movement eventually expanded beyond just the issues presented by the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal and addressed the larger data privacy movement.
 * The hashtag was used almost 90,000 on social media platforms such Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. 93% of the mentions of the hashtag actually appeared on Twitter.
 * The main social media platform used to share the hashtag was Twitter
 * A survey by investment firm Raymond James found that although approximately 84% of Facebook users were concerned about how the app used their data, about 48% of those surveyed claimed they wouldn’t actually cut back on their usage of the social media network.
 * In 2018 Mark Zuckerberg even commented that he didn’t think they had seen “a meaningful number of people act” on deleting Facebook


 * Elaborate more on:
 * “Process”
 * “The section should provide more details on Aleksandr Kogan, the motive behind the creation of This Is Your Digital Life and its connection to Cambridge Analytica”

It is a great idea to add more background to the technical side and the influence that Aleksandr Kogan had on the issue. Taking into consideration this comment. We have decided to add more information about the specific attributions he made to Cambridge Analytica and his motives. The details include the following:


 * Emphasis on Kogan’s background in psychology
 * Kogan’s onboarding process and his hiring as a consultant for Cambridge Analytica


 * Usage of quiz and the fine print of terms of agreement that allowed to use the data collected commercially
 * The process about how ‘thisismydigitallife” came about:
 * Source of info: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/technology/aleksandr-kogan-facebook-cambridge-analytica.html

This information will add enough technical and logistical content in order to understand the part that Kogan played as part of the Cambridge Analytica team.


 * Elaborate more on:
 * “Responses”
 * “it should also explore the current perceptions or even movements created as a result of this incidence; such as #deletefacebook.”

In terms of exploring the current perceptions or how users were impacted in general, we will likely add that to the “Impact” subtopic of this section. We could possible include some of the #DeleteFacebook information we’ve collected. This edit was addressed earlier under the ‘Impact’ bullet point of our peer feedback.

However with regards to other movements created, we could add more information to this section about a new hashtag that was created. Brittany Kaiser started her own campaign of #OwnYourData as a result of this scandal. Although the movement never really gained much traction, we can still address its existence and how it was a response by Kaiser to this scandal. The hashtag is part of a larger movement about data privacy, which we can definitely mention as one of the responses to this scandal.


 * Create more subtopics for organization

This is a really great idea that we think would be best implemented in the “Use of the Data” section. A lot of our draft was aimed at including more information to this section, but it’s likely that the result would be a very overwhelming section. Therefore we were hoping to break it down into specific sections such as “Ted Cruz Campaign”, “Donald Trump Campaign”, and so on. By increasing subtopics, we can make it clear which of the many forms of data usage we are addressing. Since we are also adding to sections about how the data was harvested as well as the social media presence of #DeleteFacebook, we can also create subtopics in either the “Process” or “Impact” to ensure these sections are also clearly segmented and not overwhelming or disorganized.


 * More references
 * "the harvesting of of personal data of millions of facebook users" and "the water-wash moment in the public understanding of personal data" without any references to back up these claims”

After further reviewing the references. We have added the corresponding source for the first piece of information.

However, once we have read again the second quote and the rest of that paragraph of the article, we feel that this part of the text might not be a great piece for a Wikipedia article. This section is relying on a matter of personal opinion when it describes the stock effects as “huge”, rather than stating facts. We will be removing it from the introduction. Instead, we will include the actual stock impacts that it had on Facebook. This will be a more neutral way to provide insight about the consequences that the data scandal had on the company.


 * Put the 4 sections process, characteristics of data, news coverage and use of data into one “history” section

It seemed as though some of the other feedback we got implied that too much was being concentrated into one section. Therefore, our idea was to maintain separate sections and rather add subtopics to those sections to help the reader better understand which aspect of the scandal we’re addressing. Although the process and characteristics of the data might be appropriate to combine into one section of “History” or “Background”, we feel it might be more beneficial not to include news coverage or use of the data into that same section. This is because news coverage seems more like an effect, while the use of the data has so much information that it would likely warrant its own section for organizational purposes.


 * Need evidence of causation to the claim that engagement decreased by 20%

We will include the references to the Pew Research survey conducted on Facebook users that produced results on decreased engagement and those who completely deleted their accounts. We will also add more references to other credible studies and surveys that back up this claim. However, we do not want to focus on the minutiae of this claim, rather the overarching idea that after the event occurred people used Facebook less and less. Perhaps we can include a comment after bringing up the study that states “but did not determine causation.”


 * Reference changes FB made in response to allegations

We attempted to address Facebook’s reaction and potential changes in the “Responses” section through the paragraph we wrote in our draft. This includes the following:

“On March 6th 2019, Mark Zuckerberg released a statement on Facebook regarding future aspirations for a more privacy-focused platform. Acknowledging Facebook’s recent tainted reputation for providing privacy protective services, Zuckerberg explained that the company will consult individuals and entities from all over the globe when moving forward with rebuilding their services. This rebuilding strives to make Facebook a more privacy-focused messaging and social media platform based on the core principles of private interactions, encryption, reducing permanence, safety, interoperability, and secure data storage. Zuckerberg referenced a specific plan for more secure and private communication by incorporating end-to-end encryption, preventing anyone from accessing the information shared by users. Additionally, the Facebook CEO also presented the idea that stored information would be retained and accessible for more limited and reduced lengths of time.”


 * Include more about documentaries, press coverage, and translation to outrage on social media

There is a documentary called The Great Hack about the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal and features Brittany Kaiser. We initially had this documentary listed as one of the sources we wanted to include information from, but this feedback makes us realize it might be beneficial to discuss the existence of the documentary in general. Since it covers the details of the scandal, the film was obviously made as a result of the actual scandal occurring. We could potentially include this in the “Response” section or slightly alter the “News Coverage” section to be more inclusive of other media such as this documentary. We also think we could include more information about the outrage on social media by providing more data and explanations on the #DeleteFacebook movement. We discussed the inclusion of this kind of information earlier when addressing the “Impact” related feedback from our peers.


 * Include more pictures
 * “Perhaps consider connecting pictures to the political use of data, the impact on the public, or the United States Congress hearing that took place.”

This seems like a great idea and we will try to look for applicable graphics to include. Our MoveMe presentation had a number of graphics that we might try to pull from for this article. However, our concern is making sure that the relevant graphics have the appropriate licenses. We may try to look for one about the Congress hearing, which might potentially be available for us and the public to utilize on Wikipedia. We’ve tested out adding images before as one of our group members was the one to add the image on the right-hand side at the very beginning of the article.

Potential Topics
Potential Topics:


 * Brittany Kaiser
 * Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal
 * Chrisopher Wylie
 * California Consumer Privacy Act
 * Information Privacy

Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal

Possible ways to improve the article:


 * More relevant data could be implemented in the article to improve its scope. This is particularly true for the section that refers to what the data was used for (there are only 2 bullets that reference other articles). Further information would help readers understand what actually occurred with the data breach.
 * There was a lot of quoting Mark Zuckerberg instead of paraphrasing and describing what he had said, mainly in his Congressional testimony. It would seem more beneficial and appropriate for a Wikipedia article if his ideas were not simply direct quotes.
 * The results/reactions related to the scandal could be edited to be more relevant. Rather than including details on Meghan McCain’s commentary, the article might be improved by focusing on the recent data privacy law in California, which seems more relevant to the topic.
 * The overall organization of the page can be strengthened. More specific and relevant headings could be used (eg. “New York Times Expose” rather than “Media Coverage”). Certain information and details should also be reshuffled or put into their own section (eg. the Congressional testimony warrants enough importance to have its own section).

Brittany Kaiser

Possible ways to improve the article:


 * Rather than just referencing that Kaiser was involved in the Cambridge-Analytica scandal and testified in the trial, the article could be improved by including more information about the role Kaiser played in the scandal (Kaiser often refers to herself as a whistleblower).
 * Without further context, the information about her fleeing to Thailand seems confusing, so ideally we could shape more details around this fact.
 * Kaiser founded and is still heavily involved in the OwnYourData foundation. Therefore, the article would likely be improved by including more information about her work with this foundation. This would paint a more accurate picture of what Kaiser does and is known for, especially since this work is directly related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal she was involved in.
 * Since there is also minimal information compared to many other Wikipedia pages, the flow of the writing could be improved. However, that will likely be better implemented when adding the additional relevant information.

Christopher Wylie

Possible ways to improve the article:


 * The organization of the article could be improved. The subtopics seem slightly confusing, especially the fact that Cambridge Analytica appears in two different sections. Additionally, Christopher Wylie tends to be known for his role in this scandal, so it seems reasonable to place all the related details in one section for readers’ convenience. It would be ideal to reshuffle some information and ensure the overall flow isn’t jumping all over the place to make it easier for the reader to follow along.
 * A lot of details about Christopher Wylie’s work are also missing from the article. To improve the article, more information of Wylie’s work should be included.
 * The article also fails to mention the significant influence the project had on Brexit, which relates a lot to how data can be used to influence political motives. There should be another section that describes how Cambridge Analytica was used for this campaign since there’s a specific section for Donald Trump’s 2016 election.