User:Simhhyena/sandbox2

For the Wikipedia article entitled “Information Privacy,” I thought that all of the information was relevant to the topic. However, certain parts of the article were certainly more clear than other parts. There were many examples for “information types,” but a lack of information for the section on “legality.” I believe that clarity would have been better for this segment, rather than simply linking a “main article” and having merely a sentence of description. Being that a wide range of examples were given, I think the article was fairly neutral. Looking at the sources quantitatively, there was certainly enough sources as there are more sources than paragraphs. As the training suggested, there should be at least one source per paragraph. Looking at the sources’ content, they seem to be published books, patents, or news (specifically BBC) reports which are generally thought to be bipartisan. The talk page was very interesting to look at, as people were explaining why they took out or modified certain parts of the article. The fact that some pointed out they were omitting “opinions” for example was nice to hear, as it means they know their Wikipedia rules decently.

For the Wikipedia article entitled “Computer Security,” the information all seemed quite relevant. However, there were some opinions, I thought. Although technology is so prominent in society, saying that computer security is “one of the major challenges of contemporary world” could be a bit of a stretch of the imagination for some. In general the article seemed well organized and complete; the only part I would’ve been more thorough with is “Types of security and privacy,” as I would have likely explained each before linking the pages. There are certainly ample sources, and many seem to be scholarly articles, news articles, or books from university libraries (all of which are reliable sources). On the talk page, people seemed very respectful of others when making edits or editing other people’s information. I would certainly appreciate this on my Talk Page later on this semester.

Both of these articles were fairly well-written. The second certainly had a wider scope, whereas the first was more precise. Both were fairly objective, with the exception of the opinion I pointed out in the second article. Overall, I hope to have pages that attract as many fellow editors as both of these have, as that will ultimately make my article even better.

Citation/Summary of One Point in an Article I researched:

About a quarter of seniors in high school apply to college, and only about half of this selective group end up graduating.

I also cited some sentences with "citation needed" stated in these articles:

"China Part of Editing Privacy Law"

"Privacy Laws of the United States."

I helped the articles become more trustworthy, as still needing a citation is a sign of potential distrust with a source.

I am going to create a page on "Virtual Assistant Privacy" as I believe that this is an important topic that the public should be informed about. I plan to lay out the facts of precisely what these information these virtual assistants gather, what information ends up getting passed on to their parent companies, and how, if it all, these companies are allowed to use this information. In the process, I will decode information about privacy in the AI and technological fields as a whole, as ultimately these virtual assistants act as bridges to bringing information to other media. When one tells Siri about a reminder, Siri then brings that information to the "reminder" app; thus, virtual assistants provide a need for information on privacy modern technology as a whole. Many people in society use these technological devices blindly and without knowledge of the issues that can occur with them. Hopefully, with the facts I plan to lay out in my article, people can be more informed users who compromise their privacy less than they did before they read my article.

An outline of my article would likely include general facts about virtual assistants and AI as a whole. Then, I would connect this information to privacy and ultimately the infringement of people's privacy. This information would all be laid out as facts with an objective point of view.

Formal outline:

Lead Section Outline:

Privacy of Virtual Assistants:

Virtual Assistants are software technology that ultimately provide services to customers through various algorithms that follow the commands customers say. Well known virtual assistants include Alexa and Siri, and these assistants specifically are from their parent corporations named Amazon Incorporated and Apple Incorporated specifically. There are privacy issues concerning what information can go to these third party corporations.

There are specifically issues with regard to the lack of verification necessary for the virtual assistants to take commands. As of right now, there is only one layer of authentication which is the voice; there is not a layer that requires the owner of the virtual assistant to be present. Such privacy concerns have caused technicians to think of ways to have more verification, such as VS Button.

Rather than taking these potential infringements to heart, consumers value the convenience that virtual assistants provide.

Various patents have controlled the requirement of technology, such as Artificial Intelligence, to require Privacy by Design. This way, corporations do not have to build privacy into their designs in the future; designs can be written with privacy in mind. This would allow for a more fail-safe method to make sure that algorithms of privacy would not leave even edge cases out.

Sections I Want to Include:

-Alexa specifically: measures Amazon takes to ensure that users have privacy; measures Amazon "accidentally doesn't take (how does this infringe upon information?)

-Siri specifically:measures Apple takes to ensure that users have privacy; measures Apple “accidentally” doesn’t take (how does this infringe upon information?); how does the corporation use such stolen information?

-One layer versus multilayer authentication: VS button

-Convenience versus safety

-Privacy by design: how does this help to solve the privacy predicament?

-Artificial Intelligence and its relation to virtual assistants: How has artificial intelligence and the standards that they have for privacy shaped virtual assistant privacy?

-How the parent companies influence the virtual assistants? How does Siri versus Alexa’s privacy differ? Is this because of the parent corporations or because Alexa is not as easily accessible on the phone as Siri is?

* bolded words constitute the words that I will probably end up hyperlinking to other pages*

MY ARTICLE FIRST DRAFT

=Privacy of Virtual Assistants:=

Virtual Assistants are software technology that assist users complete various tasks. Well known virtual assistants include Alexa and Siri, and these assistants are from their parent corporations named Amazon Incorporated and Apple Incorporated respectively. Other companies, such as Google and Microsoft, also have virtual assistants. There are privacy issues concerning what information can go to the third party corporations that operate virtual assistants and how this data can potentially be used.

Because virtual assistants are often considered "nurturing" bodies, similar to robots or other artificial intelligence, consumers may overlook potential controversies and value their convenience more than their privacy. When forming relationships with devices, humans tend to become closer to those that perform humanly functions, which is what virtual assistants do. In order to allow users both convenience and assistance, privacy by design and the Virtual Security Button propose methods in which both are possible.

One layer versus multilayer authentication
The Virtual Security button would provide a method to add multilayer authentication to devices that currently only have a single layer; these single layer authentication devices solely require a voice to be activated. Multilayer authentication means that there are multiple layers of security to authorize a virtual assistant to work. This voice could be any person, not necessarily the intended human, which makes the method unreliable. The Virtual Security button would provide a second layer of authentication for devices, such as Alexa, that would be triggered by both movement and the voice combined.

There are issues with the lack of verification necessary to unlock access to the virtual assistants and to give them commands. Currently, there is only one layer of authentication which is the voice; there is not a layer that requires the owner of the virtual assistant to be present. Thus, with only one barrier to access all of the information virtual assistants have access to, concerns regarding the security of information exchanged are raised. Such privacy concerns have influenced the technology sector to think of ways to add more verification, such as a VS Button which would also account for motion in addition to the voice to activate the virtual assistant.

Voice Authentication with Siri
The "Hey Siri" function allows the iPhone to listen through ambient sound until this phrase is spotted. Once this phrase is spotted, Siri is triggered to respond. In order to not always be listened to, an iPhone user can turn off the “Hey Siri” function. This way, the device will not always be listening for those two words and other information will not be overheard in the process. This voice authentication serves as a singular layer, since only the voice is used to authenticate the user.

Amazon Alexa
This virtual assistant is linked to the "Echo" speaker created by Amazon and is primarily a device controlled by the voice that can play music, give information to the user, and perform other functions. Since the device is controlled by the voice, there are no buttons involved in its usage. The device does not have a measure to determine whether or not the voice heard is actually the consumer. The Virtual Security Button (VS Button) has been proposed as a potential method to add more security to this virtual assistant.

The benefits of adding a VS button to Alexa
The VS button uses technology from wifi networks to sense human kinematic movements. Home burglary poses a danger, as smart lock technology can be activated since there will be motion present. Thus, the VS button providing a double-check method before allowing Alexa to be utilized would lessen such dangerous scenarios from occurring. The introduction of the Virtual Security button would add another level of authentication, hence adding privacy to the device.

Apple’s Siri
Siri is Apple Corporation's virtual assistant and is utilized on the iPhone. Siri gathers the information that users input and has the ability to utilize this data. The ecosystem of the technological interface is vital in determining the amount of privacy; the ecosystem is where the information lives. Other information that can be compromised is location information if one uses the GPS feature of the iPhone. Any information, such as one's location, that is given away in an exchange with a virtual assistant is stored in these ecosystems.

Hey Siri
“Hey Siri” allows Siri to be voice-activated. The device continues to collect ambient sounds until it finds the words "Hey Siri." This feature can be helpful for those who are visually impaired, as they can access their phone's applications through solely their voice.

Siri's Level of Authentication
Apple’s Siri also has solely one level of authentication. If one has a passcode, in order to utilize various features, Siri will require the passcode to be inputted. However, consumers value convenience so passcodes are not in all devices.

Cortana
Cortana, Microsoft's virtual assistant, is another voice activated virtual assistant that only requires the voice; hence, it also utilizes solely the singular form of authentication. The device does not utilize the VS button previously described to have a second form of authentication present. The commands that the device utilizes mostly have to do with saying what the weather is, calling one of the user's contacts, or giving directions. All of these commands require an insight into the user's life because in the process of answering these queries, the device looks through data which is a privacy risk.

Google Assistant
Google Assistant, which was originally dubbed Google Now, is the most human-like virtual assistant. The similarities between humans and this virtual assistant stem from the natural language utilized as well as the fact that this virtual assistant in particular is very knowledgable about the tasks that humans would like them to complete prior to the user's utilization of these tasks. The device practically predicts what the human will want. This prior knowledge makes the interaction much more natural. Some of these interactions specifically are called promotional commands.

Automated Virtual Assistants in Ride Sharing
Ride sharing companies like Uber and Lyft utilize artificial intelligence to scale their scopes of business. In order to create adaptable prices that change with the supply and demand of rides, such companies use technological algorithms to determine "surge" or "prime time" pricing. Moreover, this artificial intelligence feature helps to subside the concern of privacy that was previously taking place in companies like Uber and Lyft when employees were potentially interacting with each other and giving away confidential information. However, even the artificial intelligence utilized can "interact" with each other, so these privacy concerns for the companies are still relevant.

Accessibility of Terms and Agreements
The terms of agreements that one has to approve when first getting their device is what gives corporations like Apple Corporation access to information. These agreements outline both the functions of devices, what information is private, and any other information that the company thinks is necessary to expose. Even for customers that do read this information, the information is often decoded in a vague and unclear manner. The text is objectively a small font and is often considered too wordy or lengthy in scope for the average user.

Privacy by design
Privacy by design makes the interface more secure for the user. Privacy by design essentially means that in a product’s blueprint, aspects of privacy are incorporated into how the object or program is created. Even technology uses that have little to do with location have the ability to track one's location. For example, WiFi networks are a danger for those trying to keep their locations private. Various organizations are working toward making privacy by design more regulated so that more companies do it.

If a product does not have privacy by design, then companies need to add modes of privacy to their products. The goal is for organizations to be formed to ensure that privacy by design is done using a standard; this standard would make privacy by design more reliable and trustworthy than privacy by choice. The standard would have to be high enough to not allow for loopholes of information to infringe upon, and such rules may apply to virtual assistants.

Various patents have controlled the requirement of technology, such as artificial intelligence, to include various modes of privacy by nature. These proposals have included Privacy by Design, which occurs when aspects of privacy are incorporated into the blueprint of a device. This way, corporations do not have to build privacy into their designs in the future; designs can be written with privacy in mind. This would allow for a more fail-safe method to make sure that algorithms of privacy would not leave even edge cases out.

Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence as a whole attempts to emulate human actions and provide the menial services that humans provide, but should not have to be bothered with. In the process of automating these actions, various technological interfaces are formed.

The problem that has to be solved has to do with the concept that in order to process information and perform their functions, virtual assistants curate information. What they do with this information and how the information can be compromised is vital to note for both the field of virtual assistants and artificial intelligence more broadly.

Controversy:
There have been controversies surrounding the opinions that virtual assistants can have. As the technology has evolved, there is potential for the virtual assistants to possess controversial positions on issues which can cause uproar. These views can be political, which can be impactful on society since virtual assistants are used so widely.

Crowdsourcing is also controversial; although it allows for innovation from the users, it can perhaps act as a cop-out for companies to take credit where, in reality, the customers have created a new innovation.

How close is too humanlike for virtual assistants to become?
The Wizard of Oz approach to researching human-robot interaction has been in existence. Specifically, this approach aims to have a human leader of a study fill in for a robot while the user completes a task for research purposes. In addition to humans evaluating artificial intelligence and robots, the Wizard of Oz approach is being introduced. When technology becomes close to being human-like, the Wizard of Oz approach says that this technology has the ability to evaluate and augment other artificial intelligence technology. Moreover, the method also suggests that technology, in order to be utilized, does not necessarily have to be human-like. Thus, in order to be utilized, as long as they have useful features, virtual assistants do not have to focus all of their innovation on becoming more human-like.

Tommytheprius Week 9 Peer Review
Some technical things that stood out:


 * You have a lot of terms that look like hyperlinks but are in red. This means that you have tried to insert a hyperlink to a page that doesn't exist, so I'd suggest just taking away the attempted link. You can do this by just clicking on the word(s) and clicking on the red circle with the line through it.
 * Generally, you should use a hyperlink for a key term only the first time you use it. I've noticed some inconsistencies where you either use a hyperlink but not on the term's first use or you repeatedly hyperlink the same terms, such as artificial intelligence.
 * The See Also section seemed like it looked a little weird to me, so I looked at what other pages did and they usually put bullets. I'd recommend using bullets to make it look like more of a list.
 * I think you might want to be more consistent with your citations. You alternate between adding them before the period, right after the period, with a space after the period, and sometimes there is no space between the end of the citation and the start of the next sentence. It just feels like it would flow better if they were all right after the period, which I think is the standard way to add citations.
 * The colons after the "Controversy" and "Privacy of Virtual Assistants" titles seem unnecessary.
 * Is "Virtual Assistants" a proper noun? If not, you could take away the capitalization of the first letters.
 * I believe that the wikipedia trainings say that headings and subheadings should have the first letter of the first word capitalized and the rest of the words in lowercase, unless there are proper nouns, so you might want to adjust some of the headings accordingly. (Ex. Artificial Intelligence, Siri's Level of Authentication, Voice Authentication with Siri)
 * In the reference section, a lot of the links look like repeats. I think you could use the "reuse" option more when adding citations so that citations from the same source accumulate under one number. Also, I'm not completely sure about this, but you may want to put in the ASA citations and not just links for each source.

Comments on content:


 * Lead section:
 * The sentence "Well known virtual assistants include Alexa and Siri, and these assistants are from their parent corporations named Amazon Incorporated and Apple Incorporated respectively." seems a little bulky. A rephrase could be "Well known virtual assistants include Alexa, made by Amazon, and Siri, produced by Apple."
 * Consider adding a citation after this sentence: In order to allow users both convenience and assistance, privacy by design and the Virtual Security Button propose methods in which both are possible.
 * Overall, your lead section is very concise and does a great job of providing and overview for the article!
 * One layer versus multilayer identification:
 * You might want to add a concise definition of "Virtual Security button" because you often reference what it would provide, but I'm not clear on exactly what it is. Also, at one point you use "VS button" without first putting that in parentheses. You could just put VS button in parentheses after the first use and use the abbreviation from that point forward.
 * I'm sort of confused about the concept of multilayer identification. I assume the meaning is that beyond authenticating a single voice (single layer identification), there is some sort of other layer, but I think you could improve this section by adding an example of what another layer could be.
 * When you say that the voice is the only layer of identification, is that referring to any voice or a specific owner's voice? I know that Hey Siri is calibrated to only respond to the voice of the iPhone's actual owner, but I feel like that point isn't completely clear.
 * Examples of virtual assistants:
 * The sentences "The Virtual Security Button (VS Button) has been proposed as a potential method to add more security to this virtual assistant. " and "The introduction of the Virtual Security button would add another level of authentication, hence adding privacy to the device. " seem very similar and maybe redundant, so you could consider cutting one of them.
 * After this sentence: "Siri is Apple Corporation's virtual assistant and is utilized on the iPhone. Siri gathers the information that users input and has the ability to utilize this data. " I think you should add examples of how Siri utilizes this data or to what ends.
 * Some of the information in the "Siri's Level of Authentication" section is very similar to some of the information in the "Voice Authentication with Siri" section. It seems like you might want to consolidate these into just the "Siri's level of Authentication" section because it feels like it belongs with the other examples, not with the single vs multilayer authentication discussion.
 * When you claim that there is a privacy risk in the sentence "All of these commands require an insight into the user's life because in the process of answering these queries, the device looks through data which is a privacy risk." you could add a citation to ensure the reader knows that this is not your subjective thinking.
 * When you say "The device practically predicts what the human will want." it seems pretty subjective, so I'd add a citation.
 * The sentence "Moreover, this artificial intelligence feature helps to subside the concern of privacy that was previously taking place in companies like Uber and Lyft when employees were potentially interacting with each other and giving away confidential information." seems convoluted. You could rephrase by saying something like "Moreover, this artificial intelligence feature helps to allay privacy concerns regarding the potential exchange of confidential user information between Uber and Lyft employees."
 * Accessibility of terms and agreements:
 * The title uses "terms and agreements" but the first sentence says "terms of agreements" - which one is right?
 * You may want to include something about the legal implications of a user agreeing to terms if you have anything related to that in your articles. If the user accepts these terms, are they signing away legal rights?
 * Privacy by design:
 * "If a product does not have privacy by design, then companies need to add modes of privacy to their products." This sentence could appear subjective. Consider adding a citation or rephrasing to not include the word "need". A rephrase could be something like "If a product does not have privacy by design, the producer might consider adding modes of privacy to the product."
 * Artificial intelligence
 * You could add examples of the interfaces mentioned in this sentence: "In the process of automating these actions, various technological interfaces are formed."
 * Controversy:
 * "The Wizard of Oz approach to researching human-robot interaction has been in existence." This sentence sounds a little abrupt." You could rephrase to say something like "One way to research human-robot interaction is called the Wizard of Oz approach." (also I changed this hyperlink to direct to the experiment and not a list of different uses for the term Wizard of Oz)

Overall, I think you've got a great article here! The structure was logical, it had a good tone, and it was a very interesting read. Good job :)

First Draft Peer Review from Midwestmich9

 * I thought your lead section gave a good overview of a scope of your topic and the ideas you wanted to include. I really appreciated how all the sections in your article were mentioned in the lead, because this allows the reader to anticipate what the article is about. There were some sentences that I think you have to make sure you have good sources for, because they seem a little biased. For example the sentence, “Rather than taking these potential infringements to heart, consumers value the convenience that virtual assistants provide” sounds biased because it seems like you’re assuming the attitude of the consumer.
 * I thought you did a really great job of analyzing the technical aspects of the technologies and identifying how they could be improved to prevent privacy breaches. To improve on the Amazon Alexa section, I suggest adding a sentence or two that describes what Alexa is and giving the reader a little more background before talking about the issues with it. The same could be done for the Siri Section as well. This helps readers who don't have exposure to this technology to fully understand your article. Overall, I thought these sections were well written and I thought it was great how you explained how they related to one another.
 * All the information in the article was well balanced. More information could be added to the convenience versus safety section to make it more balanced to the other sections, but overall the structure is balanced!

Funfettiqueen Peer Review
I think that your lead section is really clear. You provide a great definition of virtual assistants which sets the scene for the rest of the article and gives a clear understanding to readers. In the lead section, though, it seems as though you provide clear concerns regarding privacy. Rather than including this in the lead section, I think it could be helpful to have a section titled "Privacy concerns with virtual assistants". It seems that the points you bring up are rather skeptical about privacy and virtual assistants (which is probably the dominant viewpoint, too), so I think it is important to distinguish that these are concerns. Additionally, I think it could be really interesting to provide a section about the legality of privacy and these virtual assistants, since it seems like the majority of the population finds them pretty concerning. For the different virtual assistants that you detail, I think it would be helpful to provide information about the different technologies and their functionalities. Also, I think you can hyperlink them to existing Wiki pages, but I did not check if those exist. In the section of One layer vs. multilayer, I was a tad confused why you kept using the future tense of "would". Is it not implemented? I was also a little confused when you went into PbD, so it could be cool to have a section called "solutions to privacy concerns" or something like that!

Breadyornot's peer review
I like the general structure of your article, the sections are clear and represent two concrete examples that people in the public sphere can recognize (Alexa and Siri). However, the sentences are a bit unclear within most sections, could use some cleaning up and refining. Also, hyperlinks are needed. I noticed that you wrote a note saying bolded terms are going to be hyperlinked but I'm not sure the bolded text is showing up/if you have started that yet. The article rough draft is a little hard to read since no headings or subheadings are listed, but I'm sure this is an easy fix you can work on closer to the final draft. Most sections have good definitions and examples, something I think is beneficial in describing privacy and digital technology. However, the convenience and safety section is a bit short compared to the others ad could use some more research in that capacity, otherwise I think it would be beneficial to absorb this section into another or state something about lack of sufficient research on the subject to provide a more all-encompassing definition. Also, make sure to add citations, this could be difficult to track down later on when the draft is reworded and revised. Overall, this looks like a great start!

Peer review week 7
Cal.oasis: I think that your lead section does a good job in informing readers on the controversies regarding virtual assistants and what they are. I think you can add a hyperlinks for example with the term, artificial intelligence.

Additionally, I think that the structure of your page is good, but I think you can add additional header sections. For example, right now everything is under subsection titles, but I think you can add additional titles, such as overarching titles that include alexa and sir, and another with the makeup of the device - one layer versus multilayer authentication and privacy by design, another that is about convenience versus safety.

I also thought that some of your sections are unequal and have less information than others. For example, when you compare siri and alexa and in your controversies discussion, there is small amount of information compared to your other sections. I also think that you can add transitions and background information at the beginning of your sections. For example in your apple’s siri section, you start with features that siri has, but you neglect to offer a definition to what siri is.

Overall, good job! I think that if you did a good job explaining the feature of virtual assistants, but need work on giving more background information to this who do not know what they are.

Angryflyingdolphins peer review (week 8)
Your article is well developed. It was very interesting to read through, especially the sections detailing different virtual assistants. Each section is also fairly well balanced in amount of information which is great!

One of the biggest problems I found throughout your draft is wording and sentence structure. A lot of the wording is clunky and some of your sentences are structured in a disjointed way which messes with the flow of your article. For example, the sentence in your lead section: "There are specifically issues in regards to the lack of verification necessary to unlock access to virtual assistants for them to take commands." Although I can understand what you are trying to say, the sentence is a bit hard to read through. There are also a few sentences in which your wording is redundant. For example, in the beginning of your lead section you write "provide assistance to help users." The words assistance and help are synonyms so there is no need for both in one sentence.

Your lead section does a great job of providing readers an overview of your article but you also elaborate too much. Most of the second and fourth paragraphs in your lead section can be cut out and added to the dedicated sections below. The section on one layer vs. multilayer authentication is a bit confusing. The title of the section suggests that you are about to compare two things. However, you only discuss multilayer authentication and Siri. You never define multilayer authentication or clarify if Siri is one type of authentication or the other. You also have multiple sections dedicated explaining the different assistants offered by different companies. I feel like you should consolidate all the assistants into one larger section to help with organization. Your section titled "Implications of Privacy Agreements" should be reworded and some more information should be added to round it out. The title of your final section should also be formatted so that it is dedicated to controversy in general and not just one situation. I feel like there is a high chance that you come across more controversies in your research so you may eventually want to put all controversies together in one larger section.

Overall, great work! Other than wording and formatting, there no other glaring issues. Your tone throughout is unbiased and very encyclopedic. There are hyperlinks and citations throughout which helps round out your article.

Peer review (week 10)
PanadaFantasy:

Lead section: I think the lead section is very brief and provides audience with very clear definition of virtual assistant privacy and the relationship between virtual assistants and privacy. I really like the lead section! Still, I think in the first sentence "Virtual assistants are software technology that assist users complete various tasks", the "assist" should be "assists", which is only a small grammatical error. Besides, I suppose that the last sentence should be relied on some journals, since it points out the purpose of "privacy by design".

Other sections: The structure of the other sections are well formed, from "One layer versus multilayer authentication", "Examples of virtual assistants" to terms of use and AI, controversy, it is very clear to see the structure of this article. In the authentication section, I think maybe in the sentence "A specific instance in which there are issues with the lack of verification necessary to unlock access to the virtual assistants and to give them commands is when an Amazon Alexa is left in a living quarters unattended." the "a living quarters" should be "living quarters". And in the sentence "Thus, with only one barrier to access all of the information virtual assistants have access to, concerns regarding the security of information exchanged are raised", the modifiers "information virtual" should be "virtual information".

Then, in the example section, the word "knowledgable" should be "knowledgeable". I think this section is wonderful since it gives me the concrete examples such as "SIRI" and "Cortana", which makes this part informative and easy to understand. Besides, even though many virtual assistants are mentioned, they are evenly divided, which I think is very good. And the tone of these parts are unbiased and mostly relied on other journals. However, in the last two sections "AI" and "Controversy", the information is not very detailed and deepgoing. I think if possible, more sources should be added to these parts. Lastly, in the subsection "Wizard of Oz approach", I am quite confused by this part since after reading it, I still don't know what is this approach and what's the difference with other traditional approaches. And since "Wizard of Oz approach" does not have a hyperlink, I suppose that it would be better if you can introduce it first with more detailed information.

Overall, from my perspective, this article is very useful to ordinary readers. It is unbiased regarding the tone of every sentences and very reliable as most sentences are based on citations. What I want to suggest is that you can add some vivid pictures to your article and added more citations since there only exist 16 bibliographies.