Talk:Communication privacy management theory

Template:WAP assignment This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yj122 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 May 2019 and 2 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mnbrewer2019 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2019 and 8 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NicoleCastigs17 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jlpowell5. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 8 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hqybrenda (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Yy557, Wuqc.

CCT Peer Edit 2020 by Veronica

Hi everyone, I'm a student of the CCT program at Georgetown University. I have been assigned to peer review this page for Professor Jeanine Turner's Communication Theory and Frameworks course. Though the page was quite well developed with a clear and organized structure, there are still some parts can be improved:
1. The opening overview can be edited into a brief one, one or two paragraph;
2. The five core principles mentioned in the opening overview can be moved to a separate section under a subtitle named as "Core Principles";
3. The "Assumption" part may need more explanations;
4. The "Academic Integration" part also needs more explanations, or maybe you can just delete this part;
5. In the "Critique part", the first sentence of "Criticism" said "Some researchers have questioned whether CPM theory truly is dialectical in nature." It would be better if we can find the original source and words like "some researchers" can be avoided;
6. I found some overlap of references in the reference list, if you have time, you can delete the overlapped references and check the format of those references.

Here are two references I found that might be helpful：
1. Zhu, Y.Q. & Kanjanamekanant, K. (2020). "No trespassing: exploring privacy boundaries in personalized advertisement and its effects on ad attitude and purchase intentions on social media". Information & Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103314
This article examines the contribution of the two boundary conditions (information boundary and social boundary) and the two relationship conditions (co-ownership relation and human-computer relation) to perceived privacy and ads effectiveness in the personalized ads context on social platforms, which may be applied in the "Boundary Cooperation" part.
2. Zhang, R.W. & Fu, J.S. (2020). "Privacy Management and Self-Disclosure on Social Network Sites: The Moderating Effects of Stress and Gender". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(3), 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmaa004
This study discussed about the emotional component of privacy management online, which can be applied in the "Online Social Media" part.

Wuqc (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing as Part of CCT

Hello Everyone, I am a student of the CCT (Communication, Culture, and Technology) program at Georgetown University. I have been assigned to edit and expand this page, and, therefore, will be doing so for the next several weeks. I'm a new wikipedian and could use any and all help from those more experienced. Thank you for your understanding Lbm53gu (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello All, I'm a student at Georgetown University in Professor Jeanine Turner's Communication Theory and Frameworks course. I've been assigned to expand on the subject of this page and will be doing so over the coming weeks. I am new to Wikipedia and would appreciate any direction as to appropriate steps for making edits to existing pages. Thank you for your understanding and support. --LaRabiosa (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits

I'll be adding the edits from my sandbox throughout this evening. --LaRabiosa (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall whether this theory addresses the issue of how people may consciously and/or subconsciously consider whether to disclose information; however, that seems relevant for inclusion (i.e., mention that the theory includes this consideration or does not address the matter). Otherwise, this reads well and seems thorough. --DMM78 (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review from Dur

Hi Yuting,

I think you have covered all the shortcomings of the Communication Privacy Management Theory article in you progress report. I agree with you on the fact that the lead needs to explicitly state the main concept behind the theory and its components and that the comparison with Social Penetration Theory should be places elsewhere. I also suggest that you add a background section where you can explain the theory in more depth than the short abstract of the lead, so readers who are interested can gain a more thorough understanding of the theory before diving into the details of the following section

My suggestion is to think of incorporating several different examples that relate to the theory instead of adding a lengthy case study. I also think it would be interesting if you added a section that relates the Communication Privacy Management Theory to Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) and how privacy is managed in a different manner in virtual situations compared to real situations. My final suggestion is to change the “Strength and Weaknesses” title into “Critiques” and expand the content within this section to include scholarly criticism of the theory.

Best of Luck on this project! Dk802 (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review Paul Beasley

Hey Yuting!

There's definitely A LOT that needs to be done here to this article! I definitely think that because the article has been flagged for its lack of objectivity, cleaning up areas of the article to improve this will definitely get the article a raise in its quality. You are certainly right about the introduction; it is not written in an encyclopedic way and it doesn't achieve the conciseness that the introduction of an article should have.

Introducing visuals should certainly improve the article's quality; it might be difficult to do this, since privacy management behaviors usually aren't as easily observed or captured in images and film but any ones that you find will definitely have a positive impact on the article. Dur had a similar problem in her article with the Critique section so dissecting the strengths and weaknesses of the article in relation to the theory's heurism, scope, testability, and utility (though not in that explicit order) will give some context to the theory and will provide some great opportunities to link to other Wikipedia communication articles.

What do you think about discussing communication privacy management in the contexts of computer-mediated communication as well as from an organizational communication perspective? The WikiLeaks incident as well as the different instances of the ways the government classifies and protects information might be interesting additions to the article and might help readers to look at communication privacy management in different ways. Plb40 (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Plb40

Peer Review from Scott

Hi Lina, I agree with you that the article is very well structured and very concise. It presents an easily understandable summary at the beginning and flows nicely into the subcomponents of the theory. The examples which currently exist in the article are short and to the point, and provide well thought out explanations of the theory. I did notice that in the section under ‘Boundary Coordination,’ quick examples are presented for Boundary Linkage and Boundary Ownership, but not for Boundary Permeability. In order to maintain consistency, a short 1-2 sentence example may be presented for Boundary Permeability. A possible example could be how a team of two reporters may be reluctant to share the sources of their reporting with very few people. The more people they share the information with, let's say their editors, the greater the chance that their sources could become compromised.

The article is also very well written. A couple minor recommendations would be to add a few commas after introductory clauses, such as adding a comma after theory in the sentence, “To understand CPM theory it is important to follow the metaphor of the boundary.” Additionally, the sentence, “The decision to share is dependent ultimately left up to the process of the privacy rule management system which combine rules for coordination of information, characteristics of disclosure, and attributes of the nature of boundaries” under the ‘Theory Elements’ section appears to be a bit of a run-on. I think the word ‘dependent’ should be dropped.

A quick section could be added for ‘Related Theories.’ I believe Expectancy Violations Theory, Coordinated Management of Meaning, and Social Penetration Theory have attributes and arguments which are similar to CPM. A paragraph examining some of the similarities between the theories may add some insightful substance to the article. Overall, the article is very good. As it stands, it is a quick, easy read which affords the reader a thorough understanding of the theory. I would not attempt to add a great deal of additional text. Good luck! Sjs298-GU (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review from Sherrie

Hi Lina, nice job at improving this CPM page. In general, I think the page has covered all basic aspects in order to introduce the theory. I notice that you added a workplace application to the Theory application part, which is a very typical context and it definitely deserves attention here. Also, the additional research you cited to show that not all turbulence is negative is a great supplement to that part, because the previous version might result in bias.

Here are some suggestions from me and you may see if they are helpful. For the introduction at the beginning, you could try to convert the academic expression into a more easily understood way, or explain the academic terms right after it appears. For example, nonacademic readers may find it hard to understand what “coordinate privacy boundaries” means, so it would be better if an explanation is included here.

Second, for the Theory application part, I think there is something wrong with the subtitles. If you check the contents box at the beginning you would notice that only the workplace application part you added is shown, so you might want to edit the format of the other subtitles to make them all shown at the box and in consistency. Finally, for the Boundary turbulence part, I think separating the long paragraph into several ones could make it clearer and more readable.

In sum, the page is currently of high quality thanks to your editing. Look forward to see your final version

Xh79 (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

CCTP - 752 - Comm Theory & Frameworks - Peer Review

Hey guys, this is the review section for CPM, feel free to post your thoughts and help me with a better page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yj122 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

My vision on the page would fall into three aspects. First, I would like to enrich the "Theory application" entry. By adding more content to the social media and health communication parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yj122 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Second, I wanna make the "See also" entry more clear by adding description to the term link as well as to make them more specific.

Finally, I want to condense the body part of the theory introduction. For example, the boundary-based management system entry could be more integrated and more precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yj122 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

So here's my questions: 1:How do you guys see the diagrams in this page, do you think I should add more diagrams to certain entries to make it more intuitive? 2:For the Theory applications entry, do you think I should elaborate on the existing terms or I should find more fields that CPM could be applied to? 3:I wanna add more contents to the Critique and Related theories entries, do you think it's necessary or it would be overwhelming to have to many contents from outside the theory?

Peer Review from Wanyu

I like this wiki page a lot, it's easy and clear to keep the high quality explanation. However, I totally agree with your points to add a little bit more explanation into the application section. Since they just list each application and do not focus any of them, social media probably is the great open point to start, maybe you can find some related image to enrich the content instead of using texts. "See also" is sounds interesting to polish, I think you can summary each of then into served sentences or explain why three of them are necessary to your theory. Back to you question 3 that I don't think it's necessary to add more critique content at this moment, I suggest you to focus on application part and like you said add more diagrams if is possible. Good luck on your new section and look forward some final version from your point of view. --Yeahunicorn (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think this page is well organized and is easily readable for a non-academic reader. I think you are on the right track with how you would like to improve the page. Both the social media and health communications sections only have one resource so adding additional sources can only help to strengthen those topics section. Depending on the sources you have, I think you could expand more within the relationship section as well. With only two sources, it could stand to have another source or two there to make it as dependable as the others with more than three sources. I also think the idea to put more information in the 'see also' section is interesting. You could even add additional links there since there are currently only a few listed.

I think the diagrams on the page are helpful. They are well placed and I wouldn't worry about necessarily adding more unless you can find helpful diagrams that also relate to the other theory elements. I think having them there helps to break up the text and provides helpful visuals for other types of learners and readers.

I actually think that the overview/intro section to the theory is well-done. It is easy to follow and understand. You might be able to edit it down a bit for length, but it is clear. Also, I agree that the critique section is lacking a little bit and could use a few more sources and information about current critiques. I like the "other theory" section, but I don't think you necessarily want to add too much information there.

Hope this helps!

Ajt70 (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from Katherine Chow

I think your goals for the page are exactly on point. The page has a lot of great information and is easy to understand at first glance. My first piece of feedback would be to enhance the "Background" section to include more details on the conception of Communication Privacy Management Theory. There isn't too much context on Altman and Taylor's roles. Also, is social penetration theory well-know to be directly linked to CPMT? If not, I would take that out of the background portion. You can also discuss how the theory evolved, beginning with it being communication boundary management and how it ended up being CPMT. If there were any changes or major additions, you could briefly describe those in this section.

The diagrams are really helpful to assist with describing elements of the theory. I think you could add a diagram within the "Boundary Coordination" or "Boundary Turbulence" sections, but it's not completely necessary if you would rather extend the content with more examples.

Elaborating on the existing terms in the Theory applications entries would be great. You could find 1-2 more sources and briefly describe those studies and results in conjunction with CPMT. Especially with Online Social Media, Health Communication and Relationship Issues, since they all only have 2 sources cited. In the Related Theories section, maybe you can specify on how these theories are related to CPMT and in what regard/capacity. For the "Critiques" portion, it might be good to enhance the information in "Values" and "Criticism". Adding a sentence or two of information, even from our textbook, would be helpful in rounding out the existing contents.

Hope this helps & let me know if I can clarify on anything!

-Katherine, kc1015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kc1015 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer review- Adri

Hi!

I really like the way your page is organized. I think it helps because it's very clear, and you can progress through each section in a thoughtful manner. I think the introduction is really good- one thing I noticed, though, is that there are no citations in the introduction. I would add several citations in so that it's clear you're using sources from the beginning. Another thing I really like about the page is the "related theories." That's great because it gives people more options to explore. I think you can add to the critiques section and that would be beneficial. Otherwise, it all looks really good! Ang59 (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)