User:Dcha94exi/sandbox

Article Evaluation of Information Privacy (Week 3)

1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Yes, everything is relevant. No, nothing significantly distracted me.

2. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Data protection measures should be expanded on. The 'Protecting privacy in information systems' section seems to be generally lacking as well. An example of what could be improved here is expanding on the actions that make one susceptible to breaches of information privacy, such as those addressed in the sub-header 'Protecting privacy on the internet'.

3. What else could be improved?

The Safe Harbor program and passenger name record issues section seemed to have been sporadically thrown in without thought to the article's overall structure.

4. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The sentence, "On the internet many users give away a lot of information about themselves" could be improved. For purposes of granting the reader a more comprehensive understanding of the scope breaches of privacy on the internet, the following list "... including web browsing, instant messaging, and others." could be easily added to, given only two examples of such systems were referenced.

5. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Again, the Safe Harbor program and passenger name record issues section seems out of place, particularly given it's length relative to other sections, or viewpoints elsewhere.

6. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

All of the links in the citation section seem to function properly and support claims made within.

7. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Many facts are referenced, and those are done so through appropriate and reliable sources. However not all facts are referenced with citations. As an example, the sub-header 'Financial' within the header 'Information Types' contains several sentences that could use citations, such as "If criminals gain access to information such as a person's accounts or credit card numbers, that person could become the victim of fraud or identity theft."

8. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Several topics are brought up, including digital privacy, the view that information should be free (which was included in some earlier version of the article and was recommended by an editor to be omitted, which it was), the concept of 'sacredness', and specific privacy laws within India and China.

9. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article has no grade listed at the top. Yes, the article is a part of three WikiProjects; WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject Mass surveillance.

10. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Information privacy itself hasn't been extensively discussed, although I see it to have standing within our class focus and objective as we have talked about topics like data protection, and its role in fields such as copyright law. Wikipedia, or this article rather, discusses these topics from nearly an entirely unbiased view throughout. This is in juxtaposition to teaching from a source of direct personal experience and objective fact, of which Wikipedia of course attempts to restrain itself only to the latter.

Article Selection Exercise (Week 4)

Prospective Article #1 - Website Visitor Tracking (WikiProject Mass Surveillance, this article is categorized as 'Stub' and of 'High' importance within the specified project)

A) Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Somewhat. The article is lacking an extreme amount of depth. The subject's outlined are Methods, Tools & Companies, Controversies (and sub-header, Justification), and Prevention. While this could be the start to a well thought out and comprehensive article, it's missing several categories/subjects I would include.

B) Is it written neutrally?

What very little is there is in fact written neutrally.

C) Does each claim have a citation?

No.

D) Are the citations reliable?

Yes, the four provided seem to work fine.

---

Prospective Article #2 - Digital Privacy (WikiProject Internet, this article is categorized as 'Stub' and of 'High' importance within the specified project)

A) Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content included is highly relevant to the topic, but it is lacking depth, and there are more subject matters that need to be addressed. I am highly interested in choosing this article as my project as it's highly relevant to our course and is really lacking as of right now. There are no topics outlined to be addressed.

B) Is it written neutrally?

What very little is there is in fact written neutrally.

C) Does each claim have a citation?

No.

D) Are the citations reliable?

Yes, the three provided seem to work fine.

---

Prospective Article #3 - Freedom of Information in the United Kingdom (WikiProject Freedom of Speech, and WikiProject Journalism, this article is categorized as 'Stub' and of 'High' importance within the Freedom of Speech project)

A) Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, for what little is there. But it does seem redundant. The first portion of the article provides links to previous legislative acts in the UK relating to Freedom of Information, which is then followed by the topic 'History'...

B) Is it written neutrally?

What very little is there is in fact written neutrally.

C) Does each claim have a citation?

No.

D) Are the citations reliable?

Yes, the three provided seem to work fine.

Compiled Master Source List (Ongoing)

Source Databases Links -

Direct Source Links -