User:Midnightinterludes/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drafting Article- "Privacy settings" 4th draft (updated with revisions)[edit]

Privacy settings are "the part of a social networking website, internet browser, piece of software, etc. that allows you to control who sees information about you."[1] With the growing prevalence of social networking services (SNS)[2][3], opportunities for privacy exposures also grows.[4] Privacy settings allow a person to control what information is shared on these platforms.

Many social networking services (SNS) such as Facebook, have default privacy settings that leave users more prone to sharing personal information.[5] Privacy settings are contributed to by users, companies, and external forces. Contributing factors that influence user activity in privacy settings include the privacy paradox[6] and the third person effect.[7] The third person effect explains why privacy settings can remain unchanged throughout time.[7] Companies can enforce a Principle of Reciprocity (PoR) where users have to decide what information they are willing to share in exchange for others’ information.[8]

With the growing focus on internet privacy, there are technologies and programs designed to enhance and encourage more privacy setting activity. Applications such as the Personal Data Manager (PDM) are used to improve the efficiency of privacy setting management.[9] Privacy by design can enhance privacy settings through incorporating privacy notifications or prompting users to occasionally manage their privacy settings.[10]

Significance[edit]

See also: Internet privacy & Information privacy

SNS are designed to connect people together online.[3] Users share information and build relationships online.[3] Privacy leaks can still occur even with privacy settings intact.[3] Users’ connections on SNS can reveal personal information such as having friends from the same university can lead to an inference that a person attends that university.[3] Furthermore, even if a person has strict privacy settings enabled, their privacy can still be leaked through their connections who may not have as many privacy settings in place.[3] This calls for enhanced privacy settings that can tolerate different privacy settings while allowing online connections.[3]

The ability to control who views their content influences users’ decision to share or not share images on SNS such as WeChat or Qzone. [11] Different communities call for different levels of privacy.[11] For example, an individual is more likely to share a photo of themselves and a close friend with their close friend circle and family than strangers.[11] This reveals a need for fine privacy settings that allow users more flexibility in their SNS sharing ability.[11] Hu Xiaoxu et al. suggests privacy settings should encourage social networking on SNS while simultaneously protecting user privacy.[11]

Default settings[edit]

Main article: Default effect

Notification for deleting Facebook profile does not mention Facebook's continual usage of profile data after deletion

Privacy settings for SNS have default settings that set up users to automatically share personal information the user has inputted.[12] For example, Twitter users are automatically prone to a public profile when an account is first made.[13] Furthermore, SNS privacy policies have shown to be too complex for consumers to fully understand, leading to personal information being shared regardless of user awareness.[12] Even after a user deletes their Facebook profile, Facebook can still use and sell user information according to their privacy policy.[12] Facebook's default settings allow friends to view a person's profile and anyone to search for one's profile.[5] Default settings can be chosen due to their convenience; users do not have to exert as much effort to choose default settings compared to personalizing privacy settings.[14]

Users' role in privacy settings[edit]

Theories[edit]

Privacy settings are situated in the framework of the communication privacy management theory.[15]This theory states that privacy management involves setting boundaries and agreements with individuals, highlighting that once information is shared, it is now their information as well.[15] In a study about teenagers and their privacy, it was revealed that privacy concerns was the biggest contributor to management both personal and interpersonal privacy (see Privacy concerns with social networking services).[15] Privacy settings can be inaccessible or effortful to implement.[10] Teenagers that feel fatalistic toward their personal privacy are more likely to depend on interpersonal privacy techniques.[15] De Wolf's study revealed that teenagers used more personal privacy techniques than interpersonal privacy management, which emphasizes the need for accessible, clear privacy settings.[15]

Voluntary servitude is an idea that states people knowingly give their support to authoritative figures by subjecting themselves to servitude.[12] In the sense of social media, voluntary servitude is how users expose their information to companies and perpetuate data collection and monetization.[12] Romele et al. offers a possible explanation to voluntary servitude through the System Justification Theory.[12] This theory states that people learn to internalize societal hierarchies and perpetuate their existence.[12] Users are complying to the power hierarchy by allowing their information to be extracted from these companies, through methods such as sharing personal information with close family and friends which can be harvested by companies and third parties.[12]

The theory of planned behavior aligns beliefs, attitudes, norms and behavior together.[2] In a study that surveyed undergraduate students on their Facebook use, a majority responded that when their close friends think privacy protection is important or engage in privacy protection activity, they are more likely to have intentions to also engage in privacy protection behavior.[2]

Privacy paradox[edit]

See also: Privacy paradox

By accepting privacy policies and therefore, agreeing to default settings set in place by companies, users are prone to oversharing information.[16] However, users usually do not change their privacy settings unless they personally experience a privacy invasion or unintentionally share information.[16] In a study exploring the connection between Facebook attitudes and behaviors, having a friend experience a privacy invasion (e.g. someone hacking into their profile) did not lead to one implementing privacy changes.[7] A possible explanation for this is the third-person effect, which is the belief that one has a less chance of a privacy invasion than someone else, thinking they are safer than others.[7] This protective mindset is flawed because anyone is susceptible to privacy invasions, and managing privacy settings can help decrease that risk.[7]

The privacy paradox is an idea that states individuals' privacy attitudes and beliefs do not match their privacy behavior.[6] This concept offers an explanation to why individuals may be complacent in privacy setting management.[6] The privacy paradox intertwines with the third-person effect because individuals believe privacy is important but do not believe a privacy-related incident will happen to them over others.[6][7] Recognizing personal privacy as important is a low-cost effort, but actually taking measures to protect one’s privacy may be too high-cost for individuals, explaining the privacy paradox.[6]

An extension of the privacy paradox is the discrepancy between the nothing to hide claim and the use of privacy settings.[4] In a study of Canadian teenage use of SNS, a majority of participants that claimed they had nothing to hide still utilized privacy settings such as blocking other users.[4] Different selves were also portrayed across different SNS such as Facebook and Snapchat, which is a form of privacy in itself.[4]

Influences[edit]

Another reason users do not alter their privacy settings is a lack of knowing these settings exist.[17] Facebook users that know privacy settings exist are more likely to change them compared to users who do not know privacy settings exist.[7] Furthermore, with Facebook, users explain their lack of privacy setting alteration because the choice to choose who is a Facebook friend is already a form of privacy.[7] However, Debatin et al. emphasizes that the criteria individuals use to decide who is a Facebook friend is typically relaxed, posing privacy risks for users.[7][18] In a different study, it was shown that the number of friends who had a private profile increased the likelihood that a user would adopt a private profile.[5] Furthermore, the amount of time a person spent on Facebook and women were more likely to have a private profile.[5] A private Facebook profile was defined as changing the default settings so non-friends cannot search for their profile.[5] If the data is valuable, privacy is prevalent on the app, and implementing privacy settings is easy, users say they are more likely to engage in privacy behavior.[19]

Updated privacy settings[edit]

In May 2020, Facebook began implementing the option to give users to delete or archive past posts from a certain time or from certain people.[20] This "Manage Activity" option allows more security and privacy control for users.[20] This tool is only accessible through the mobile app and has yet to be adapted to the web version of Facebook.[20]

Companies' role in privacy settings[edit]

Policy design[edit]

Users are not the sole party involved in privacy. Companies are also responsible for implementing default privacy settings and creating options. Romele et al. acknowledges that social media companies often play a significant role in perpetuating the voluntary servitude of users.[12] Social media privacy policies can be complex and default settings are set up to collect beneficial, profitable data to companies.[12] In a study that examined Facebook's privacy policy from 2005 to 2015, Shore et al. found that the policy became increasingly unclear and unaccountable.[21] A specific portion regarding the use of user personal data and third party involvement was found to be increasingly confusing.[21] In addition to companies portraying their privacy protection as clear and beneficial for users, they also do not do anything to heighten awareness of constant data collection.[12] An example of this is shown through Facebook ad preferences.[12] Facebook users can have personalized ads on their feeds which Facebook portrays as a specialized, beneficial option for users but does not explicitly state that these ads largely benefit the companies and third parties involved.[12]

Principle of reciprocity[edit]

Default settings put users on a specific trajectory regarding their privacy. The principle of reciprocity (PoR) is played out in terms of privacy and sociability on these networks.[8] PoR is the concept that users who give their privacy receive application utility in return.[8] In a WhatsApp study testing user privacy choices (see Reception and criticism of WhatsApp security and privacy features), users were interviewed regarding the Last Seen Online (LSO) and Read Receipt (RR) option.[8] Participants revealed a higher preference for keeping the RR on than the LSO option.[8] Individuals were more likely to share if they have read a message in exchange for their recipients' read status, an example of the principle of reciprocity.[8] LSO was not as practical as RR because being online was not a direct translation to reading their messages.[8] In the study, younger participants had LSO turned off, indicating that older participants were less likely to have restrictive privacy settings.[8] This could be because older users have closer circle of contacts and/or they do not place as much emphasis on what they share.[8] Designing privacy settings to be reciprocal force users to make a decision on what private information they are willing to exchange for others' private information.[8]

Profit[edit]

SNS companies who want to increase revenue from advertisements can achieve this by increasing the amount of users and retention rate.[22] Lin et al. revealed that both informational and territorial privacy are user concerns with SNS.[22] Territory coordination, the access to an individual's virtual territory which can be a Facebook profile or a Twitter page, influences user privacy management more than informational disclosure.[22] More fine-grain privacy settings are recommended by Lin et al. to better suit a wide collection of territorial and informational privacy preferences.[22] By targeting user preferences and needs, companies can increase the amount of users on their platforms and increase their revenue.[22] This serves as a monetary motivation for companies to adjust their privacy settings to better support users. [22]

External contributors in privacy settings[edit]

Culture[edit]

Cultural differences such as being in a collectivistic versus an individualistic society can influence the general privacy settings chosen by users.[13] In a study that analyzed varying Twitter privacy behaviors across the globe, there appeared a cultural difference between countries.[13] In this study, culture was measured through individualism and uncertainty avoidance. According to Hofstede's cultural dimensions, individualism is a heavy focus on the person while collectivism is more based on group effort.[23] Uncertainty avoidance is how uncomfortable an individual is with the unknown.[23] Collectivistic societies tend to be less individualistic and less avoidant of uncertainty while individualistic societies tend to be more individualistic and more avoidant of uncertainty. The results of this study show collectivistic cultural values support more permissiveness, as measured by sharing geographic location on a person’s profile.[13] Privacy settings in collectivist communities supported more information sharing than in an individualistic community.[13] The cultural differences between in group versus out group could also play a role in this relationship. Collectivistic societies, such as Japan or China, distinguish more between in group versus out group than their individualistic counterparts. Users in collectivistic countries typically keep a smaller inner circle, which fosters a more intimate, trusting environment for sharing personal information.[13] On the other hand, individualistic societies such as the U.S. or Europe, typically keep a bigger social circle and in group and out group do not differ much. Internet penetration, the measure of how many people use to how many do not use the Internet in a country, predicted user privacy.[13] In areas that had low internet penetration, users likely had private accounts but also did not conceal their location.[13] This study reveals how cultural values and access to Internet can affect a person's privacy settings.[13]

Societal norms[edit]

Societal norms can also contribute to privacy setting behavior.[2] Close friends’ own privacy behavior can influence a person’s intentions to also participate in similar behavior.[2] However, intentions may not always lead to action which was seen in Saeri et al.'s study.[2] Two weeks after indicating intentions to engage in privacy protection behavior on a survey, most participants did nothing.[2] An explanation lies in the habitual nature of using Facebook, making it difficult for some to change their behavior.[2] Facebook also encourages users to share information which shapes norms that influence behavior.[2] Norms serve a role in influencing privacy behavior.[2]

Enhancements[edit]

Design[edit]

With the growing prevalence of social media, the risk for privacy leaks becomes more and more possible. Privacy settings can help protect users if designed and used in specific ways.[24] Privacy settings could be re-designed with the intention of protecting the user as much as possible.[24] This is called privacy by design. Privacy by design aims to limit the risks of information sharing while maintaining or possibly increasing the benefits.[24] Privacy policies can be complex and unclear which serves as an obstacle to users understanding their privacy.[12][25] Potential changes in privacy settings include simpler privacy policies that are concise, clear, and understood by the user. Incorporating reminders for users to check, and possibly update their privacy settings occasionally may increase privacy awareness.[10] With default settings designed for users to keep an open profile, Watson et al. offered a different default setting design. Facebook default privacy settings could be altered to be more conservative (e.g. not being searchable by anyone on Facebook) to possibly prevent unintentional information sharing.[16] However, utility needs to be balanced with default privacy settings.[16] If default privacy settings were too strict and closed off, the functionality of social media apps could decrease.[16] A balance between default privacy settings that protect the user from unwanted privacy leaks but also allow users to socialize and interact online should be considered.

When first choosing privacy settings, it may be useful to choose from pre-made profiles that have varying levels of privacy in them.[26] Sanchez et al.’s study revealed that profile examples accurately reflect user privacy preferences and beliefs; this limits the discrepancy between privacy beliefs and privacy behavior.[26] Along with the profile examples, users could also manually change and adjust their privacy settings accordingly after.[26] This keeps the privacy setting process flexible and more convenient than manually choosing each privacy setting option.[26]Furthermore, a simulation tool that informs users about posts and comments’ visibility can encourage users to use privacy settings more.[27] Sayin et al. created a Facebook simulation tool that showed users how a post’s audience setting was going to affect comment owners and their privacy.[27] For example, if a user commented on a post that was initially only viewable by friends but later changed to public, the user’s privacy is risked because Facebook does not notify users of this audience change.[27] 95% of participants that used the simulation tool believed that this tool would help increase Facebook privacy awareness.[27]

Software[edit]

Anytime a new connection is made on a social media app, users could be prompted to set privacy settings for that specific individual.[10] This may be tedious and too effortful for some users to use effectively. However, this can be balanced with the assistance of software tools such as a personal data manager.[9] These softwares can be used to take into account user's privacy wants, and apply appropriate privacy settings that match these preferences to an individual's accounts.[9] However, more research needs to be conducted to make sure these softwares can accurately apply privacy preferences to privacy settings. Personal data managers have the potential to help users become more involved in their privacy and lessen the effort for setting privacy controls. Another software, AID-S (Adaptive Inference Discovery Service) personalizes each user’s privacy preferences since what is considered private information varies from each individual.[28] Torre et al. found that AID-S can be used to find a user’s preferred privacy settings and help users make more informed decisions regarding privacy including third party inclusion.[28] Furthermore, a framework was created for smart home information processing that includes a two layer security that improves user privacy.[29] This framework incorporates user privacy preferences, similar to the personal data manager[9], and uses Data Encryption Standard (DES) and Top Three Most Significant Bit (TTMSB) to safely transmit data from smart home devices.[29] TTMSB takes into account user privacy desires and conceals sensitive information during data transmission.

[29]

Data science is a field that has been used to extract inferred information from databases of collected SNS user information.[24] However, the ability to infer information from data science can be used to better inform users on how their information can be used and increase informed privacy decisions.[24] Control over one’s privacy and transparency on how their information will be used can help facilitate a relationship between data science and privacy.[24]

Trust-based negotiations[edit]

Trust-based negotiations are based on a contingency of acceptance or rejection from the user.[9] In respect to privacy, trust-based negotiations have been offered as a diversion from the binary of accepting or rejecting privacy policies in full, and allow acceptance and rejection of specific parts of the privacy policies.[9] This allows users to have more control over their privacy and allow interaction between the two parties. The general data protection regulation (GDPR) ensures that third parties (TPs) are using concise, clear language in their privacy policies while the user also gives a clear response of acceptance or rejection to them.[9] There must be a consensual agreement between the user and the TPs.[9] If either side is unsatisfied with the privacy terms, they can negotiate.[9] PDM plays a major role in this by mediating between the user and the TP.[9] PDM applies the user’s privacy preferences to the TP’s privacy statements and either accepts or rejects it based on the user’s preferences.[9] If there is a rejection, both parties can enter negotiation.[9] The advancement of an interactive privacy model attempts to make privacy settings a one-time action that will be applied to all Internet of things (IoT).[9]

Interactive educational games[edit]

See also: Educational game

The privacy paradox is contributed by lack of privacy knowledge, fatigue, and feeling distant from a privacy invasion.[19] Education and increasing intrinsic motivation can help alleviate the effect of these contributors, and in turn, the privacy paradox.[19] However, in a study that tested the effectiveness of an interactive privacy smartwatch game, game players were more likely to engage in privacy behavior such as enabling a lock screen.[19] The game was personalized where users could create their own avatar and had to complete time-sensitive tasks.[19] The time restraint encouraged users to continue engaging with the game more, and the personalization connected with them.[19] These tasks were split up into levels according to difficulty.[19] For example, tasks included checking app permissions, enabling screen lock, disabling GPS, and turning off SMS permissions.[19] Alongside the tasks, individuals also had to answer questions regarding privacy settings such as How can you stop your contacts from being used by apps?[19] A peron's digital character had health that was determined by performance regarding the task and answering questions correctly.[19] This study emphasizes the potential effectiveness of interactive privacy games that can increase privacy literacy and encourage more privacy setting usage.[19]

See also[edit]

Evaluate an article[edit]

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions

  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • Yes I believe the introductory sentence frames the topic well by including the different areas information privacy incorporates.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • The lead introduces certain topics but they do not match the sections of the article as seen in the contents section.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • Yes, I did not really see information pertaining to human resources and the push to protect data privacy.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • I think the lead is pretty concise, but I think it could be better worded to connect with the rest of the article.

Lead evaluation 3/5[edit]

Content[edit]

Guiding questions

  • Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
    • Yes although I think more could be added. More historical context could be made and on a more global sense. The example included in the article is Western-based. There are different laws pertaining to different countries at the beginning of the page, but a lot of countries are left out.
  • Is the content up-to-date?
    • No. One example includes the quick mention of social media. I think now, there is more prevalence of social media privacy concerns. Also, thinking about legal cases that involve technological privacy such as Apple opening a deceased person's iPhone for investigation.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • As mentioned above, I think there is some information missing that makes this article lack a holistic scope.

Content evaluation 3/5[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions

  • Is the article neutral?
    • For the most part I think the article is neutral. However, there are some sentences that do have a bias tone. For example, there is a bias surrounding the political privacy issues regarding technological voting methods.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • For the most part, I do not think there are any claims that are heavily biased.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • I think viewpoints against information privacy are underrepresented.
  • Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • The article does not seem to be actively attempting to persuade the reader, but the information included does seem to advocate for the protection of privacy.

Tone and balance evaluation 4/5[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions

  • Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • No there are sections that are lacking in citations (e.g. "financial")
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • Yes.
  • Are the sources current?
    • The sources are mainly in the 2000s, but they could be updated to more recent times since technology and information privacy is rapidly growing.
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • Yes.

Sources and references evaluation 4/5[edit]

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions

  • Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • Yes.
  • Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • No.
  • Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes.

Organization evaluation 5/5[edit]

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions

  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
    • No.
  • Are images well-captioned?
    • No.
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
    • N/A
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
    • N/A

Images and media evaluation N/A[edit]

Checking the talk page[edit]

Guiding questions

  • What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
    • Recently, there are no current conversations (no thread). There are concerns regarding content inclusion.However, back in 2018, there are conversations about citing and linking to specific pages.
  • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
    • This article is in the C-class. It is a part of three WikiProjects: WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Internet, WikiProject Mass Surveillance.
  • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A

Talk page evaluation 3/5[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions

  • What is the article's overall status?
    • I think the overall status is in the C-class.
  • What are the article's strengths?
    • I think the article does a good job of giving a basic overview of what information privacy can entail.
  • How can the article be improved?
    • I think this article could be improved by adding more images. Also, I think this article could be updated so it could reflect more recent topics in information privacy such as social media.
  • How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
    • I would say this article is on the right track, but is still considered underdeveloped. I think more elaboration and creation of more sections would benefit the article.

Overall evaluation 3/5[edit]

Evaluate an article[edit]

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

  • Name of article: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
  • Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
    • I chose this article because I am interested in how privacy interacts with education. I have vaguely learned about FERPA but wanted to use this opportunity to expand my knowledge on this act.

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions

  • 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?
    • No, there is a lack of mention of public or medical records in the Lead which are the two sections in the article.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • Yes.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • It is concise but also underdeveloped.

Lead evaluation[edit]

Content[edit]

Guiding questions

  • Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
    • Yes, the article's content is relevant but there is not enough content to fully represent the topic.
  • Is the content up-to-date?
    • No.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • There is content that is missing such as more FERPA cases and what information has been considered protected and what has not recently. The emergence of social media poses a question of whether account names should be released if schools do monitor them.

Content evaluation 3/5[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions

  • Is the article neutral?
    • Yes .
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • No.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • The viewpoint from non-students who may wish to receive student information such as parents or legal guardians is underrepresented here. Also, a history or context of how this act came to be is missing.
  • Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • No. It is just lacking in content.

Tone and balance evaluation 3/5[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions

  • Are all facts in the article 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.
  • Are the sources current?
    • No, this article could use some updated sources.
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • Yes.

Sources and references evaluation 4/5[edit]

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions

  • Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • The article is easy to read and concise.
  • Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • No.
  • Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes, but there aren't many sections to begin with.

Organization evaluation 5/5[edit]

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions

  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
    • No.
  • Are images well-captioned?
    • N/A
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
    • N/A
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
    • N/A

Images and media evaluation N/A[edit]

Checking the talk page[edit]

Guiding questions

  • What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
    • There are no current ongoing conversations but past conversations discussed where to find more information on FERPA, and what should be added to the article.
  • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
    • The article is rated a start-class article. It is a part of 5 different WikiProjects: Law, Education, United States, United States Public Policy, and U.S. Congress.
  • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
    • N/A

Talk page evaluation 3/5[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions

  • What is the article's overall status?
    • This article's overall status is start-class.
  • What are the article's strengths?
    • The article's strengths lie in the overview section where FERPA is broken down into different components. This section is the longest in the article and provides a basic look at who is affected by FERPA and in what instances, students are protected from FERPA.
  • How can the article be improved?
    • This article could be improved if more information was added such as previous cases about FERPA and the general public attitude toward this law.
  • How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
    • I think the article is underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation 2/5[edit]

What's a Content Gap?[edit]

  • Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?
    • To me, a content gap is when there is information missing from an article. It can also be when information is missing due to a lack of research. There is a lot of unknown and content gaps can serve as inspiration for potential research ideas. Authors may overlook important topics included in their topic. Possible ways to identify content gaps include collaboration, using various reliable sources, and constantly keeping up to date on research progression.
  • What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?
    • One reason a content gap might arise is a close-minded perspective that does not acknowledge other perspectives. It is crucial to critically engage in different perspectives that will help refine and give a more holistic understanding of content. Another reason includes a lack of editing and collaboration with others. Involving others in the process of understanding content, whether it be through discussion or editing written work, helps foster a better learning environment. Reading many reliable sources can help alleviate content gaps. Closing content gaps can also happen by updating one's knowledge through interacting with recent research.
  • Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
    • Yes, it does matter who writes Wikipedia. Even though it is an open access resource that anyone can edit and contribute to, one needs to be familiar with Wikipedia's aim and rules. People who writes Wikipedia need to include an unbiased opinion on the topics, be open to collaboration, and do the necessary research to produce well-written, neutral articles. It's important to be proactive in the editing process of articles, meaning adding necessary edits and respectfully communicating with other Wikipedians.
  • What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?
    • On Wikipedia, to be "unbiased" is to carry a neutral tone and perspective on the article topics. An equal amount of focus on different perspectives should be distributed throughout the article. This can be achieved through mindfulness and exceptional understanding of the topic through relevant research. This is very similar to my own definition of bias because I think bias is when someone has an opinion that can persuade oneself and others to think in a certain way. Having a bias can exist both on a conscious and unconscious level. It can blur one's understanding and lead to self-fulfilling prophecy. Having a bias can prime you to think in a certain way that lets you see what you want to in some cases. It's important to acknowledge if you have bias and if it is necessary in the situation.

New article: Privacy settings[edit]

  • Why am I creating this new article?
    • I am creating this new article because I am interested in how people manage their privacy settings and to what extent users have control over their privacy settings. I think exploring the different methods utilised by companies such as Facebook regarding default settings will help better raise awareness about privacy relations. I plan on exploring what goes in privacy policies and how companies decide what goes into accessible privacy settings. I also want to include what is allowed for data collection on a legal level such as privacy policy laws.
  • Rough outline [in progress]
    • Default settings, privacy laws regarding privacy settings, examples (e.g. Facebook), motivations behind privacy settings from companies and users' perspectives

Thinking About Sources and Plagiarism[edit]

  • Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
    • Blog posts and press releases usually do not go under as rigorous editing as academic journals. It is important to question who is writing these blog posts and press releases. Sometimes, the authors can be unreliable due to their lack of knowledge on the topic and be very biased. Depending on the blog, some are easily published, without any editing or further research.
  • What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
    • A company's website can be very biased and portray themselves in a positive light. If I used their website as the main source of information, I would be missing out other perspectives and information that the company intentionally left out. It is important to think about the content gaps after browsing the company's website. Who is writing and designing the company's website? What are their intentions for choosing the information presented on the website? I would complement this information with other sources that are not written by company affiliates.
  • What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
    • Copyright violation is when one uses someone else's work without the proper permission but plagiarism is when one takes credit for another's work. To avoid plagiarism, it is important to give proper citations and focus on using one's own words. However, with copyright, it is important to seek permission. A copyright violation can still occur even if you give credit to the respective owner since you could lack permission.
  • What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?
    • Some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism is to read many sources and make sure you understand the material. When writing notes, it could be helpful to focus using one's own words. Taking time to pause and think about the material can help encourage more authenticity rather than a rushed mindset that can accompany close paraphrasing and/or plagiarism. Sometimes, it could be useful to re-read one's notes and further condense or expand the information without looking back at the source. If a direct quote is necessary, it is important to properly cite.

Lead[edit]

  • Privacy settings are options, typically set by software engineers, that users can access to manage their privacy. Many social networking services (SNS) such as Facebook, have default privacy settings that leave users more prone to sharing personal information. Contributing factors that influence user activity in privacy settings include the privacy paradox and the third person effect. The third person effect explains why privacy settings can remain unchanged throughout time. Companies can enforce a Principle of Reciprocity (PoR) where users have to decide what information they are willing to share in exchange for others’ information. With the growing focus on internet privacy, there are technologies and programs designed to enhance and encourage more privacy setting activity. Applications such as the Personal Data Manager (PDM) are used to improve the efficiency of privacy setting management. Privacy by design can enhance privacy settings through incorporating privacy notifications or prompting users to occasionally manage their privacy settings.
  • Additional sections/links included in article:

Drafting Article- "Privacy settings" 2nd draft (updated with revisions)[edit]

Privacy settings are "the part of a social networking website, internet browser, piece of software, etc. that allows you to control who sees information about you."[1] With the growing prevalence of social networking services (SNS), opportunities for privacy exposures also grows. Privacy settings allow one to control what information is shared on these platforms.

Many social networking services (SNS) such as Facebook, have default privacy settings that leave users more prone to sharing personal information.[5] Privacy settings are contributed to by users, companies, and external forces. Contributing factors that influence user activity in privacy settings include the privacy paradox[6] and the third person effect.[7] The third person effect explains why privacy settings can remain unchanged throughout time. Companies can enforce a Principle of Reciprocity (PoR) where users have to decide what information they are willing to share in exchange for others’ information.[8]

With the growing focus on internet privacy, there are technologies and programs designed to enhance and encourage more privacy setting activity. Applications such as the Personal Data Manager (PDM) are used to improve the efficiency of privacy setting management.[9] Privacy by design can enhance privacy settings through incorporating privacy notifications or prompting users to occasionally manage their privacy settings.[10]

Significance[edit]

The ability to control who views their content influences users’ decision to share or not share images on SNS such as WeChat or Qzone. [11] Different communities call for different levels of privacy.[11] For example, one is more likely to share a photo of themselves and a close friend with their close friend circle and family than strangers.[11] This reveals a need for fine privacy settings that allow users more flexibility in their SNS sharing ability.[11] Hu Xiaoxu et al. suggests privacy settings should encourage social networking on SNS while simultaneously protecting user privacy.[11]

Furthermore, SNS are designed to connect people together online.[3] Users share information and build relationships online.[3] Privacy leaks can still occur even with privacy settings intact.[3] Users’ connections on SNS can reveal personal information such as having friends from the same university can lead to an inference that one attends that university.[3] Furthermore, even if one has strict privacy settings enabled, their privacy can still be leaked through their connections who may not have as many privacy settings in place.[3] This calls for enhanced privacy settings that can tolerate different privacy settings while allowing online connections.[3]

Default settings[edit]

Privacy settings for SNS have default settings that set up users to automatically share personal information the user has inputted.[12] For example, Twitter users are automatically prone to a public profile when an account is first made.[13] Furthermore, SNS privacy policies have shown to be too complex for consumers to fully understand, leading to personal information being shared regardless of user awareness.[12] Even after a user deletes their Facebook profile, Facebook can still use and sell user information according to their privacy policy.[12] Facebook's default settings allow friends to view one's profile and anyone to search for one's profile.[5]

Users' role in privacy settings[edit]

Theories[edit]

Privacy settings are situated in the framework of the communication privacy management theory.[15]This theory states that privacy management involves setting boundaries and agreements with individuals, highlighting that once information is shared, it is now their information as well.[15] In a study about teenagers and their privacy, it was revealed that privacy concerns was the biggest contributor to management both personal and interpersonal privacy (see Privacy concerns with social networking services).[15] Privacy settings can be inaccessible or effortful to implement.[10] Teenagers that feel fatalistic toward their personal privacy are more likely to depend on interpersonal privacy techniques.[15] De Wolf's study revealed that teenagers used more personal privacy techniques than interpersonal privacy management, which emphasizes the need for accessible, clear privacy settings.[15]

Voluntary servitude is an idea that states people knowingly give their support to authoritative figures by subjecting themselves to servitude.[12] In the sense of social media, voluntary servitude is how users expose their information to companies and perpetuate data collection and monetization.[12] Romele et al. offers a possible explanation to voluntary servitude through the System Justification Theory.[12] This theory states that people learn to internalize societal hierarchies and perpetuate their existence.[12] Users are complying to the power hierarchy by allowing their information to be extracted from these companies, through methods such as sharing personal information with close family and friends which can be harvested by companies and third parties.[12]

The theory of planned behavior aligns beliefs, attitudes, norms and behavior together.[2] In a study that surveyed undergraduate students on their Facebook use, a majority responded that when their close friends think privacy protection is important or engage in privacy protection activity, they are more likely to have intentions to also engage in privacy protection behavior.[2]

Privacy Paradox[edit]

By accepting privacy policies and therefore, agreeing to default settings set in place by companies, users are prone to oversharing information.[16] However, users usually do not change their privacy settings unless they personally experience a privacy invasion or unintentionally share information.[16] In a study exploring the connection between Facebook attitudes and behaviors, having a friend experience a privacy invasion (e.g. someone hacking into their profile) did not lead to one implementing privacy changes.[7] A possible explanation for this is the third-person effect, which is the belief that one has a less chance of a privacy invasion than someone else, thinking they are safer than others.[7] This protective mindset is flawed because anyone is susceptible to privacy invasions, and managing privacy settings can help decrease that risk.[7]

The privacy paradox is an idea that states individuals' privacy attitudes and beliefs do not match their privacy behavior.[6] This concept offers an explanation to why individuals may be complacent in privacy setting management.[6] The privacy paradox intertwines with the third-person effect because individuals believe privacy is important but do not believe a privacy-related incident will happen to them over others.[6][7] Recognizing personal privacy as important is a low-cost effort, but actually taking measures to protect one’s privacy may be too high-cost for individuals, explaining the privacy paradox.[6]

An extension of the privacy paradox is the discrepancy between the nothing to hide claim and the use of privacy settings.[4] In a study of Canadian teenage use of SNS, a majority of participants that claimed they had nothing to hide still utilized privacy settings such as blocking other users.[4] Different selves were also portrayed across different SNS such as Facebook and Snapchat, which is a form of privacy in itself.[4]

Influences[edit]

Another reason users do not alter their privacy settings is a lack of knowing these settings exist. Facebook users that know privacy settings exist are more likely to change them compared to users who do not know privacy settings exist.[7] Furthermore, with Facebook, users explain their lack of privacy setting alteration because the choice to choose who is a Facebook friend is already a form of privacy.[7] However, Debatin et al. emphasizes that the criteria individuals use to decide who is a Facebook friend is typically relaxed, posing privacy risks for users.[7] In a different study, it was shown that the number of friends who had a private profile increased the likelihood that a user would adopt a private profile.[5] Furthermore, the amount of time one spent on Facebook and women were more likely to have a private profile.[5] A private Facebook profile was defined as changing the default settings so non-friends cannot search for one’s profile.[5] If the data is valuable, privacy is prevalent on the app, and implementing privacy settings is easy, users say they are more likely to engage in privacy behavior.[19]

Updated Privacy Settings[edit]

In May 2020, Facebook began implementing the option to give users to delete or archive past posts from a certain time or from certain people.[20] This "Manage Activity" option allows more security and privacy control for users.[20] This tool is only accessible through the mobile app and has yet to be adapted to the web version of Facebook.[20]

Companies' role in privacy settings[edit]

Users are not the sole party involved in privacy. Companies are also responsible for implementing default and privacy settings. Romele et al. acknowledges that social media companies often play a significant role in perpetuating the voluntary servitude of users.[12] Social media privacy policies can be complex and default settings are set up to collect beneficial, profitable data to companies.[12] In addition, many companies portray their privacy protection as clear and beneficial for users, and do not do anything to heighten awareness of constant data collection.[12] An example of this is shown through Facebook ad preferences.[12] Facebook users can have personalized ads on their feeds which Facebook portrays as a specialized, beneficial option for users but does not explicitly state that these ads largely benefit the companies and third parties involved.[12]

Default settings put users on a specific trajectory regarding their privacy. The principle of reciprocity (PoR) is played out in terms of privacy and sociability on these networks.[8] PoR is the concept that users who give their privacy receive application utility in return.[8] In a WhatsApp study testing user privacy choices, users were interviewed regarding the Last Seen Online (LSO) and Read Receipt (RR) option.[8] Participants revealed a higher preference for keeping the RR on than the LSO option.[8] Individuals were more likely to share if they have read a message in exchange for their recipients' read status, an example of the principle of reciprocity.[8] LSO was not as practical as RR because being online was not a direct translation to reading one's messages.[8] In the study, younger participants had LSO turned off, indicating that older participants were less likely to have restrictive privacy settings.[8] This could be because older users have closer circle of contacts and/or they do not place as much emphasis on what they share.[8] Designing privacy settings to be reciprocal force users to make a decision on what private information they are willing to exchange for others' private information.[8]

SNS companies who want to increase revenue from advertisements can achieve this by increasing the amount of users and retention rate.[22] Lin et al. revealed that both informational and territorial privacy are user concerns with SNS.[22] Territory coordination, the access to one’s virtual territory which can be a Facebook profile or a Twitter page, influences user privacy management more than informational disclosure.[22] More fine-grain privacy settings are recommended by Lin et al. to better suit a wide collection of territorial and informational privacy preferences.[22] By targeting user preferences and needs, companies can increase the amount of users on their platforms and increase their revenue.[22] This serves as a monetary motivation for companies to adjust their privacy settings to better support users. [22]

External contributors in privacy settings[edit]

Cultural differences such as being in a collectivistic versus an individualistic society can influence the general privacy settings chosen by users.[13] In a study that analyzed varying Twitter privacy behaviors across the globe, there appeared a cultural difference between countries.[13] In this study, culture was measured through individualism and uncertainty avoidance. According to Hofstede's cultural dimensions, individualism is a heavy focus on the person while collectivism is more based on group effort.[23] Uncertainty avoidance is how uncomfortable one is with the unknown.[23] Collectivistic societies tend to be less individualistic and less avoidant of uncertainty while individualistic societies tend to be more individualistic and more avoidant of uncertainty. The results of this study show collectivistic cultural values support more permissiveness, as measured by sharing geographic location on one’s profile.[13] Privacy settings in collectivist communities supported more information sharing than in an individualistic community.[13] The cultural differences between in group versus out group could also play a role in this relationship. Collectivistic societies, such as Japan or China, distinguish more between in group versus out group than their individualistic counterparts. Users in collectivistic countries typically keep a smaller inner circle, which fosters a more intimate, trusting environment for sharing personal information.[13] On the other hand, individualistic societies such as the U.S. or Europe, typically keep a bigger social circle and in group and out group do not differ much. Internet penetration, the measure of how many people use to how many do not use the Internet in a country, predicted user privacy.[13] In areas that had low internet penetration, users likely had private accounts but also did not conceal their location.[13] This study reveals how cultural values and access to Internet can affect one's privacy settings.[13]

Societal norms can also contribute to privacy setting behavior.[2] Close friends’ own privacy behavior can influence one’s intentions to also participate in similar behavior.[2] However, intentions may not always lead to action which was seen in Saeri et al.’s study.[2] Two weeks after indicating intentions to engage in privacy protection behavior on a survey, most participants did nothing.[2] An explanation lies in the habitual nature of using Facebook, making it difficult for some to change their behavior.[2] Facebook also encourages users to share information which shapes norms that influence behavior.[2] Norms serve a role in influencing privacy behavior.[2]

Enhancements[edit]

Design[edit]

With the growing prevalence of social media, the risk for privacy leaks becomes more and more possible. Privacy settings can help protect users if designed and used in specific ways.[24] Privacy settings could be re-designed with the intention of protecting the user as much as possible.[24] This is called privacy by design. Privacy by design aims to limit the risks of information sharing while maintaining or possibly increasing the benefits.[24] Privacy policies can be complex and unclear which serves as an obstacle to users understanding their privacy.[12][25] Potential changes in privacy settings include simpler privacy policies that are concise, clear, and understood by the user. Incorporating reminders for users to check, and possibly update their privacy settings occasionally may increase privacy awareness.[10] With default settings designed for users to keep an open profile, Watson et al. offered a different default setting design. Facebook default privacy settings could be altered to be more conservative (e.g. not being searchable by anyone on Facebook) to possibly prevent unintentional information sharing.[16] However, utility needs to be balanced with default privacy settings.[16] If default privacy settings were too strict and closed off, the functionality of social media apps could decrease.[16] A balance between default privacy settings that protect the user from unwanted privacy leaks but also allow users to socialize and interact online should be considered.

When first choosing privacy settings, it may be useful to choose from pre-made profiles that have varying levels of privacy in them.[26] Sanchez et al.’s study revealed that profile examples accurately reflect user privacy preferences and beliefs; this limits the discrepancy between privacy beliefs and privacy behavior.[26] Along with the profile examples, users could also manually change and adjust their privacy settings accordingly after.[26] This keeps the privacy setting process flexible and more convenient than manually choosing each privacy setting option.[26]Furthermore, a simulation tool that informs users about posts and comments’ visibility can encourage users to use privacy settings more.[27] Sayin et al. created a Facebook simulation tool that showed users how a post’s audience setting was going to affect comment owners and their privacy.[27] For example, if a user commented on a post that was initially only viewable by friends but later changed to public, the user’s privacy is risked because Facebook does not notify users of this audience change.[27] 95% of participants that used the simulation tool believed that this tool would help increase Facebook privacy awareness.[27]

Software[edit]

Also, anytime a new connection is made on a social media app, users could be prompted to set privacy settings for that specific individual.[10] This may be tedious and too effortful for some users to use effectively. However, this can be balanced with the assistance of software tools such as a personal data manager.[9] These softwares can be used to take into account user's privacy wants, and apply appropriate privacy settings that match these preferences to one's accounts.[9] However, more research needs to be conducted to make sure these softwares can accurately apply privacy preferences to privacy settings. Personal data managers have the potential to help users become more involved in their privacy and lessen the effort for setting privacy controls. Another software, AID-S (Adaptive Inference Discovery Service) personalizes each user’s privacy preferences since what is considered private information varies from each individual.[28] Torre et al. found that AID-S can be used to find a user’s preferred privacy settings and help users make more informed decisions regarding privacy including third party inclusion.[28]

Data science is a field that has been used to extract inferred information from databases of collected SNS user information.[24] However, the ability to infer information from data science can be used to better inform users on how their information can be used and increase informed privacy decisions.[24] Control over one’s privacy and transparency on how their information will be used can help facilitate a relationship between data science and privacy.[24]

Trust-based negotiations[edit]

Trust-based negotiations are based on a contingency of acceptance or rejection from the user.[9] In respect to privacy, trust-based negotiations have been offered as a diversion from the binary of accepting or rejecting privacy policies in full, and allow acceptance and rejection of specific parts of the privacy policies.[9] This allows users to have more control over their privacy and allow interaction between the two parties. The general data protection regulation (GDPR) ensures that third parties (TPs) are using concise, clear language in their privacy policies while the user also gives a clear response of acceptance or rejection to them.[9] There must be a consensual agreement between the user and the TPs.[9] If either side is unsatisfied with the privacy terms, they can negotiate.[9] PDM plays a major role in this by mediating between the user and the TP.[9] PDM applies the user’s privacy preferences to the TP’s privacy statements and either accepts or rejects it based on the user’s preferences.[9] If there is a rejection, both parties can enter negotiation.[9] The advancement of an interactive privacy model attempts to make privacy settings a one-time action that will be applied to all Internet of things (IoT).[9]

Interactive educational games[edit]

The privacy paradox is contributed by lack of privacy knowledge, fatigue, and feeling distant from a privacy invasion.[19] Education and increasing intrinsic motivation can help alleviate the effect of these contributors, and in turn, the privacy paradox.[19] However, in a study that tested the effectiveness of an interactive privacy smartwatch game, game players were more likely to engage in privacy behavior such as enabling a lock screen.[19] The game was personalized where users could create their own avatar and had to complete time-sensitive tasks.[19] The time restraint encouraged users to continue engaging with the game more, and the personalization connected with them.[19] These tasks were split up into levels according to difficulty.[19] For example, tasks included checking app permissions, enabling screen lock, disabling GPS, and turning off SMS permissions.[19] Alongside the tasks, individuals also had to answer questions regarding privacy settings such as How can you stop your contacts from being used by apps?[19] One’s digital character had health that was determined by performance regarding the task and answering questions correctly.[19] This study emphasizes the potential effectiveness of interactive privacy games that can increase privacy literacy and encourage more privacy setting usage.[19]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b "PRIVACY SETTINGS | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary". dictionary.cambridge.org. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Saeri, Alexander K; Ogilvie, Claudette; La Macchia, Stephen; Smith, Joanne; Louis, Winnifred R (2019-01-31). "Predicting Facebook Users' Online Privacy Protection: Risk, Trust, Norm Focus Theory, and the Theory of Planned Behavior". dx.doi.org. Retrieved 2020-07-30.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Li, Yan; Li, Yingjiu; Yan, Qiang; Deng, Robert H. (2015-03). "Privacy leakage analysis in online social networks". Computers & Security. 49: 239–254. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2014.10.012. ISSN 0167-4048. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ a b c d e f g Adorjan, Michael; Ricciardelli, Rosemary (2019-01-15). "A New Privacy Paradox? Youth Agentic Practices of Privacy Management Despite "Nothing to Hide" Online". Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie. 56 (1): 8–29. doi:10.1111/cars.12227. ISSN 1755-6171.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Lewis, Kevin; Kaufman, Jason; Christakis, Nicholas (October 2008). "The Taste for Privacy: An Analysis of College Student Privacy Settings in an Online Social Network". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 14 (1): 79–100. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01432.x. ISSN 1083-6101.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Fuller, Caleb S. (2019-02-13). "Is the market for digital privacy a failure?". Public Choice. 180 (3–4): 353–381. doi:10.1007/s11127-019-00642-2. ISSN 0048-5829.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Debatin, Bernhard; Lovejoy, Jennette P.; Horn, Ann-Kathrin; Hughes, Brittany N. (October 2009). "Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 15 (1): 83–108. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x. ISSN 1083-6101.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Khalil, Ashraf; Zia, Huma; Abdallah, Salam (2019). "Privacy in the context of reciprocity:conceptualizing users' choices". Online Information Review. 43: 1316–1333.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y Sanchez, Odnan Ref; Torre, Ilaria; Knijnenburg, Bart P. (October 2020). "Semantic-based privacy settings negotiation and management". Future Generation Computer Systems. 111: 879–898. doi:10.1016/j.future.2019.10.024. ISSN 0167-739X.
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h Li, Yao; Gui, Xinning; Chen, Yunan; Xu, Heng; Kobsa, Alfred (November 2018). "When SNS Privacy Settings Become Granular". Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2 (CSCW): 1–21. doi:10.1145/3274377. ISSN 2573-0142.
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Hu, Xiaoxia; Hu, Donghui; Zheng, Shuli; Li, Wangwang; Chen, Fan; Shu, Zhaopin; Wang, Lina (2017-02-10). "How people share digital images in social networks: a questionnaire-based study of privacy decisions and access control". Multimedia Tools and Applications. 77 (14): 18163–18185. doi:10.1007/s11042-017-4402-x. ISSN 1380-7501.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab Romele, Alberto; Gallino, Francesco; Emmenegger, Camilla; Gorgone, Daniele (2017-05-08). "Panopticism is not Enough: Social Media as Technologies of Voluntary Servitude". Surveillance & Society. 15 (2): 204–221. doi:10.24908/ss.v15i2.6021. ISSN 1477-7487.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Liang, Hai; Shen, Fei; Fu, King-wa (2016-05-12). "Privacy protection and self-disclosure across societies: A study of global Twitter users". New Media & Society. 19 (9): 1476–1497. doi:10.1177/1461444816642210. ISSN 1461-4448.
  14. ^ Lohr, Steve (2011-10-15). "The Default Choice, So Hard to Resist". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-08-04.
  15. ^ a b c d e f g h i j De Wolf, Ralf (2019-09-14). "Contextualizing how teens manage personal and interpersonal privacy on social media". New Media & Society. 22 (6): 1058–1075. doi:10.1177/1461444819876570. ISSN 1461-4448.
  16. ^ a b c d e f g h i j WatsonJason; Richter, LipfordHeather; BesmerAndrew (2015-11-02). "Mapping User Preference to Privacy Default Settings". ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI). doi:10.1145/2811257.
  17. ^ Zhou, Yun; Qi, Lianyong; Raake, Alexander; Xu, Tao; Piekarska, Marta; Zhang, Xuyun (2018-08-29). "User attitudes and behaviors toward personalized control of privacy settings on smartphones". Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience. 31 (22). doi:10.1002/cpe.4884. ISSN 1532-0626.
  18. ^ Costantino, Gianpiero; Sgandurra, Daniele (2015). "Design and Development of a Facebook Application to Raise Privacy Awareness". 2015 23rd Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed, and Network-Based Processing. IEEE. doi:10.1109/pdp.2015.23. ISBN 978-1-4799-8491-6.
  19. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v Williams, Meredydd; Nurse, Jason R.C.; Creese, Sadie (October 2019). "Smartwatch games: Encouraging privacy-protective behaviour in a longitudinal study". Computers in Human Behavior. 99: 38–54. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.026. ISSN 0747-5632.
  20. ^ a b c d e f columnist, Geoffrey A. FowlercloseGeoffrey A. FowlerTechnology columnist based in San FranciscoEmailEmailBioBioFollowFollowTechnology. "Perspective | Now you can delete old Facebook posts without deleting Facebook". Washington Post. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  21. ^ a b Shore, Jennifer; Steinman, Jill. "Did You Really Agree to That? The Evolution of Facebook's Privacy Policy". Technology Science.
  22. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Lin, Shuaifu; Armstrong, Deborah J. (2019). "Beyond Information: The Role of Territory in Privacy Management Behavior on Social Networking Sites". Journal of the Association for Information Systems: 434–475. doi:10.17705/1jais.00540. ISSN 1536-9323.
  23. ^ a b c d "Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory", Wikipedia, 2020-07-18, retrieved 2020-07-22
  24. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Falgoust, Michael (2016). "Data Science and Designing for Privacy". Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology. 20 (1): 51–68. doi:10.5840/techne201632446. ISSN 2691-5928.
  25. ^ a b Powell, Adam; Singh, Preeti; Torous, John (2018). "The Complexity of Mental Health App Privacy Policies: A Potential Barrier to Privacy". JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 6 (7): e158. doi:10.2196/mhealth.9871.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  26. ^ a b c d e f g h Sanchez, Odnan Ref; Torre, Ilaria; He, Yangyang; Knijnenburg, Bart P. (2019-10-12). "A recommendation approach for user privacy preferences in the fitness domain". User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. 30 (3): 513–565. doi:10.1007/s11257-019-09246-3. ISSN 0924-1868.
  27. ^ a b c d e f g h SAYİN, Burcu; ŞAHİN, Serap; KOGIAS, Dimitrios G.; PATRIKAKIS, Charalampos Z. (2019-09-18). "Privacy issues in post dissemination on Facebook". TURKISH JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING & COMPUTER SCIENCES. 27 (5): 3417–3432. doi:10.3906/elk-1811-25. ISSN 1303-6203.
  28. ^ a b c d Torre, Ilaria; Sanchez, Odnan Ref; Koceva, Frosina. "Supporting users to take informed decisions on privacy settings of personal devices". Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. 22: 345–364 – via Springer.
  29. ^ a b c Yang, Lina; Deng, Haiyu; Dang, Xiaocui (2020). "Preference Preserved Privacy Protection Scheme for Smart Home Network System Based on Information Hiding". IEEE Access. 8: 40767–40776. doi:10.1109/access.2020.2976782. ISSN 2169-3536.

Thinking about Wikipedia[edit]

  • What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
    • I think Wikipedia’s definition of “neutrality” is to remove as much bias as one can from articles. I believe that articles will inevitably be somewhat biased but writers can do their best through intentions and peer reviewing to make sure an article is as neutral as can be. I also think neutrality includes showing different perspectives to make a holistic, full article.
  • What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
    • Wikipedia serves as a great, quick source of information. Often, it is a great tool for quick learning and those seeking a short summary of a topic can benefit. However, Wikipedia can be unreliable since there are stub topics and unsatisfactory articles that have not been edited. Wikipedia does show the rating of articles, but this limits what users can read up on. Both an impact and a limit of Wikipedia is the ability for articles to be written and edited by anyone. This is extremely accessible and gives space for thorough discussion and peer review. However, it also gives space for individuals to insert incorrect information.
  • On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?
    • This excludes unpublished material that can hold valuable information. For example, this can exclude oral history passed on through generations that can serve as rare information on a specific topic. Also this excludes people’s opinions which can foster great discussions and further knowledge. Excluding unpublished material prioritizes those that can seek publication which is a bias in of itself.
  • If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?
    • If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, its content and contributors would probably be more limited. This is because the Internet was not available yet so content would have to come from printed sources. This would take longer and be more difficult to cross check/peer review articles for accuracy. Contributors would be less diverse since only certain individuals have access to written content. 100 years from now, Wikipedia might be more advanced in the sense that more contributors would be present and content might be more available. I would imagine Wikipedia’s content would cover a bigger range of topics and contributors would clash more because with more individuals, it becomes harder to manage and cooperate.

Peer review first draft Midnightinterludes x Cheersmate510[edit]

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

General info[edit]

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? n/a
  • 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? Lead needs to mention role of companies, external contributors, and enhancements
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, but needs to add missing information that is mentioned in subsections but not lead section.

Lead evaluation 4/5[edit]

Content[edit]

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? you write about cultural differences in China/Japan, but what about Europe?

Content evaluation 4/5[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

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, good job!

Tone and balance evaluation[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

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
  • Are the sources current? yes
  • Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation 5/5[edit]

Organization[edit]

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? I did not catch any, but maybe split some sentences into two so it is easier to read.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes.

Organization evaluation 5/5[edit]

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

Images and media evaluation[edit]

For New Articles Only[edit]

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? yes
  • 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? No. Please use the headings feature and get rid of the bullet points.
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes

New Article Evaluation 3.5/5[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? n/a
  • What are the strengths of the content added? very thorough. I like that there is one section for companies and another for user's role. I like that you mention the name (authors) of the study in the sentence. I will do that to mine instead of saying "in past studies". By naming the study it is more transparent/neutral
  • How can the content added be improved? fix format and use more articles!

Overall evaluation 4/5[edit]

Peer review First Draft: Midnightinterludes x ColdRainyDay45[edit]

General info[edit]

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it clearly defines the term.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, Introduces the idea of companies and important terms like Privacy by Design, contributing factors, and applications.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes, the lead is concise and provides a good introduction to the topic.

Lead Evaluation: 4/5

Content[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, and I like how there are examples provided so that readers can better understand/relate to the information. I also found the section about External Contributors in Privacy Settings very interesting.
  • Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, sources are all from the 2000s.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think it might be interesting to look into privacy settings in other spaces like smart devices/smart home.

Content evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

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: 5/5[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

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.
  • Are the sources current? Yes.
  • Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Organization[edit]

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? No.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I think it might be nice to break the users' role section into a few subsections.

Organization evaluation: 4/5[edit]

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

Images and media evaluation: N/A[edit]

For New Articles Only[edit]

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? Yes, great sources are used.
  • 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? Everything is great, just the bullet points just need to be removed.
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

New Article Evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

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? I like how the information is organized and how there is an "Enhancements" section.
  • How can the content added be improved? It might be interesting to look into the device space with smart devices/Apple Watch/Biometric Privacy Settings.

Overall evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Peer review Draft #2: Midnightinterludes x ColdRainyDay45[edit]

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

General info[edit]

  • Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Midnightinterludes
  • Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy Settings

Lead[edit]

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, the topic is clearly defined in the first sentence.
  • 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, everything in the lead is relevant to the article.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • Yes, the lead is concise and provides a good introduction to the topic. I would maybe consider breaking it into two paragraphs.

Lead evaluation: 4/5[edit]

Content[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • Yes, I also like that in the Users' role section there is an "Updated Privacy Settings" section that mentions information specifically from this year (2020).
    • I also really liked the content addition in the "Interactive educational games" section.
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • Yes, sources are all from the 2000s.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • I might consider switching the order of the paragraphs in the companies' role section because the second paragraph is more explicitly related to the title of the section.

Content evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

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, but I would maybe add more information to the Companies' role section to balance it out with the Users' role section.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation: 4.5/5[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • Yes, citations are present throughout the article, and the sources used are reliable.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
  • Are the sources current? Yes, all of the sources are from the 2000s.
  • Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • Yes, the information is well-well written, and I really like how the content is broken down into sections.
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • No, I was not able to find any significant grammar or spelling errors.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes, I really liked how the Users' role section was broken up into subsections. This really helped with breaking down main ideas.

Organization evaluation: 4.5/5[edit]

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

Images and media evaluation: N/A[edit]

For New Articles Only[edit]

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?
    • Yes, great sources are used as references.
  • 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.

New Article Evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
    • Yes, I like the way the article is organized and the content addition to the enhancements section. More perspectives are showcased throughout.
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
    • I really like the subsections and how many different perspectives were considered like external factors and theories.
  • How can the content added be improved?
    • I think adding more information the companies' role section might help with balancing the content in the users' role section. I also think privacy settings in voice control devices/devices may be something interesting to explore, but the article is very well developed already, and I really enjoyed reading it!

Overall evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Peer review 2 - Midnightinterludes x Cheersmate510[edit]

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

General info[edit]

Lead[edit]

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 5/5[edit]

Content[edit]

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? I am not sure what is typical for Wikipedia articles, but may be definition should be a separate paragraph in the lead section. I would compare it to other articles or ask someone.

Content evaluation 4/5[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

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? Not really, but your user section is much longer than the one for companies. Is this representative? If so, then you are fine.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation 4.5/5[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

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
  • Are the sources current? yes
  • Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation 5/5[edit]

Organization[edit]

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? Not errors, but suggestions to improve readability
    • Privacy settings allow one a person to control what information is shared on these platforms.
    • Privacy settings can be inaccessible or effortful, and teenagers that feel fatalistic toward their personal privacy are more likely to depend on interpersonal privacy techniques.
      • ^ This is oddly worded
    • In 2020, Facebook began implementing the option to give users to delete or archive past posts from a certain time or from certain people.
      • ^ Is it possible to find a month or season?
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes.

Organization evaluation 5/5[edit]

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

Images and media evaluation[edit]

For New Articles Only[edit]

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? yes
  • 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

New Article Evaluation 5/5[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

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? Good organization! Midnightinterludes has added headings!
  • How can the content added be improved? fix format and use more articles!

Overall evaluation 4/5[edit]

Peer review 3 - Midnightinterludes x Cheersmate510[edit]

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

General info[edit]

Lead[edit]

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 5/5[edit]

Content[edit]

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? nope!

Content evaluation 5/5[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

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 5/5[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

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
  • Are the sources current? yes
  • Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation 5/5[edit]

Organization[edit]

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? Not errors, but suggestions to improve readability
    • Privacy settings allow one a person to control what information is shared on these platforms.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes.

Organization evaluation 5/5

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

Images and media evaluation n/a - but I think your article would benefit from having some![edit]

For New Articles Only[edit]

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? yes
  • 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

New Article Evaluation 5/5[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

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? Good organization!
  • How can the content added be improved? maybe include more of the main article: ___ or see also: ___
    • trust based negotiations, interactive educational games, privacy paradox etc. since you only wrote a paragraph for each
  • also create a "see also" section at the bottom.

Overall evaluation 5/5[edit]

Peer review Draft #3: Midnightinterludes x ColdRainyDay45[edit]

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

General info[edit]

  • Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Midnightinterludes
  • Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy Settings

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, I like how you organized the lead into three paragraphs.
  • 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, and I like how key words and phrases/acronyms are all outlined in this section.

Lead evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Content[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • Yes, everything is relevant to the topic.
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • Yes, sources are all from the 2000s.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • I like the addition of "See Also" and "Main article" at the beginning of sections of your article. I will also try to include this in my own article.
    • Nothing is missing, very thorough.

Content evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

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?
    • I really like how you added to the "Companies' role" section. It is perfectly balanced with the "Users' role" section.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • Yes, citations are appropriately placed, and all content is backed up by reliable sources.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
  • Are the sources current? Yes, all of the sources are from the 2000s.
  • Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • Yes, I really like the subsections that were added to the "Companies' role" section. I also like the subsections in the "External contributors" section.
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • No, I was not able to find any significant grammar or spelling errors.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes, great organization!

Organization evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
  • Are images well-captioned? N/A
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A
    • It might be nice to add a picture showing the user interface of privacy settings for different sites.

Images and media evaluation: N/A[edit]

For New Articles Only[edit]

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?
    • Yes, several sources.
  • 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. In the "Culture" section, I think it might be unnecessary to hyperlink to the "Japan" and "China" articles.

New Article Evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
    • Yes, the organization is great, and really helps with understanding main ideas/perspectives throughout the article.
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
    • I really like "See also" and "Main article" sections at the beginning of the sections "Significance" and "Default settings." I also liked how the "Definition" section from earlier drafts was incorporated into the lead. The organization is also really nice!
  • How can the content added be improved?
    • Great job! I think it might be nice to add some images and more hyperlinks to the "Interactive educational games section" and in the "Companies' role section."

Overall evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Peer review 4 - Midnightinterludes x Cheersmate510[edit]

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

General info[edit]

Lead[edit]

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 5/5[edit]

Content[edit]

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.

Content evaluation 5/5[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

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 5/5[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

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.
  • Are the sources current? Yes
  • Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation 5/5[edit]

Organization[edit]

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? No.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation 5/5

Images and Media[edit]

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? I believe so.
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Could be improved. It is hard to read the words in the notification for deleting Facebook image. You can use advanced settings to make the picture larger!

Images and media evaluation 4.5/5[edit]

For New Articles Only[edit]

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? Yes.
  • 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. Please hyperlink Wechat in significance and Qzone if it exists. Maybe third person effect in the privacy paradox section

New Article Evaluation 4.5/5[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

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? Your article is very detailed and easy to read. I like how through your see also section is. I also like all of the hyperlinks under the headings (main article, see also).
  • How can the content added be improved? Lowercase the second/following words in section titles: Policy design, Updated privacy sections, and Privacy paradox (also in the see also correct the text shown for the hyperlink). Overall very well done. Thank you for all of the feedback! I can't wait to see yours fully posted.

Overall evaluation 4.5/5[edit]

Peer review Draft #4: Midnightinterludes x ColdRainyDay45[edit]

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

General info[edit]

  • Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Midnightinterludes
  • Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy Settings

Lead[edit]

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, it is a quote definition.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • Yes, great job! I love how you incorporated the various aspects of your article in the lead. It's super easy to follow and provides a great overview!
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • No.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • Great length and amount of detail!

Lead evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Content[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • Yes, I really like the information added to the "Significance" section.
    • I also like the images that were added like the RR image that provides a good visual of some of the descriptions.
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • Yes, all sources are from the 2000s.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • No, everything is relevant. Nothing is missing.

Content evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions:

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

Tone and balance evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • Yes, I like how new sources are added weekly.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • Yes, they cover the diverse array of mentioned topics.
  • Are the sources current?
    • Yes, all from the 2000s.
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • Yes.

Sources and references evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • Yes, great job!
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • I could not find any.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes, I really like how the main ideas are broken down, especially for longer sections like the "Users' role" section. I also like the subsections in the "External contributors" section. I really like the societal norms information as well.

Organization evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Images and Media[edit]

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?
    • Yes.
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
    • Yes. I really like the images that you selected to use!

Images and media evaluation:[edit]

For New Articles Only[edit]

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?
    • Yes, great sources!
  • 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, there are links to other articles and "Main article" and "See also" sections.
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
    • Yes.

New Article Evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
    • Yes, I really like how thorough your article is. There are many aspects of the subject matter covered, and I especially like how you explain everything with the right amount of detail.
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
    • The images are a great addition as they help with visualizing some of what is described. I also really like all of the examples that you incorporated throughout your article.
  • How can the content added be improved?
    • This is a super minor thing, but maybe consider making the subsections "Subheading 1" size.
    • Great job! I really enjoyed seeing your article improve week by week! I can't wait for it to be in the mainspace!

Overall evaluation: 5/5[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Midnightinterludes/sandbox&oldid=974250901"