User:Peterorfanos/sandbox

Article evaluation

Talk:Facebook#Relevancy of Hot or Not Creation

Article Ideas

Agatha Baclear

- Currently does not have a Wikipedia article which I believe she should have one

- Sections

--- Liquid democracy and her vision of real-time politics

--- Her upbringing and path to becoming a politician

--- Campaign against Nancy Pelosi

"Politics and Technology" - Politics and technology

- Article presents no real examples of how technology and politics intermix

- Criticism does not even include hacking, manipulation, absence of

- There exists many examples of technology and politics (Big data, Hacking elections, Campaigning through technology, Liquid Democracy, etc.)

- Much controversy and large events that exposes prevalence of technology in politics

- No section on future streams of technology in politics

- No useful pictures that show different companies/devices used for politics

- Lack of section on devices (polling machines, electronic voting machines, etc.) used in politics

- No talk section means article is not as dense as it should be

- Lightly grazes on technology creating #BlackLivesMatter and other important online waves but does got go in depth nearly enough

- Online campaign fundraising and donations not mentioned

- Twitter and President Trump's/others' use of the social media not present

- Threats of violence through social media/coverage of terrorist attacks

- Exposure of other countries and how it has impacted

"Technology Policy" - Technology policy

- Article lacks concrete examples of policy around elections and technology

- Article does not reveal different events between Congress and CEO's of technology companies (Zuckerberg)

- No real time-table of the creation of policy that restricts/promotes technology

- Cambridge Analytic-a and other companies forcing governments to create policy should be mentioned

- Social media sites restricting hateful viewpoints and its intersection with the first amendment

Finalize your topic/find your sources

On the technology policy Wikipedia article I would like to add a section on how there are many people who believe the US and other governments are now demanding policy that will regulate the use of technology in elections, politics, business, and other daily innovations that may be encroaching on people's lives. I would like to specify my article on the current political issues with the tampering of elections in the US and other nations involvement while also mentioning the prominence of big data in elections and how Congress has been involved with attempting to resolve those problems. I would also like to dive deep into the history of propaganda and how technology policy has been negatively used to suppress certain ideas and people while pushing a specific agenda on citizens of a country. I also believe the article should contain examples of technology policy that have been implemented in the US and other nations to protect businesses and civilians from being taken advantage of/put in harms way.

Works Cited

Allcott, Hunt, and Matthew Gentzkow. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 31, no. 2, 2017, pp. 211–236., doi:10.1257/jep.27.1.1.

Dasgupta, Partha. Economic Policy and Technological Performance. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005.

Liberini, Federica, et al. “Politics in the Facebook Era.” VOX, 7 Nov. 2018, voxeu.org/article/politics-facebook-era.

Madrigal, Alexis C. “What Facebook Did to American Democracy.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 16 Nov. 2017, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/.

Stine, Deborah D. Science and Technology Policymaking: a Primer. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2009.

Winkler, Allan M. The Politics of Propaganda. Yale Univ. Pr., 1979.

Start Drafting Your Contributions

The Call for Technology Policy in Politics

With the prevalence of technology throughout the 2000's, its power in politics have some people concerned about the speed at which it is advancing and the lack of sufficient regulation for it. In the 2016 Presidential election, Neil Jenkins, the director in the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications at the Department of Homeland Security, revealed that Russian government actors had hacked into the Democratic National Committee's servers to steal some of their information against the Republican candidate Donald Trump.

The Russian infiltrators did not stop there, when new information showed that someone attempted to breach the election system by viewing the state's voter-registration database and stealing information on the registered voters. Additionally, Arizona received cyber-attacks from the same I.P. addresses that had been used in the previous Illinois attacks to install malware. Not long after, Jenkins found that many other states had received attacks from this same I.P. address and reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee that concluded Russia targeted every U.S. state.

Given the breaches in the many different election systems in throughout the 2016 election, political figures nationwide have taken a firm stance against using electronic voting machines to avoid any future interference. One organization that leads the push toward U.S. paper voting is the Verified Voting Foundation; the foundation and its members believe that in order to protect the safety of U.S. elections in the future, government officials must be connected with experts in the field of technology to ensure unsecure and unreliable voting machines are not being used in the electoral process. One of the board of directors, Barbra Simons, has gone as far to proclaiming that voting machines should be forbidden from U.S. elections as she, and many of her colleagues agree, that any data available online is subject to attack.

Also in the 2016 election, the data firm Cambridge Analytica, became heavily involved with the enacting of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States when his Trump campaign hired the firm to guide his the data collecting process of it. In their work, Cambridge Analytica managed to scrape data on over 50 million users that detailed the users' personal information. The data originated from Aleksandr Kogan, a former psychology professor at the University of Cambridge, who gave Cambridge Analytica by using a data extracting technique utilized at the University in which users filled out a personality survey and download an app.

With this data, the company created personality profiles for the users and mapped their trends in likes and friends to direct certain ads toward the user. Considering that 62% of adults receive their news on social media sites like Facebook, Cambridge Analytica influenced the result of the election which leaves many wondering what role big data should have in the electoral process. Due to the influence that big data had in this election, the call to limit access to it and its usage has sparked a movement toward creating policy to restrict companies access to data called the "Great Privacy Awakening". The state of California has begun exploring this regulation by enacting the California Consumer Privacy Act in late June, 2018; the act states that companies must declassify what sort of data they collect and grant users the option to delete data. This leaves the rest of the U.S. watching to see the effectiveness of the California law in hopes to further protect U.S. citizens from becoming a victim to more unethical data practices.

A prototype of an autonomous Uber vehicle.

The Call for Technology Policy in Everyday Life

Along with the call for regulation in the political sector, many technological interventions in the everyday lives of citizens are raising concern for the future of regulation. For example, the concept of self-driving cars has grabbed the attention of many, including the popular rideshare company Uber; in March 2018, the company tested an AI-driven vehicle in Tempe, Arizona and during this test the vehicle struck and killed a 49 year old woman .

In this test, the self-driving vehicle was monitored by an Uber employee who they deemed a "watchdog." It was later revealed that the reasoning for the accident had been due to an issue with the programming of the vehicle's AI; the company failed to create code capable of detecting jaywalkers . Rather than classifying the jaywalking pedestrian as a human, the code defined the woman as "other" which the code did not have a protocol to perform under; it wasn't until 1.2 seconds before impact that the code detected a bicycle and alerted the vehicle to brake that the car began to slow down which was too late to avoid the accident.

It was later determined by an investigation conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that the Uber "watchdog" had been distracted by their mobile device; this news called for the US government to create policy to protect citizens from further incidents. In result, the NTSB released new regulation that required companies testing autonomous vehicles on public roads to have their safety procedures throughly inspected and hand-recorded which would be subject to regulatory confirmation.

A civil drone flying over a U.S. beach.

Another emerging technology that has captivated individuals worldwide are the civil use of drones. These drones are aerial vehicles controlled from a secondary device like a remote control, cell phone, etc. that are commonly equipped with a real-time camera uploading images to the user's device. Concerns around these unmanned vehicles have many concerned with the safety and privacy of them; many believe that these flying drones intrude on an individuals 4th amendment right that protects an individuals privacy while others believe that the drones pose a threat of collisions with other aircraft. In response to such concerns, in December 2015 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) created rules that stated owners of these civil drones must register them with the FAA while individual states have enforced stricter laws that restrict them from certain public areas.

This innovation has also attracted the attention of corporations, like Amazon, wishing to perfect their operations; in a proposed plan to commercialize drone delivery, the company has created prototypes of Amazon Prime Air drones built to deliver packages to customers' doorsteps via aerial travel in 30 minutes or less. With a vision of hundreds of AI-driven drones flying freely to households nationwide, many opponents of such innovations have privacy concerns, including the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Marc Rotenberg. With these concerns in mind, in June 2016 the FAA released federal policy that made using drones much easier; companies would be able to fly drones under 55 pounds if they were operated by a person over 16 years old, flown below 400 feet, and were 5 miles away from an airport. Although companies could use these drowns, the FAA failed to allow drones to be used for commercial package delivery due to the restriction that the drone must stay in-sight of the operator.

Regulating the Internet

In the United States, net neutrality has been greatly discussed in politics; the idea of it is that corporations, governments, and internet providers should not discriminate against content on the internet. This came about in the early 2000's when some internet providers (Comcast, AT&T, etc.) were restricting its customers from doing this like accessing VPNs and using Wi-Fi routers. The term "net neutrality" was created by Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor, who called for net neutrality laws due to his concern that restricting certain internet access would greatly inhibit long-term innovation. Shortly after in 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under the Bush administration, issued a policy statement restricted providers from disallowing users to access legal content on the internet while allowing American citizens to freely connect their devices to whichever internet connections they desire. Shortly after its creation, the FCC began enforcing these new rules when in 2005 it found a North Carolina internet provider, Madison River, guilty of interrupting internet phone calls: the FCC dealt the company fines and demanded Madison River to halt its unlawful actions.

It wasn't long until this policy statement's authority came into question when in 2008 Comcast sued the FCC. In a court hearing, a federal court found that the FCC did not have the legal power to enforce the 2005 policy statement when they attempted to restrict Comcast from slowing their customers' connection to BitTorrent due to it greatly contributing to piracy. This did not greatly impact the FCC's power, however, because in 2009 it forced Apple and AT&T to discontinue restricting its customers from making Skype calls. With the Comcast case looming over the FCC, it desired to restructure its rules to make them stronger in court and in 2010, under the Obama administration, it did just that.

However, under this new legislation, the telecommunications company Verizon filed another lawsuit against the agency. Once again, the federal court found that, under Title II of the Communications Act, that the FCC did not have the jurisdiction to regulate corporations who are not "common carriers." To address this issue, the former FCC-chair Tom Wheeler decided to deem broadband carriers, like Verizon, to be "Title II carriers" enabling the agency to regulate them which then sparked the passing of a new net neutrality order in 2015. Still receiving lawsuits from many corporations, the new order finally held strong in federal court when the court declared that the agency's new rules were in fact under the authority of the FCC.

Under the Trump administration, President Donald Trump appointed Ajit Pai as the new FCC chairman in January 2017 which lead to the voting out of the 2015 policy order in December 2017; under the new regulation, the rules of the 2015 order were dropped entirely and the regulation stated that broadband carriers were only required to publicly reveal how they were managing their networks. Supporters of this new regulation claim that in reversing the former net neutrality policy, networks and internet providers will have more incentive to innovate and improve their networks by charging large companies for internet usage and introducing competition. In October 2019, a federal appeals court ruled that the FCC's reversal of the 2015 policy order that imposed regulations was in fact lawful.

Mass surveillance and censorship

One way governments utilize technology policy to their benefit is through the mass surveillance of its citizens. Nations around the globe use these technologies and certain polices to listen to people's cell phone calls, read emails and text messages, track citizens' GPS, and many more actions claiming to be improving national safety for their country. However, some nations will abuse their power of mass surveillance and inhibit the freedom of its citizens. Here are a few examples of nations currently employing mass surveillance:

Name of Country	Methods of Surveillance (Examples)
China	Internet surveillance In 2018, the Chinese government requires major companies (Alibaba, Baidu, ByteDance, and Tencent) to track information on citizens' activity on blog posts, chat rooms, short video platforms and webcasts China prompts its citizens to delete "dangerous content" off of their devices and grants access only to approved applications and content Chinese companies are required to hand over data to the government at a moments notice Video surveillance Under legislation, China monitors its people using thousands of cameras that utilize artificial intelligence and facial recognition to track the actions of its people Chinese law enforcement wear facial-recognition glasses capable of scanning and identifying civilians in just a few seconds
India	Telecommunications surveillance Under legislation, the Indian government is able to intercept telecommunications, with certain checks and balances that prevent a misuse of these actions. However, these written down rules are not clear and it is not clear if the government follows these rules
Iran	Internet censorship In November of 2019, the Iranian government shut off internet and mobile data access to more than 80 million of its citizens due to widespread protest against rising gasoline prices to restrict communication With protests and rallies against the government sparking in 2018, the Iranian government has gone threw waves of internet shutdowns on many popular social media sites and regional slowdowns in order to discourage civilian communication
North Korea	Internet and information restrictions Supreme leader, Kim Jong Un, completely controls all public information while serving harsh punishments for individuals who attempt to access content outside of these restrictions With the regime owning all news outlets, North Korea regulates and limits which kinds of information its citizens have access to with some looser restrictions being applied to elites and university students The government gives its people radio and television sets that only have access to government stations with these radio devices needing regular registrations with the police
United States	Telecommunications and internet surveillance Under the FISA Amendment Act passed in 2008 by President Bush, the NSA's power to monitor citizens' electronic communications had been largely expanded and allows them monitor individuals contact with foreigners while also permitting the government to conduct surveillance on people without probable cause

Many technology producing corporations have taken advantage of these policies around the world and sold different devices for these nations to use for surveillance. For example,

Peer review three articles

User:Maschristi/Agatha Bacelar/Peterorfanos Peer Review

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The article does not have a clear lead.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • There are a couple paragraphs introducing her
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No, the lead does not but could outline the major sections much better

Lead evaluation[edit]

Lead of the article is up to you to make because it is a new article so try to give more of a general summation of her and her career/beliefs.

Content[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the content is relevant.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, content added is up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • I think adding more on liquid democracy could help out your article a lot!

Content evaluation[edit]

Content is overall relevant and necessary for her Wikipedia page but should reference more on liquid democracy as that is her main political device/what she is know for.

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, content is not bias in anyway.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, no claims are made to seem biased.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, no viewpoints are over or under represented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, even though you talk about the race you do a good job of not trying to convince the reader to vote for her.

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation[edit]

There are no sources in the additions to the article.

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, content sounds professional and is written very well.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No grammatical 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 believe the content is well-organized because it separates background and political history well.

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

N/A

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?
  • There are no sources included.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • No 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?
  • No, not really.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • Article does not link to other articles.

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation[edit]

The content written is all new as it is a new article and the content written is all relevant. Please include citations and separate your article into concise sections that easily guide the reader. Adding a piece about liquid democracy would also be pretty useful.

User:Jameswang323/Civic Intelligence/Peterorfanos Peer Review

General info[edit]

• Whose work are you reviewing? Jameswang323
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jameswang323/sandbox

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, the lead has been updated.
• 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?
  • Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Yes, the lead is concise.

Content[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, all content is up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • Yes, there is some content that does not belong.

Content evaluation[edit]

I think that James does a great job with adding information to the article however I think the section on "trolling" is unnecessary. Although it does tie into how it can negatively impact civic intelligence I think that you start to make a claim about it which I don't think is necessary so maybe try to make it seem less like a claim.

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • For the most part
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The trolling spot.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, there are not.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No.

Tone and balance evaluation[edit]

I think the only gripe I have is with the trolling part, In the section you seem to make claims that you are concluding about how trolling causes all of these things but rather you should include examples of how trolling has caused certain movements/actions to happen (Area 51 raid could slide in).

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes content is backed up.
• 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[edit]

The sources that James used were all very relevant and current plus the variety of sources that he used was very helpful for his article and is something I hope to get a little better at,

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?
  • There were a few
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • I think it is well organized, could be broken up though

Organization evaluation[edit]

The flow of the entire drafted article seemed to work very well. I think that if you were to use some other headings to break up what you are trying to elaborate on that would be a large help toward guiding the reader through the very intriguing information you've spelled out.

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

N/A

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?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• 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?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation[edit]

I think that the content added improves the quality of the article tremendously. The current article lacks the details that James brings to the table and I am excited to see where James can add to it more. Personally, I really like the information on Boyte you merged into your article; it worked well with the whole political engagement aspect and explained a huge part of political engagement in our society. The one thing that could be improved is that the trolling portion seems to try to make claims that are not backed by sources so please try to find examples where trolling caused what you are claiming and you should be fine.

Responding to Peer Reviews

I agree, the language in my article can seem bias in one direction because of the nature of the section I am trying to add to the article about people wanting policy on technology. In the future, I will avoid using words like "cry" and "need" and try to make the diction more neutral. I want to add titles to my article, however, I will need to restructure the order and flow of my article because I am trying to have all the paragraphs flow with one another at the moment but I realize that since there are different ideas so close breaking it up can be very useful. I'm currently struggling with finding a bunch of articles for my ideas; I would like to have a section about policy that has already been enacted into law in the US and other places but I have been having a difficult time finding that. I'll work on completing the last few paragraphs as I am still trying to find some direction for them.