Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mass surveillance

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have a fairly solid background from the technology side; I think it's important that more people are made more aware of who's watching them as they mildly surf the internet for dog toys. It's a loaded phrase, but I can think of none other than "corporate surveillance" unhindered by any laws in the US. 4000-word user consent agreements are a joke--"click here to agree" haha. So, I think this is a sub-topic of Mass surveillance/corporate. I didn't find it, but if it is here I'm happy to move myself over there :)

I'm not anti-corporate, really, but I am strongly anti-theft of personal information. Even if it's innocuous data --no one should be able to just take it. Full stop. I think this topic needs a lot of sunlight shined upon it, tbh, and I have a bit stored up. What think all of you? ArtemisXLVII (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@ArtemisXLVII: Wikipedia editing always starts with sources. What sources do you want to cite? Bluerasberry (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

With 25 years in tech, I'm the source, I suppose, or know the sources. In addition, there are tools available to all to follow the data -- to track the trackers. A source I'd cite is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, but I'm not in lock-step with them on all topics. I have a structured data, semantic web background in news sites in particular, so I understand the importance of sources and cross-referencing and linking information. What do you suggest I do next? ArtemisXLVII (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think my proposed topic doesn't quite fit under this government-centric category. I think it's related more to the wider privacy topic, so maybe one level up ArtemisXLVII (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@ArtemisXLVII: Writing for Wikipedia is comparable to writing a research literature review - when one makes a claim they have to cite a source. I recommend collecting a list of sources, then pulling facts from those sources while keeping your citations in order. Many beginners make the mistake of writing text first then seeking sources to back the claims, and I recommend against that. Citing EFF's publications is fine, and if you disclose Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, you can cite your own published works if it comes to that.

If you are interested in contributing news data then be aware of Wikidata projects including Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData and meta:WikiCite. If I can assist then ask for what you need. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for your help and guidance @Bluerasberry. You've helped point me in the right direction. I hope I will be able to contribute usefully. I'd like that very much. ArtemisXLVII (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, can I ask please if the members of this project can go to the talk page of this article I've been expanding and review it? It is still listed as a Stub on the Talk page and I'm still not quite sure on the Project-type and back-end work necessary here.

This is the article:

• Sentient (intelligence analysis system)
• Talk:Sentient_(intelligence_analysis_system)

I had expanded it from 2606 bytes long on January 1, 2024 to now 30,669 bytes long as of June 6, 2024. I updated a variety of related/connected pages as well.

I'm not quite sure what to do next and still have a variety of sources to still go through, but I may be running out of usable collateral (TBD, what I think I have left is here).

What's next? Refinement? Wikipedia:Good articles? I would definitely welcome some help on Talk:Sentient_(intelligence_analysis_system). Thanks all. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am currently drafting an article on Cyber Privacy (Draft:Cyber_privacy). I’m in the process of carefully addressing the reviewers' comments to improve the clarity and quality of the material. From the peer-reviewed literature, press articles, and books I have consulted, the term "cyber privacy" frequently appears when addressing mass surveillance. I am seeking feedback from the community on whether members have encountered this term in their own readings, and whether it was recognized as distinct from "internet privacy" or "digital privacy."

Questions for Discussion:

Have you encountered the term "cyber privacy" (or its variations) in the context of mass surveillance? If so, how is it treated in the literature, and is it distinguished from "internet privacy" or "digital privacy"?

Do you think the scope of the Mass Surveillance WikiProject should include broader discussions on privacy in cyberspace, beyond just internet privacy?

Additionally, I’ve observed that the Internet privacy article has several sections labeled as "opinion-based" (see WP:OR). Based on my review, the literature covering surveillance in cyberspace appears to extend beyond privacy concerns solely on the internet and could benefit from partitioning across multiple Wikipedia articles. I would appreciate any guidance from the community on how this distinction could be better addressed. Professorincryptography (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply