Talk:Data sovereignty

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gooddigitalcitizen. Peer reviewers: Kjiwoo9022, Torimcneely, Donatozleone.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Donato's Peer Review

The article on data sovereignty presents an understandable structure on the topic and accomplishes providing a strictly neutral and objective description of the topic.

The lead successfully delivers a road map of the important topics to be discussed in the article. The only criticism available to give is in the wording of presenting the two main issues of focus involving data sovereignty. Rather than stating that it is "usually" discussed in these ways, which denotes that there are other methods of understanding the topic not covered in the article, a simpler and to the point statement could be something along the lines of "There are two main streams of understanding in data sovereignty", which would clarify that these are the major applications of the topic and would limit leading the reader to understanding that the article is limited.

The body of the article in it's current form (which will likely fill out after this initial draft) successfully deliver neutral, objective understandings of the issues being presented. They present a clear starting line, which is followed with information backing up the claim. The article will deliver solid descriptive content if the author continues to write in this form for the final draft.

There are many places where citations are needed, however this is understandable at the initial stages of the draft as is indicated by the various source names in parentheses across the article. Ensuring that all information is backed by a source will be important to work on with much of the text, however the sources provided successfully cover a decent range, mainly academia and legislation.

Overall, the article is a good start to discussion on data sovereignty. Much more content will likely be added towards the final product, so as long as objective and neutral analysis are continued backed by sources, the article will be extremely well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donatozleone (talk • contribs) 23:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ji Woo's Review

Overall, the article on Data Sovereignty shows the great breath of research scope, and contains various contexts in which the term "data sovereignty" is being used. Particularly, indigenous context gives a fresh outlook that the political contests around access, ownership, and various practices surrounding data are simultaneously happening all across the world.

The lead provides a good summary of how the article will unfold in the given circumstance that there are multitudes of contexts that dictates the practices around data sovereignty differently. My only suggestion is that I think lots of people accessing this article will, by default, think of Data Sovereignty in "transnational contexts," especially due to GDPR in EU is becoming the trending topic. But this is just my opinion. I only wish to highlight this because in transnational contexts, data sovereignty is tightly associated with the global surveillance and national security issues, while in indigenous contexts, it seems it's more about self-governance. I think making this distinction early in the lead will help the readers become aware that there exists two or more separate practices, entailing different political consequences.

Body contains lots of reliable research source, and lots of points where the author can elaborate on, which seems to be in good progress. Particularly, "critiques" sections set the objective and neutral tone of the article.

My topic "Open By Default" too is similar to this topic in that the term is being used in several different contexts. And depending on which context the term is used, the nature of relevant information differ greatly. In this sense, I think this article is an excellent example on how to assort information from otherwise disparate political contexts.

Olivia's Peer Review

Hi Olivia,

WOW! This is a really great article. You've got a concise introduction for readers as well as a clear structure. I really like how you've included a section on data sovereignty in the Indigenous context. You also seem to have a list of reliable sources, as well as a nice mix of formal and informal sources. You've effectively managed to remain neutral by using leads such as "it is argued". My only suggestion would be to maybe talk a bit more about Canada and data sovereignty. You state that Canada has enacted various sovereignty measures...can you talk a bit about some of them? I wish I had more constructive criticism to give but I really can't find much wrong with your article. Maybe a final touch would be to include an image or graph of some sort?

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torimcneely (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)