Talk:Virtual Reality Data Practices

Length

Not including any headings or subheadings, this article has 2800 words. This comes close to the required word count of 3000 words. However, in order to be within reach of the 100-word margin, the author must include 100-300 more words of content.

Structure

The author’s opening paragraph is concise and informative. The author does a good job of explaining the background information for the topic as well as summarizing the main points of the article. If anything, the author could elaborate a little more on their summary of the data practices aspect in this paragraph, since the proportion between background information and summary is a little unbalanced.

The body of the article is divided into clear and efficient categories. They are mostly well-organized, however, I would suggest moving the section titled “VR Related Terminology” above the section titled “VR Device Categories,” as I feel that knowing this context should be established first for readers who may not know. I am somewhat hesitant about the relevance of the section titled “Growth of VR.” I can see how this would apply to the topic, given the more widespread influence VR will/can have on people. However, I would advise the author to expand/elaborate on this idea to fully tie this section together. Perhaps the author could mention how many people now own VR devices or how Facebook plans to incorporate the Metaverse into people’s daily lives.

Within some sections, the author includes bolded subheadings (such as those under “VR Data Collection Categories” and “VR Data Tracking”), often in bullet points. I would advise the author to be careful with how these are formatted within the sentence. In official Wikipedia articles I’ve seen, these bolded words are usually included within the sentence if they do not have a colon “:” separating it. The author uses a colon for some, but not for all, which can make the reading slightly confusing.

The author clearly references their sources regularly throughout the article. The sources appear to be mostly reliable. However, one of the sources comes from a different Wikipedia article. I would suggest parsing that article for the source they used and citing that instead of the Wikipedia article. This critique comes from advice from Wikipedia’s article on citations, saying, “it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedia's articles as sources.” I would also suggest perhaps finding more diverse sources since the author only cites nine in total. As for the grammar of the inline citations, there are a few instances where the author includes an extra period “.” following their citation, or no period at all. Referencing how official Wikipedia articles do this, I would suggest going back over and ensuring that the period always comes before the inline citation (if it is at the end of the sentence).

Clarity

The issue is mostly presented clearly by the author. The author clearly explains how VR devices/companies are able to collect a vast amount of personal data citing studies and weaknesses in VR privacy and regulations. However, I believe the author could make this issue clearer by explaining the implications of these weaknesses. Instead of just covering how data is collected negligently, perhaps the author could elaborate on potential consequences or even complaints/breaches that have already occurred.

Objective Reporting

The author maintains a neutral point of view for the majority of the article. I am concerned about the language used in “VR Privacy” and “VR Data Regulations,” however. I think that these sections are the weakest in terms of NPOV, as the author vouches for the inclusion of better data practices. Phrases such as, “consideration needs to be paid,” “the appropriateness of specific communications technologies should be considered,” and “VR systems should adhere to additional requirements,” express this bias, in particular. Perhaps the author could revise these statements by including that others have argued for this (citing a source). This would then frame these statements as objective reporting rather than objective facts. In the section titled “VR Data Sharing,” I only question if VR companies have responded to this study at all or if there have been experts that explain the data collection on behalf of VR companies. The author reports the study’s findings objectively, but it is important to include angles from both sides, if they exist.