Talk:Cambridge Analytica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternet C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject icon
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLondon Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Intelligence / Technology / British / European / Post-Cold War C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Intelligence task force
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconNew York City Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).

Closure

Has the company closed down effective of today's statement, or are they simply stating their intention to close? It seems a bit unclear at this point. Maybe we need to still refer to the company in the present until we're certain they have closed. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, as i understand from the press release (https://ca-commercial.com/news/cambridge-analytica-and-scl-elections-commence-insolvency-proceedings-and-release-results-3) they have ceased operations with immediate effect, I therefor believe it is appropriate to refer to CA in past tense Hybirdd (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The press release issued today says the company "is immediately ceasing all operations." I'd keep it in the present tense for at least today. At some point soon the independent sources will start talking about the company in the past tense, and then we should too. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible to do that, although it's been changed again since my previous post, so I won't bother to revert it. I must admit I'm not sure if a company ceases to exist when it announces its closure with immediate effect, or when all the relevant paperwork has been filed to wind it up. This is Paul (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is when the paperwork has been filled --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legally speaking a company still exists after the dissolution paperwork is filed, even if operations have shut down. There are assets to be sold and creditors to pay. It can take some time. However I'd ignore the legal technicalities and focus on what the reliable independent sources say. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can presume it's just changed name (and the register isn't a great source). Cambridge Analytica's IP belongs to the administrator. BBC article on this Secretlondon (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Facebook (Meta) chooses to settle a class-action lawsuit against Cambridge Analytica, should we cite it as part of the 'Closure' section or aftermath? Or should it be included in the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal wikipedia? DrPronoun (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~~~ DrPronoun (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages need to be merged

I don't know how to do this, but this talk page needs to be merged with Talk:Emerdata. Distrait cognizance (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They should be merged once there's
consensus to do so. FallingGravity 15:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Akamai Content Management/ Amdocs

Article needs mention of the subsystem from which the data was "gleaned" (of the so-called "Facebook" data); A desktop user`s data would have become available in most (national) jurisdictions by way of Akamai, but userdata from a mobile-telephone would have been logged by Amdocs, if the correlation exists within that jurisdiction (servers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.166.182 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of any
reliable sources for this information? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Data Propria

X1\, the significance of the new information you added about Data Propria is unclear. From what I can tell from the sources you cited, (at least) a handful of CA's employees moved on to start DP, which is doing similar work; but we have other sources calling Emerdata CA's successor firm. Do you have any thoughts on how we can clear this up? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

"another successor" ?
X1\ (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
That makes no sense to me. I believe a company can generally only have one successor. What sourcing do we have indicating that DP is CA's successor? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
X1\ (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not hung up on it. It's just that it's confusing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of impact

This reads as a section designed to obscure. The statements "Political Scientists ...." What, all of them? Two of those referenced are journalists. What is a political scientist? Can anyone be quoted as in that category? Is a politician a political scientist? See the

Political Science page in Wikipedia and the notice in the lead. This is all from a particular perspective and not from a neutral POV,Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Ex-CA staffers working with Republican campaigns

We should note that former CA workers are working on 2018 Republican mid-term efforts and President Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election effort.[1]

talk) 13:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

add California's investigation?

From Portal:Current events/2019 November 6:

X1\ (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cambridge Analytica's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto2":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 23:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal section

I have placed a "summarize section" tag on the Scandal section, which is too long; there is already a separate article about the scandal..

Gershonmk 14:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 20:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Therapy For Participants in Psychological Warfare

How are people recovering from these experiences? If you read some of the documents, it becomes clear that people were pointedly driven to even murder others for reasons that were simply the stories and experiences they were manipulated with. Is anybody offering guidance for victims of things that extreme? Do any readers have advice of places to go, for kinda deprogramming and healing, or can relate what has worked for them? Xloem (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]