Talk:Voatz

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Erikabucb. Peer reviewers: Shrino, Oliviadey, Melissawwang, Maschristi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sid900. Peer reviewers: Jeshgus, VillusionV.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback on Article from Shriniket Maddipatla

I want to start by saying that you did a great job with citing sources throughout the article; it seems like you put a lot of time into making sure that every sentence was backed by a source. Each section had an appropriate amount of space allotted to it and reflected how important each section was. Besides a few slips, you did a great job maintaining a factual tone and NPOV. I also liked that you included a criticism section to your article. I also felt that your overall outline was appropriate and touched on the key ideas of your topic.

One word choice I noticed was the word "claims" in the first sentence. I know what you meant to say, but to me, that word choice breaks NPOV. When I read it, I felt like you were implying that they were lying. I would just recommend that you change the specific word choice or the wording of the sentence, so that it sounds more factual rather than argumentative. But, again it seems like an honest mistake.

And later, when you use "allegedly" and "may" in the same sentence, it seems redundant. Both word choices mean basically the same thing.

In the 2018 West Virginia section, I would recommend deleting or changing the last two sentences regarding cybersecurity and Voatz changing their tech. The idea can still be expressed, but the wording needs to be changed to reflect NPOV. When you say "must," you are implying a view on Voatz that it is weak or ineffective.

Tiny spelling error in the criticism section: the part about "in an interview."

Shrino (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Editing by Olivia Dey

I thought the author did a great job at including a sufficient amount of information without making it overwhelming. Each section has a good amount of content and it is interesting and important information. I also really liked the addition of the times Voatz has been used in government. I can tell the author took time to find credible sources because all the information is cited well with reliable sources. The only problems I saw were a few grammatical errors and sentence structure errors but they were easy fixes. I think a nice addition to the article would be a small section on blockchain and how it relates to Voatz because after reading it it definitely seems that they are very involved with each other. Also, I found the part on the attempted hack to be very intriguing and I think it would be interesting to add more content to that section and dive deeper into that event. Oliviadey (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback on Article from Christina Masnyy

The first thing I notices was a great job in using a great amount of citations and evidence to claim the validity of the information in the article. I think the article is very well laid out and did a good job of presenting information in an organized way. Throughout the article the only piece of advice I could give it to remember NPOV and that sometime small filler words can add to the writing but it changes the way the information is perceived! This is a small issue that can be fixed just by rereading the article with that in mind. Overall especially with being a new article, the information given is great and I can see this staying up on wikipedia and not being deleted. 2607:F140:6000:16:C8AC:5D37:5F27:523D (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Maschristi 17:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Christina Masnyy

Content removal

Hi! I was approached by the student editing the page about content that was removed from the article without a lot of explanation as to why it was removed. 209.6.231.125, can you explain why the material was removed? Some of the limited comments included notes that the content wasn't properly summarizing the source - however the student is concerned that there may be a conflict of interest here since some of the editing seems to have been done to make the company look better. If you work for the company or were otherwise hired or asked to edit the page, be aware that this poses a conflict of interest. As such, there is a very specific type of protocol that you must follow and it is not recommended that you edit the page directly. It's also best to be aware that if there is coverage that covers the company in a less than positive light, it can be included in the article - the article should not be edited in a way that would minimize these aspects of the company.

Since there was an attempt to reach out to you by another editor (Dibbydib) via a notice about removal of content without explanation, I may re-add the content. We're not opposed to the content being edited, but there should be an explanation about why the content was removed or edited. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• One of the more concerning removals was this one, where content that was not positive about the company was removed with only the statement "Cleaned up criticism". It doesn't explain why the material was problematic and needed to be removed at all - removal like this needs to be explained. I think I will also bring this up on the COI noticeboard as well, just in case. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

In reply: I agree with the editing that has been done.These two sentences seem to be excusing behavior that may be found unlawful: "Computer science students at the University of Michigan may have been involved with the case.[5] FBI investigators are speculating that the motive behind the attempted hack into the Voatz app may have been for a class assignment, rather than to alter votes." A "class assignment" to possibly break the law? To me, that adds to the possible crime, and excuses should not be provided.

I personally have corresponded with the "security experts" referenced, and I know them to be hysterical opponents of online voting, and to have NO science whatsoever to back up their alarmist assertions. "Theranos" is no more than a derogatory name, like "ass**le." The following sentences are so prejudicial that they are unworthy of inclusion in any Wilipedia article: "Voatz has seen substantial criticism from security experts, describing Voatz as the "≤Theranos≥ of voting" and "a ≤horrifically bad≥ idea".[6] Voatz has received additional criticism for not being transparent with their auditing process; although Voatz ≤claims≥ it has been subjected to security audits by independent technology firms, it has ≤not been forthcoming≥ with the results. For example, when reporters have reached out to auditors they did not hear back,[7] and Voatz has insisted that these same companies sign non-disclosure agreements prior to investigating the company.[8]" I have no connection with the company. I wrote a book about Internet voting. DrWJK (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography and edits

Upcoming edits

1. Add more elaborate explanations to Business model section 2. Give more all rounded view on the FBI investigation 3. List details of security threats the app and drawbacks of voting apps similar to these

Bibliography

1. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/voatz 2. https://cointelegraph.com/news/voatz-blockchain-app-used-in-us-elections-has-numerous-security-issues-says-report 3. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=56024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid900 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Better article

The present article is deletion-worthy. But Voatz appears notable - a quick google finds Bloomberg (Iowa fail) (security concerns), NYT (security fail, DHS warning), Vanity Fair ("The Theranos of voting"), WSJ (general article). So the article needs a revamp based on RSes - Voatz are (per RSes) awful and incompetent, but notably awful and incompetent - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)