User talk:AndersJohnson/Draft of Scantegrity II

Neutrality

User:Slakr has characterized an earlier version of this article as "blatant advertizing." His objections are mainly tonal, and he has declined to explain how he believes the tone is substantially different from that of Punchscan or ThreeBallot (which might also have tonal issues, I suppose). Actionable advice is sought here.

User:mboverload had described the same version as "very, very well-written," which appears to dispute Slakr's assertion, at least to the extent that the violation can be considered blatant.

Notability

At present, notability is a concern. In the weeks following the publication of the original Scantegrity II paper, the topic has received some attention from academia, from the press, and from other Wikipedia articles, but the primary sources for this material are mostly authors of the original paper.

I believe that this topic is likely to receive quite a bit more coverage in the coming months. Ideally, we'll see some other primary sources that contend some of the original authors' claims.

Conflict of interest

There has been a suggestion that I have a conflict of interest here. I find this bewildering, because I'm not aware of any plans to commercialize the system. For the record, I am not affiliated with the authors or with any invisible ink suppliers, and I don't stand to gain from the adoption of this system. (However, obviously I can't promise that this won't change in the future.)