This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Bravetheif IMHO this still doesn't pass notability, do you want more time to find strong WP:RS or should I ask for a third opinion based on its current form?
[8] It has also had independent scholarly commentary, such as what I linked. In particular it's "Temporary Contact Number" concept has had a fair amount of discussion by both academics and media, [9] [10] [11] [12] since TCN is the only digital contact tracing protocol that uses unique identifiers for each encounter. The others, Google/Apple, BlueTrace, PEPP-PT, and DT-3T all use Ephemeral IDs shared across encounters. Bravetheif ( talk) 09:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Broadening it to Temporary Contact Numbers in general rather than just the TCN Protocol might help, but in that case a lot of the weakly-sourced content would still need to get gutted IMHO. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 05:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Bravetheif IMHO this still doesn't pass notability, do you want more time to find strong WP:RS or should I ask for a third opinion based on its current form?
[8] It has also had independent scholarly commentary, such as what I linked. In particular it's "Temporary Contact Number" concept has had a fair amount of discussion by both academics and media, [9] [10] [11] [12] since TCN is the only digital contact tracing protocol that uses unique identifiers for each encounter. The others, Google/Apple, BlueTrace, PEPP-PT, and DT-3T all use Ephemeral IDs shared across encounters. Bravetheif ( talk) 09:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Broadening it to Temporary Contact Numbers in general rather than just the TCN Protocol might help, but in that case a lot of the weakly-sourced content would still need to get gutted IMHO. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 05:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Response to
third opinion request:
The question appears to be whether the subject of this article is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Given the large number of sources provided for the article, I have undertaken a review of these with a view to understanding whether the sources go toward the establishment of notability. This review is included below.
In short, my view is that (based on the current sourcing) there is insufficient
coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject to presume that the subject of this article is suitable for a standalone article.
I will leave it to you to decide what to do next. I hope that this has been helpful. -- Jack Frost ( talk) 01:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Covid Watch was the first[22] organization to develop[23] and open source[24][25] an anonymous Bluetooth digital contact tracing protocol, publishing their white paper on the subject on 20 March 2020.[26] The group was founded as a research collaboration between Stanford University and the University of Waterloo.[27][28][29] The protocol they developed, the CEN Protocol, later named the TCN Protocol, was first released on 17 March 2020.[30][31][32] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinarwhite ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC) References
I wrote the majority of this article and have no affiliation with the subject. I've written similar articles for competing protocols such as BlueTrace, Decentralized Privacy-Preserving Proximity Tracing and Pan-European Privacy-Preserving Proximity Tracing, with which I also have no affiliation. @ ViperSnake151 could you please elaborate why you are disputing the neutrality of this article Bravetheif ( talk) 14:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
|