Talk:BlueLink (software)

Link dump

 * https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib_all.php?cmte=C00646877&type=A&cycle=2020
 * https://www.ft.com/content/b8083680-4741-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441
 * https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/after-epic-nightmare-in-iowa-democratic-app-built-by-secretive-firm-shadow-inc-comes-under-scrutiny/
 * https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/04/iowa-caucus-app-hillary-clinton/
 * https://www.kcrg.com/content/news/App-used-in-Iowa-caucuses-also-set-to-be-used-in-Nevada-567552311.html?ref=311

Victor Grigas (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

more links

 * https://www.newsweek.com/shadow-inc-posts-client-success-representative-job-listing-amid-iowa-caucus-mobile-app-failure-1485663
 * https://www.yahoo.com/news/shadow-inc-mysterious-clinton-linked-162000428.html
 * https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/y3m33x/heres-the-shadow-inc-app-that-failed-in-iowa-last-night
 * https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-caucus-results-delayed-by-apparent-app-issue-11580801699

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

How long was the app developed?
I read somewhere that the app was developed in three months (fairly short for something this important), but I'm not sure if that was reliable info or not. Can we find some info or a source about that and add it to the article? --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 05:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Problematic revert
Your reverts, and  don't make any sense. The material I removed/you added and readded were not "specific" they were redundant and the sources that you are using to put in new material are all partisan, borderline unreliable sources. Wikipedia policies for the sources/material you are using are clear on this (WP:BIASEDSOURCES, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:RSP). I have put a POV tag for the "services" section as we are now debating the problem material you have (re)added and will be reverting your changes if you do not respond to this comment. Flaughtin (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To further drive home my point about the partisan nature of your sources, I have added similarly partisan sources alongside the material/sources you readded. Any revert of that material will have to be justified in light of the material you added and readded. Flaughtin (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrt to your problem reverts ( and ) in relation to the above, they also do not make any sense and are in need of clarification. WP:RSP is clear those sources are biased and, accordingly per the relevant policies (e.g. attributepov, in-text, etc.), need to be qualified as such. (Which is why it should be noted once again why comments like this are just totally nonsensical) That's what the fight is about and you know it. You also removed the citation to Fox which is reliable. If we are going to bbe ok with using partisan sources, then the partisanship has to go both ways. All or nothing, no exceptions Flaughtin (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The policies you cite don't back your position. Take a look at WP:RSP, where The Daily Beast is listed:


 * "The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons."


 * The Intercept:
 * "There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept."


 * on WP:BIASED:
 * "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."


 * Sure we should make sure they are Citing sources attributed (as the RSP entry for Intercept states), but we don't have to throw it all out.David O. Johnson (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "we should make sure they are Citing sources attributed (as the RSP entry for Intercept states), but we don't have to throw it all out." Yes but that was my point you see, that is what I did in the beginning but the other editor wasn't interested in compromising and just made this nonsensical point (which you have been aware of) about how the attribution was "leading". The reason why I made the removal of those two sources was (as you noted) to show you how ridiculous it looks to have partisanship just going in one direction. Barring any objections from you i am going to be restoring the original attribution back in. I am also going to be putting in the Fox News articles back in the article, again barring any objections from you. Flaughtin (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you even doing, why would you do this when you admitted a few posts before that we need attribution for those very sources? Even the guy who initially purged the material is basically admitted he screwed up with the censorship. Explain or I will be reverting your changes if you do not respond to this comment. Flaughtin (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't get this argument. It's Don't make a mountain out of a molehill and detracting from editing of the article. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No no please this is not called an argument, this is called an excuse and a very mediocre one at that. Don't try to shift the blame onto me with this wikilawyering when this is all your fault. I will make it simple for you understand. I said the sources were biased. You also said the sources were biased. We both said the sources need attribution. End of. That's it. Debate over. So the next time somebody (me) puts the attribution in, don't touch. if you have nothing to say about this comment of mine, I will take that as evidence of consensus (WP:SILENCE) and be reverting your problem changes accordingly. Flaughtin (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm adding to the article, about products and services offered by the company and the known customers for those products and services. I'm also adding to the history of the company. My first 'revert' you cite made sense - I don't think that saying 'according to left-leaning' or anything similar is informative. If something is a plain fact it is irrelevant if a left or right or upside down source points it out. 'Revert' 2 - you cite me editing me, I don't understand what you mean here. 'Revert 3' I added public information about who the customers are, information that had been removed. Given that this company deals with voting/caucusing AND campaigning software, and the fact that they have been secretive, and the fact that conspiracy theories are flying around about this, I find it relevant that the factual information about who the customers are, and the services they paid for and how much they paid remains in the article. I encourage others to debate me on this point. I find it quite relevant considering the business that this company is in. Victor Grigas (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My first 'revert' you cite made sense - I don't think that saying 'according to left-leaning' or anything similar is informative. again this is nonsensical. The relevant policies on this are clear (WP:BIASEDSOURCES, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:RSP). I'll make this simple for you to understand. The sources you used are biased. Everyone (RSP) agrees on this. Biased sources need attribution. End of. Please do not try to weeasel your way out of this and give covering fire for your partisan material by saying how the qualifications aren't "informative". What would actualy be uninformative is if people did not immediately know of the openly tendentious nature of the material you are including. Use your partisan sources, but be prepared to accept the responsibillities for it. I will point out that the burden of the argument about the attribution issue has now shifted to you as there are now two people (see above) who agree with my position that there has to be attribution for your partisan sources so I will be restoring this edit at the earliest opportunity. Flaughtin (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just saved you the trouble and added it back in. IMO the sentence is now redundant, the affiliations are clear earlier in the article. If you want to delete the sentence entirely, I won't challenge it. Victor Grigas (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Shadow Inc management timeline
To clarify how the company is tied to the different campaigns, here is a timeline of key people of Shadow Inc.

Gerard Niemira

 * Niemira was the director of product for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign
 * Niemira was the founder of Groundbase
 * January 2019 Groundbase was acquired by ACRONYM. ACRONYM was founded in 2017.
 * Niemira became COO at ACRONYM.
 * February 2019 Niemira joined Shadow Inc.
 * May 2019 Niemira became CEO of Shadow Inc.

James Hickey

 * Hickey was an engineering manager at Hillary for America
 * Hickey became COO of Shadow Inc

Krista Davis

 * Davis was a backend engineer for the Clinton campaign.
 * Davis is the chief technical officer and chief software architect at Shadow Inc.

Tara McGowan

 * McGowan was a digital producer with President Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign.
 * McGowan was the founder of ACRONYM.

Sources: Salon.com (Feb 5, 2020), latimes.com (February 4, 2020), apnews.com (February 4, 2020)

My2cent, SWP13 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

software engineering practice questions
As I wrote in page-delete discussion, proper software project would do a post-mortem to identify failures; since they're a private company, they may not share, but techies will speculate: Doug Grinbergs (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Why all the effort and expense of apps - iOS and Android - instead of basic website?
 * Why use TestFlight/TestFairy instead of proper/official enterprise app installation?
 * App crashed on launch for Motherboard on 1 of 2 Android phones
 * Was flaky rural cellular service part of the data-transmission debacle?
 * If so, was there no Wifi VPN backup?
 * Did they do server load-testing for up to 1700 users?
 * Did they have fail-over servers/load-balancing to prevent database write locks?
 * Should they have used DHS for cybersecurty check? (Unclear if this might be GOP agenda talking point.)
 * Did they do any *field* testing in Iowa?


 * @Doug Grinbergs Several articles (at least a couple written in mid-January, weeks before the crash) emphasize that the Iowa Democratic Party stated it would release _no_ information about the maker of the app, nor who had audited it, nor any other information, in order to keep it safe. Then several articles written after the crash emphasized that ACRONYM and SHADOW had tried to maintain security through obscurity, a concept already derided in the XVIIIth century as unviable. XavierItzm (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Amount paid for IowaReporterApp
The article has
 * The Iowa Democratic Party paid Shadow Inc. slightly more than $60,000 to develop the IowaReporterApp.

It's sourced and seems straightforward. However, the cited source says "Shadow was reportedly cobbled together in two months, with the Iowa and Nevada state Democratic parties each paying around $60,000, a fee several civic tech experts called low." but adds confusion with "[The app] doesn't sound like it was cost-effective. I can buy a lot of temp workers and phone lines for $60,000."

The 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses article has
 * The app was developed by Shadow Inc.; according to New York magazine and The Washington Post, the company received money from the Biden, Buttigieg and Kirsten Gillibrand campaigns. Biden's campaign paid the firm $1,225 for text messaging, Buttigieg's campaign paid $42,500 for software service and Gillibrand’s campaign paid $37,400 for software, text and fundraising services.

Those figures total to $81,125. Is this above and beyond the amounts paid by the Iowa and Nevada state Democratic parties? --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 04:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the $60k the IDP paid is entirely separate from anything any of the Democratic presidential campaigns paid. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The company has three different and separate products. The amount paid for IowaReporterApp, namely circa $60k, is _separate_ from amounts paid for the use of the other two products.  It's all in this article. XavierItzm (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Various Oddities
I came here to get some background on Shadow, Inc, with an eye on critical assessment of the company, but happened on some curiosities on the page.

Describing Kasra Rahjerdi as an "app-development expert" seems an odd choice of words. Why not describe him as a "software engineer" as that is how he describes himself and is less opinion oriented. see: https://kasra.blog/about/

More problematic is the quote, "the app was clearly done by someone following a tutorial. It’s similar to projects I do with my mentees who are learning how to code."

This seems to be an attempt to disparage the app, but it doesn't really make sense. When writing software, setting good practices early is crucial. In comparing the app to what he teaches others, it seems he's trying to imply that the software isn't terribly robust and while I get the meaning he is trying to convey, it's almost as if he is suggesting that following established patterns is a bad thing, which is just bizarre from a programmer's perspective. "Don't reinvent the wheel" is a maxim that has been shared in software development for decades. Perhaps a more clearly phrased criticism could be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.18.213 (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read about reliable sources. If you find a better reliable source for Kasra, great. (though "app developer" seems better too). The "disparage" .. Wikipedia is neutral. It isn't owned by Shadow, Inc., and as such it should reflect how Shadow is seen. Think of the "disparage" wording like the reception/reviews of a movie. tedder (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)