Talk:Juice jacking

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 26 September 2015 by reviewer Onel5969 (talk · contribs).

Computing: Security Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as Mid-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Sections not written in an encyclopaedic tone

The sections How_does_juice_jacking_work, Types_of_juice_jacking[21], and Countermeasures,_one_should_take_to_prevent_juice-jacking[23] are not written in an encyclopaedic tone. They are written like a guide or explainer. In addition, there are multiple style errors throughout these sections.

I have decided to be bold and simply remove the sections, as the content thereof seems entirely incompatible with Wikipedia's goal. Any attempt to include such information will require a complete rewrite.

Also, I checked for possible copyvio and found a result, but based on the publication date it seems likely that the author of this paper is the one who plagiarized Wikipedia, rather than the other way around.

Edit: if anyone thinks these sections could indeed be usefully altered to fit an encyclopaedic tone, I will not contest a revert, but I hope this is done alongside actually fixing some of the issues.

Vita Astra (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]