Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:13, 10 June 2007

Request to restore semi-protection made

See linky. Abb3w 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

...and declined. Copied from the SP request page:

Hacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect against IP vandalism. On 2006-12-11, Pengo the hacker page, due to the long history of vandalism. During the following one month period, no vandalism reversions (IP-based or User-named) were required. On 2007-01-12, User:Centrx , in the hope that "protection is no longer necessary". By my count of the 65 revisions since, roughtly seven in ten have been either vandalism, or reversions of same. I assert the evidence indicates User:Centrx was wildly optimistic. Since the earlier semi-protection appeared to reduce both anonymous and non-anonymous vandalism, I suggest this indicates semi-protection may be adequate. Abb3w 03:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that pre-block activity levels (circa 160 per month) were consistent with oral sex, which is under long term semi-protection, and hacker has only a slightly lower (75% vs. 85%) ratio of vandalism. Abb3w 06:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected I'm not going to force this article to be protected if others don't agree, but this article has had a constant, low-level of vandalism for a very long time, and there is so sign that it will stop. It seems people think they are hackers if they can "hack" the hacker article. (Oddly, very few make it to Hacker (computer security), which would be a more appropriate target). My primary watchlist went serenely quiet while this article was semi-protected. —Pengo 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Abb3w 16:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

there is no hackers can destroy my web! ----www.gukit.ru

Hacker is only a children's game,You like kindergarten children belorusefuOK

Code

I've heard alot about writing code But I have yet to find a manual or anything that teaches you how. Can someone help?

Code means source code, and coding is synonymous with programming. If you can't find a programming manual or tutorial on the Internet, then you haven't looked very hard. Try starting at www.python.org or try wikibooks (i don't know if these are any good): book 1 book 2. In future you should ask your questions at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Computing. —Pengo 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Rarely, it might refer to the encoding methods used to represent protocols (search for Internet RFC's; there's a couple thousand that detail how protocols are supposed to work) or encryption (GPG's source is publicly available; if you can't master the RSA algorithm, any of the more complex methods is hopeless to attempt). These are also of high educational value for Hackers of various sorts. Abb3w 04:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Egomaniacs, self-promoters, minor bit-part players, and other non-notables

Abudal jaleel malik

Removed:

*Abudal jaleel malik,Now a well known hacker of pakistan who made a modified version ISLAMIC windows of winXP with many included features of mac and linux.Microsoft has demanded him from gov of pakistan

...since

• Main references on the web seem minor 1 2 3 (see web site credits in last)
• Included "features" from above seem mostly cosmetic
• Such compromise of Windows is at most trivial slipstreaming and keygen work, not substantial novel coding or development of a globally used coding language such as C++ or html
• Report that "Microsoft has demanded him from gov of pakistan" is unsourced, possible original research
• Punctuation, spelling, and choice of abbreviations unencyclopedic caliber to boot

Probably another ego link. "Wahoo, I wuz a hackor!" Abb3w 04:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

tapeworm

Removed:

• tapeworm, tapeworm (2005). 1337 h4x0r h4ndb00k. Sams Publishing. ISBN 0672327279.

This was inserted from IP address 204.238.189.254; today IP 206.166.48.106 (osfhealthcare-peoria-dist.peoria.lincon.net) is the last router responding to traceroute from my location towards that source, suggesting the edit was from a machine in the Peoria area. This book was previously added and removed back in 2005; since it was added prior to publication, I suggested the evidence indicated self-promotion from its author, apparently based in... the Peoria area.

Barring strong consensus otherwise, I believe it should be yanked from hacker as non-noteworthy as well as self-promotion. Amazon "customer" reviews are mixed; however, the only other book I saw reviewed by anyone who reviewed this with four or five stars was a Java for Dummies book. The rest trash it. I just read it via my job's Safari books on-line paid subscription; I can't even call it a bundle of worthless drivel without feeling that I am insulting fine summer beach-grade drivel everywhere. However after some consideration, I did add it over at script kiddie, since the tone seems about right.

Michael Urbanski

Removed:

• Michael Urbanski — The creator of the Project49 (P49) Operating system. Program was finished, but nevber released to the public due to a copyright law. At age 16 he still continues to work on open source projects for the University of Minnesota.

Inserted from an IP address in the Minnesota area. I find no mention of a "Project49" operating system via Google Groups or Web search, strongly suggestive of non-notability; further, that copyright law precluded release indicates he was arguably not the "creator" anyway. The "nevber" typo is consistent with the level of carelessness I have seen from young (18 and under) college students in their writing for classes. At this time, I have no further remarks consistent with WP:CIV. Abb3w 09:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed link

I have removed the link to http://2600.ir/ as possible link-spam. If I'm mistaken and there is a valid reason for the link discuss here (If consensus, add it back). —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 12:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick check of site via Google shows forum with 56 members; non-notable IMHO. "Spam" may not be the right flavor of pink lunch meat product, but it's close enough for Iron Chef. Abb3w 12:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Chronic Over-editing and Encyclo-nazism

Is it just me or does this article seem to be degress-ing, because this current version looks very different from the work of art of a month or two ago, a version, I might point out, that was worthy of a star. I understand the need to remove POV's and lines that may appear self-promotional, but if this over-editing isn't curbed, this article will soon deteriorate to the level of this garbage: Hacker (computer security) -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 03:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Style and approach

This article introduces hacker as a relatively static, modern term. I think it would be of tremendous value to give a tour of the evolution of the term from MIT all the way to the public/media exposure in the late 80s (especially as a result of the Morris Worm and DOS viruses) and then on to the various efforts to control its usage. I'm sure there are good sources for this. Levy's book is a good start for the older historical bits. -Harmil 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You know I think there actually used to be, but somewhere in the countless of unecessart edits it was edited away. Fun huh? -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly over in Hacker definition controversy nowadays; any discussion of the varied history of the meanings brings up the flamewar over which one is the TRUE meaning, whether cracking is hacking, et cetera. Keeping them separate makes for more stable and NPOV entries. Abb3w 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

rms

I find it interesting to note that the only visible references to Richard Stallman are in the 'References' and 'External Links' section. Any particular reason?

Arjunshankar 08:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Several extensive trimmings in April and May, where the entire "Categories of hacker" section was removed, and the "Skilled Programmer" subsection was pointed over to "List of Programmers". This may not have been an improvement. Abb3w 16:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill Gates?

By what criteria is Bill Gates considered a hacker? Does anyone even know when he last wrote a program or wrote an article about programming? By most criteria, he would be better classified as a businessman or even philanthropist. — Loadmaster 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First, he's under media personalities for much this reason. And second, Read The FuFine Citations; in days of yore, he qualified, if perhaps to a lesser extent than Woz. Abb3w 16:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the weasel words in the sentence introducing the list are sufficient to make it clear that some of these famous personalities may not (or may no longer) be true hackers. — Loadmaster 23:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

heap of rubble

The article as it is now is only a heap of rubble. I suggest to delete the article and to replace it by Hacker (disambiguation), and start a new article Hacker (academics) to contrast Hacker (computer security), see also Hacker culture. --rtc 14:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps a good idea. Most folks reading this would be better served elsewhere as the current contents are redundant and thin. I wonder about the academic term as being a bit narrow -- but I see it is used in Hacker culture as one of three primary sections alongside network and hobby. Would you propose 3 articles, with the hobby variety including hardware hacks, etc? Perhaps this could briefly introduce 2 or possibly 3 orbits of the term, as well as culture and history, linking to the main articles using {{main}} ∴ here…♠ 16:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The distinction of the three hacker cultures in that article and the term "academic hacking" was based on , which was the only good and explicit source I could find about it. I guess that seeing "academic" as somehow a bit too narrow has some truth in it, since the broad mass of adherents are certainly not all academics, but on the other hand I think you can say fairly that the culture itself is quite academic concerning its origins, ideals and prominent persons—and even those non-academic adherents seem all to share some interest in and respect for academia, especially computer science (in fact, some of the books listed at Hacker culture#Documents are actually computer science textbooks). I think you are right about hardware hacking, it belongs to the hobby culture. I also mostly agree with your proposed solution. The main content of Hacker culture could be split into three articles: The section about network hacking could be moved to and merged with Hacker (computer security), the small section about hobby hacking merged with Hardware hacker into a new article Hacker (computer hobbyist), and the section about academic hacking moved into a new article Hacker (academia). Hacker culture can then be replaced with a disambiguation page and this article (Hacker) with a general overview and description of differences. What do you think? --rtc 18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a vast improvement in organization, even without any additional content. Most folks land here and never make it to the other articles -- so this should contain the overview. Sections might include summaries with links to:

• History (combining Timeline of hacker history & Hack (technology)?)
• Hacker (computer security) (including links to black/white/grey)
• Hacker (academia)
• Hacker (hobbyist) (including merged Hardware hacker).

Also a nice see also to Category:Computer hacking (perhaps rename to simply Hacking), Phreaking, etc etc.. All this keeping Hacker as the central article, linking to Hacker (disambiguation) only to reference people w/ last name Hacker, movies, etc. I believe links to source page histories in edit summaries should satisfy GFDL requirements. ∴ here…♠ 22:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did as discussed. --rtc 01:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and changed Hacker culture into a redirect for now, and added a see also section to this article. Everyone else jump in and edit ;). ∴ here…♠ 05:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Suddenly, this article has lost its formality and frankly, it's deteriorating into bs. Not meaning to disparage, I don't know if any of you have any experience hacking, but the three forms above are not different, they are the same. Hacking, no matter in what field it is done, is still hacking. -- Kerowren  20:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• I propose that these three articles be re-merged into the one article that they should be and stop with the weaseling of terms. -- Kerowren  20:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The headings of academic, hobbyist and computer security hackers are not bad ones, but as there is still so much overlap between without clear delineation they should be presented as a single article. For example, academic hackers could also be hardware hackers (which is currently listed only under "hobbyist"). e.g. Sketchpad required hardware mods. Academic hackers (regardless of Raymond's ideals, or Stallman's attempts to give them their own "cracker" label) were also network hackers (e.g. Robert Tappan Morris). And plenty of hobbyist also hack on software which was once considered the domain of academic (e.g. Linux). The demoscene is perhaps more clearly defined, but already has its own article. Note that the hacker article has generally been a pile of rubble for much its existence, so it's not all bad, but trying to break it into smaller piles of rubble doesn't help unless they're clearly defined piles of rubble (like "hacker (network security)" is) The academic and hobbyist hacker articles should be merged back into the main article, even if they're still given their own headings within it. —Pengo 08:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)