Jump to content

Talk:Hacker/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Inclusion of hacker emblem

I'd like to include the unofficial Hacker Emblem (the glider from Conway's Game of Life). Tyler 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Request to restore semi-protection made

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

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

Semi-protect against IP vandalism. On 2006-12-11, Pengo [semi-protected] 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 [removed semi-protection], 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)


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 Wikipedia: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)

I suggest you find a good hacker training ground like HackThisSite (http://www.hackthissite.org/) and ask questions at their affiliate site Critical Security (http://www.criticalsecurity.net) That's how I started out. They also have an IRC channel that is most helpful. Check it out and good luck.

A fellow Hacker,

-Stcochran16 16:51, 30 June 2007

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)


For me, nobody can be called a 'hacker', it's not an adjective. It should NOT exist, ever. Plus, since this page talks a whole lot of crap about 'hackers', why the hell there are no 'ethical' talking?

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)

please state which date you are referring to (so readers of your post may look at it on this articles history) - capi! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.22.166 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 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 [1], 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:
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 (talk • contribs • count) 20:12, 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)

I did know these potential arguments against that presentation long before I changed the article, but I think that they are not a problem. I agree completely about all your examples, but your mistake is to equate the three clearly different contexts ("cultures") with the partially overlapping subjects people from them are engaged with. The position that "three forms above are not different, they are the same" certainly exists and is usually held within the network hacking culture, and it is mentioned in the article. "academic hacking culture" does not mean that all adherents are necessarily academics; it means that the culture has its roots in academia and holds academic values. The article has weasel problems; that is correct, and they should be fixed. Yet please do not undo the progress we have made. Please also note that the academic and hobbyist hacker articles have never been part of this article! Note the rationality and ease of the critical discussion we have now; that is clearly to be credited to the changes to the article, and it is a good sign for the change being into the right direction. I think that Pengo's examples can certainly be used to extend the article with as explicit examples of overlaps and differences. What do you think? --rtc 19:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe they are presented as one article -- this one. This current situation improves over how things were before the recent re-org, when they really were seperated. This main article should tie them together throroughly while allowing for greater detail in the more specific articles. The three specific articles are not intented to show difference, just to allow for extra detail. Merging would result in lost detail yet still bump into the difficulty of labelling the various activities often associated with hacking culture. Adding something to the introduction along the lines of many hackers participate in all aspects of the sub-culture, often applying sub-culture values throughout their lives would be appropriate and perhaps help address the above concerns. ∴ here…♠ 03:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If directed here by Kerowren, see new section below.

Review of June 2007

User:Kerowren has complained loudly about this and related articles on my talk page (User_talk:Rtc#Misinformation_related_to_Hacking_related_articles) and written to several users asking for their comment here. I hope we can solve the issues professionally. After all, we all want a correct article, don't we? So please don't give mere opinion on the article, but give sources if you disagree about something. To eliminate some problems, I did some changes to the article to prevent misunderstandings that it seemed to provoke for Kerowren. --rtc 23:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The goal here is to present a unified summary of the term Hacker and Hacker culture within this article Hacker. Further detail should be provided in branched articles of some title. How to best divide and describe the details of the topic are of course open for discussion, and certainly in need of further improvement. The changes of the past few weeks are a vast improvement in organization, diff June4-18. ∴ here…♠ 02:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I share Kerowren's concern. I'll also state flat out: the current piece has developed severe defects. At the most trivial, claiming that the definition of a hacker as one who "illegally breaks into computer and network systems [...] has been coined by the mass media" is false, as a review of the HDC timeline events will show. Also, claiming "the academic hacker subculture developed in the 1960s [...] in academic computer science environments [...] fused with the technical culture of the pioneers of the Internet" demonstrates similar gross ignorance of the history of the computer cultures prior to the World Wide Web. The whole thing is also badly lacking in citations. Abb3w 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There is some truth in what you say, but you clearly exaggerate the problems, especially compared to the previous state. The HDC timeline merely shows that the term had been used in this sense already before the mass media did. But it certainly coined it. I hope that there is no doubt about that! The part you quote about the development of the academic hacker culture has been written be ESR and was moved from the previous hacker culture article to here. I guess it is supposed to be a summary of [2]. I can't say whether it's right or wrong, as ESR himself admits that he joined only after 1977.[3] About citations, I agree, but at least there are now citations (and there are sentences rich in content—you better want some wrong sentences rich in content, so you can easily criticize them, than some true, almost-tautological weasel statements as previously). It has been much worse before. So if you think that anything demonstrates gross ignorance, please show some sources better than ESR's that explain how it really was! I am much interested in them, but as I already said, mere subjective feelings don't help us much. --rtc 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The ESR history essay is not cited (if it is being used a reference), and is highly POV-suspect due to his position as an advocate as well as historian. As for the my primary objection, please look up the dictionary definition of coin; when used as a verb, and not having to do with numismatics, it is synonymous to "invent". If the word was "used in this sense already", the media could not have invented it. Popularized, yes — but that is a horse of an entirely different color. Abb3w 18:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
We all agree that further improvement is necessary. What I don't agree with is Kerowren's concerns that current work is somehow harming the article... All are invited and encouraged to jump in and improve the many spots needing work, Kerowren and Abb3w in particular. ∴ here…♠ 20:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I now cited the ESR history essay and attributed the whole to ESR. I also changed 'coined' to 'popularized'. I agree with your concerns that ESR's essay may omit some essential things, or may contain severe inaccuracies (although I don't think the summary given here is by itself fundamtentally wrong or misleading). However, to my knowledge, no account of the hacker history exists that has been done by a professional historian (at least not yet), so we have no other option than to cite such things if we don't want to do original research. If you have better sources, please tell me about them. --rtc 22:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I know almost nothing about hacking, I'm going to assume I've been asked to comment as someone involved in disambiguation.

If "hacking" can be considered to be one and the same thing, then it is perfectly reasonable to have one main article, with other articles expanding on parts. However, articles on parts should only really exist if both this article would be too long (more than 30kb otherwise) and the other articles would have information that this article wouldn't have, and would reach a decent length.

If "hacking" are three different things, with no link apart from name or a very weak link, then the disambiguation page should be here, no "(disambiguation)" suffix.

I've skim-read the article, and it seems to me that the associations are strong enough to warrant one main article. If their histories are not entwined, then elaboration articles are acceptable; if they are, then it should really be on one page (unless the article is too long, which it isn't).

I can't really comment on the effect of the June review because I don't know enough about hacking. As a sidenote, I believe (but am not sure) that gerundive verb "Hacking" is an article name preferable to occupation name "Hacker", and if "Hacking" is ambiguous (which it is) then "Hacker" probably is too, so "Computer hacking" or a similar name is preferable? Certainly, "Academic hacking" is preferable to "Hacker (academia)", and "Hobby hacking" to "Hockey (hobbyist)" - the name of the practice is preferable to the name of the person who practices it. Neonumbers 07:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs Improvement

I came to this page expecting to find something about hacking methods. Besides a few minor bits on trojans and such I couldn't find anything of the sort. Could someone please make this page less about people and more about hacking? 130.11.43.246 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to. Perhaps you should look at Wikibooks. --rtc 06:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that certain hacking methods may be considered illegal and tried as cybercrime in various countries such as the United States. Creepzerg3 21:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed intro

I have changed the introduction of this article to first address the *positive* aspects of the term. You don't start an article with a negative description and then go on to say that it is wrong. :) Achitnis 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether a meaning is negative or positive is not a criterion. Relevance is. There's also not a right and a wrong meaning; there are different meanings. This article presents the various meanings in a neutral way. The most relevant meaning has to come first, and it is the negative one. Your introduction not NPOV compliant. --rtc 08:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
How was the earlier introduction more relevant? I had also clearly linked to the controversy article right here on WP, but apart from that, we were using the term "hacker" long before the mass media misundestood/misappropriated the term. The very least we can do in this article is to start off with the original meaning, because by NOT doing so, WP is contributing to the problem. Achitnis 10:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
What is more relevant is the meaning of the term as used by the mass media. It's much more relevant than any jargon use by a relatively small subculture, since it's how the term is commonly understood today. Wikipedia is neutral and describes all views on the issue, with the most relevant first. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to promote some view over the others to prevent someone from allegedly misunderstanding/misappropriating something. Since all views are described, it doesn't contribute to such misunderstanding either. I'd agree about problems if the common use was the only meaning described, but that's clearly not the case. 'Hacker' simply has that computer break-in meaning today, and it's not Wikipedia's obligation to change that. Please see WP:NPOV. The more specific meaning of the term you are looking for is the article Hacker (academia). --rtc 14:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I have to disagree. If it is so important that the mass media perception is the one that should be referred to, then that is just another case of POV and not representative of either verifiable facts nor anything else WP stands for. This article pushes POV that a hacker is a negative term, but it disagrees with all other WP resources. See for yourself:
  • Hacker (disambiguation) - Hacker is described as a Computer enthusiast, while the mass media description of hacker is at Hacker (computer security)
  • Wiktionary has 5 descriptions, of which the first 3 are correct definitions for hacker, the 4th one is for the correct definition of a bad 'un - a cracker.
  • Links to the article list more real hackers (as in the positive way) than the meaning that the article now implies. If this article is allowed to stand as it is, every one of these articles will need to be edited to point elsewhere.
I am very much aware of NPOV rules, and this article is anything but neutral about it - pushing the point of view that a hacker is a negative person. Since the article is in any case pretty confusing and frankly could do with a cleanup, a quick scan of the article will leave the reader with the wrong impression. While it does address the real meaning of hacker, it does so in a passing fashion.
The correct way of doing this is what the disambiguation article does - make the main hacker article a disambiguation article, and then split this article into "Hacker (technology enthusiast)", "Hacker (computer security)", etc. That way, there is no confusion, people will clearly know that there are multiple meanings and they can choose to read the one they are interested in, and articles can be much more indepth.
And I'd stay away from comments like a relatively small subculture, which is a POV if I ever saw it. The entire IT industry is built on the back of people who extended technologies to do things they weren't meant to do, and those people certainly number more than the people who actually "crack".
I am probably banging my head against a wall here, but as a someone who is active both in the media and a technology person, I find it disturbing to see such a misleading article.
Achitnis 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is by no means pushing the POV that hacker is a negative person or misleadingly claiming so. Noone who has ever read more than the first two sentences can claim that. The article presents all views on the issue in a fair and balanced way, with the most relevant views first. It is beyond doubt that the mass media usage is by far the most relevant one. I really cannot agree that what you call the "real meaning of a hacker" is addressed only in a passing fashion. The article has one whole section about it and describes in another section the relation to computer security. About the disambiguation article, I actually proposed that above at #heap of rubble so I well considered it. But user:here disagreed, and it was fine for me the way it is, too. I am trying to fix things a little bit, but please actually read the article before you go on. --rtc 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the introduction, just a tad bit too positive Creepzerg3 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Before, it was a tad bit too negative -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly support splitting an article because nobody wants to get claimed by illegal activities even by mistake (see discussion tab of the Wikihow [4], for instance). There are talks on the web that acedemic hackers must give the word hacker to the computer criminals and try to call themselves somehow different. But why not in reverse? Hacker is attractive because of its strong positive meaning: excellent computer skills, ability to rely only on himself even when facing really difficult problems and certain rules of cooperation whithing a group (STFW, RTFM and so on). None of these features are illegal by itself. After all, soldier and assasin have different articles and there is no any lenghty discussion on merging them. Audriusa 06:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but we already have one article per meaning (Hacker (computer security), Hacker (academia) and Hacker (hobbyist); plus Hacker (disambiguation)). So you can link directly to the respective article. I think this article yet has its strengths and has the opportunity to make a sharp distinction and describe all the large differences and also the minor overlaps that exist without doubt. Perhaps it is not perfect yet, but it certainly has potential. --rtc 00:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there an open source movement?

I wanted to change the sentence

»Since the mid-1990s, it has been largely coincident with what is now called the free software movement and the open source movement.«

to

»Since the mid-1990s, it has been largely coincident with what is now called the free software movement and the Open Source Initiative.«

It is undisputely that the open source movement isn't the same as the free software movement, altough open-source software is almost always free software, too. The article of the open source movement has been poor and there were no reference indicating it exists at all. So it was decided to merge the article with the article about the Open Source Initiative. Is there an open source movement outside the Open Source Initiative? --mms 09:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I know a lot of people who love open source software, but who would never go near anything connected with Eric Raymond, so I'd have to say that there is. Poindexter Propellerhead 11:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Do they also distance themselves from RMS or could they be subsumed to the free software movement? --mms 11:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I think of them as non-aligned. You can't really be an RMS devotee and still be OK with open source (but not free) software, eh? Poindexter Propellerhead 11:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Conferences to do with FOSS will attract both Free and Open source developers. You don't have have "free software" events that only "free software" people attend, nor do "open source" people exclusively go to their own open source events. That would be ludicrous. The crowds are one and the same. While individuals have their personal preferences for which expression to use, and their beliefs in how different the terms are, in reality the licenses and philosophies behind the two are far more the same than they are different. Personally I find the differences trivial. However, you can't just say "Free software movement" or just "open source movement" without offending someone with the omission, so it seems you have to mention both. The Open Source Initiative is a totally different entity and shouldn't be mentioned in this context. —Pengo 12:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
+1 (Too much said on the subject already, so I will leave it at that) Achitnis 13:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
RMS himself states "free" as in freedom, not as in price or as in free beer. So "free software" is "open software". Indeed, you can produce "free software" and sell it for a price. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.26.195.126 (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hackers break into American military

An encounter of the academic and the computer security hacker subculture occurred at the end of the 1980s, when a group of hackers, sympathizing with the Chaos Computer Club (who disclaimed any knowledge in these activities), broke into computers of American military organizations and academic institutions. They sold data from these machines to the Soviet secret service, one of them in order to fund his drug addiction. The case could be solved when scientists from the environment of the academic hacker subculture found ways to log the attacks and to trace them back. 23, a German film adaption with ficitional elements, shows the events from the attackers' perspective. Clifford Stoll, one of the system administrators who helped to catch them, described the case in his book The Cuckoo's Egg and in the TV documentary The KGB, the Computer, and Me from the other perspective.

"Academic hackers" do not do such things by the definition of the term. Security hackers (crackers) do. Even if a person who is an academic hacker have done this crime (or any other crime, by the way), it is still important how it was estimated from the side by other academic hackers who seem "disclaiming any relation to that group". Hence this material cannot be used how it has been used in the article: as an argument that academic hackers and crackers are "mostly the same". This interesting story belongs somewhere else. Audriusa 05:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read that paragraph again. You seem to have misunderstood it completely. A group of computer security hackers, sympathizing with the Chaos Computer Club, which is an association of computer security hackers (but which disclaimed knowledge of these activities—they subscribe to some sort of white hat hacker ethic that is an extended version of Levy's academic hacker ethic reinterpreted for the computer security context; which is itself quite controversial, because what Levy's original ethic intends to say might be seen as fundamentally incompatible to what the CCC has made out of it—see the German article [5]), broke into into computers of American military organizations and academic institutions. People at these institutions from the academic hacker culture (especially Clifford Stoll) helped to trace and catch the criminals. Eric S. Raymond says: "Clifford Stoll's absorbing tale of how he tracked Markus Hess and the Chaos Club cracking ring nicely illustrates the difference between `hacker' and `cracker'. Stoll's portrait of himself, his lady Martha, and his friends at Berkeley and on the Internet paints a marvelously vivid picture of how hackers and the people around them like to live and how they think." ([6]; ESR uses "hacker" instead of "academic hacker" and "cracker" instead of "computer security hacker") There is nothing controversial about this. There are no academic hackers who committed a crime here; in fact, they cooperated with the FBI to help to stop the crime. I do not see an argument that claims "that academic hackers and crackers are 'mostly the same'", either; the contrary is the case. Please reformulate the paragraph as you see fit to avoid such misunderstandings. PS: I added links to the related TV documentary on youtube, so you may have a look at it and judge for yourself. --rtc 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Systemic and Cultural bias has de-railed this article

Before anybody wants to criticise or flame what I am about to say in this comment, I ask you do me the courtesy of doing two simple tasks which will raise all critics to the same base position for a constructive debate.

  1. Consider which country you are from and ask yourself "Does English have the same meaning everywhere in the world where it is used?"
  2. Read this ongoing Wikipedia project about the amount of inherent bias in Wikipedia articles.

Thank you.


The origin of the hacker

Whilst it is unfair (and quite inaccurate) to say that the United States invented the IT industry as we know it, it is quite correct to say that the blistering speed at which the industry developed in its early years was largely due to the US academia and the large amount of money that US institutions (governmental or otherwise) had to invest into academic research for the latest hardware and software at the time. Thus, within this setting, most of the prevalent thinking in the IT world was based almost exclusively around a single point of view that was from America and from academia.

US universities, among the most prestigious in the world with regard to a multitude of significant achievements, continue to foster the kind of environment that will, in the future, ensure many more great scientists and computer engineers will go on to graduate with top honours and contribute to world-influencing technology. However, that is an environment which is purely American and has very little impact, or significance, on those people outside of America, particularly those who do not speak or understand American English.

It was exclusively within the US Universities, and within a purely American environment (culturally and otherwise) that the word "Hacker" in its academic (from now on termed "good") sense was born.


The dictionary definitions

English, as a language, is not the exclusive preserve of a single nation. It's history is complex and this had lead to a number of variations, of which the most prevalent are those spoken by the two most influential native speaking countries: the United Kingdom and the United States.

Most people will always quote dictionary definitions when it comes to trying to support their position. However, nobody stops to consider (and accept) that depending on your country and culture, the meaning of a single world can differ. I provide two references for the definition of the verb "hack", on which the noun "hacker" is based, from two of the most respected dictionary compilers in the English speaking world: Oxford University Press (UK) and Merriam-Webster (US).

You will note that in the UK dictionary, of which the Oxford series is an authority, the "good" meaning of the word "hack" does not exist at all. It is not even acknowledged as having been imported from the US as is cited in a number of other cases (like this one, for a college "prom")

The United States and the United Kingdom between them, historically and to date, influence the entire world's English speaking population, be it through the vast economic success and commerical influence of America, or the legacy of the once considerable British Empire where British English was the official "English". Outside of these two native speaking countries, cultural influence extends with language, so it is reasonable (and evidently clear) that where American culture has been adopted with respect to the use of the English language, almost only American English and American cultural references will be widely understood. By the same token, where United Kingdom culture has been adopted with respect to the use of the English language study, almost only British English and UK/Europoean cultural references will be widely understood.

In other words, no word has a universal meaning as each word is interpreted according to the cultural frame within which the listener has grown up. It does frequently happen, though, that a single word has the same interpretation and feeling in more than one cultural frame, thus giving that word a widely or universally understood meaning.

"Hacker" is NOT one of those universally understood words.


The "Hacker" article as it currently stands

The current article cites various people and sources that supposedly lend strength to the argument that "hacker" is understood to have a good meaning. I list them below with my own, additional comments:

  • Loyd Blankenship: Born/educated in US
    • member of Legion Of Doom: US organisation (Academic Hacking)
  • Eric Corley: Born/educated in US
    • HOPE: US organisation (Academic Hacking)
  • CULT OF THE DEAD COW: US organisation (Texas) (Academic Hacking)
  • Patric K Kroupa: Born/educated in US
    • member of Legion of Doom: US organisation (Academic Hacking)
  • Gary McKinnon: Born/educated Scotland (non-US) (Criminal Hacking)
  • Kevin Mitnick: Born/educated in US (Criminal Hacking)
  • Stuart Goldman: Born/educated in US (Journalist)
  • Open Source and Free Software hackers (Academic Hacking)
    • Richard Stallman: Born/educated in US [7]
    • Eric Raymond: Born/educated in US [8]
    • Bruce Perens: Born/educated in US [9]
  • Hobby Hackers (Academic Hacking)
    • Steve Wozniak: Born/educated in US
    • Bill Gates: Born/educated in US
  • Other non-people references (a selection):
    • The Washington Post, Time Magazine: all US publications.
    • The BBC: United Kingdom (article: Criminal Hacking)

So, as you can see every source/reference used in support of "good" hacking grew up in America where the good meaning was known, and even encouraged. Furthermore, in order to know about, or to understand the "good" nature of hacking in the same way that the cited people have (otherwise they wouldn't be cited!), the people who have contributed to the article were most likely also from America.

The fact that sources that did not grow up, or were not educated, in the United States cannot be cited for the "good" meaning shows that the "good" meaning is not a globally understood meaning, unlike it's "bad" criminal counterpart. But then this is natural to a non-US citizen where outside America (and the areas where American culture has been adopted) the academic meaning of the word "hacker" (i.e. its "good" meaning) is hardly understood at all, and culturally has no significance (it is not taught in schools or at Universities). This leaves a large area of the world as we know it (Europe, Canada, Australia, Africa, parts of South America, the Middle East, Russia, India, and China) who only understand the "bad" meaning of the word "hack" (in a computing sense) as people in those areas only hear about hacking through the media.

I know this because I grew up in that environment. I have since emigrated to another country (a country that embraces American culture) and before I went to live and work in that new environment, "hacking" had only one meaning to me: crime.

Where the "Hacker" article should be

It is absolutely correct to state that, even within the US, there are people who feel that the word "hacking" has a criminal feeling and that the academic meaning is merely a matter of discussion as opposed to being accepted understanding. In fact, it is probably due to these very people feeling an obligation to be neutral that the good/bad hacker debate is still continuing in this article, as these people probably graduated from US universities where the good meaning of the word originated, and so fully understand both its academic as well as its criminal meaning.

The IT industry was led by the US virtually from the start, and as the US universities and homebrew clubs spawned the most influential figures in the IT industry of modern times, the rest of the world could only watch and copy. However, this article (under its current title) is not about the US; it is an article about a globally understood notion. Therefore, as this article is for world consumption, bias such as that which currently exists is wholly unacceptable.

I therefore propose, and shall implement, the unification of all information in all the current hacking entries before drafting two new articles:

  • Hacker (Computer)
    • This will focus on the non-US-specific, and globally understood, meaning that hacking is a crime. It will touch on, and include a cross-reference heading to, the "good" meaning.
  • Hacker (Academic, USA only)
    • This will focus exclusively on the US, its university scene, and the original "good" meaning of the word. It may also touch on the devolution of the "good" meaning into the now widely understood criminal sense.

Currently, there are at least two other articles that exist on hacking. These are:

These articles would be brought together into the relevant categories. I feel that the new articles would be smaller, more concise, and would appropriately reflect the various meanings of the word in reference to it's global appeal.

I state again: this article is for world consumption. Therefore, no matter how strongly you believe that your point of view is right with regard to the "good" meaning, if you cannot prove that your view is widely accepted in every nation in the world then your view should not be on put on a resource that is presenting itself as "global wisdom". The Merriam-Webster dictionary is, I'm sure, a very accurate reflection of American English in use at the moment. However, in the UK, Europe, and all countries who know and use British English, the English University dictionares (e.g. Oxford) are the most authorative references and in those dictionaries the "good" meaning is not even recognised as imported, "unofficial" language, let alone having a formal language definition.

Wikipedia, and those who contribute, have an obligation to be neutral, especially when it comes to expressing things in English, as Wikipedia is used by non-English speakers as the bible about the English speaking world when it comes to learning about both language and culture. The English speaking world does not just consist of a single nation and therefore those words, or word meanings, that have a significant historical or cultural anchoring in only one single country should NOT have their place in articles purporting to represent globally understood definitions.


Your Comments Please.


A pertinent anecdote

This story about me is purely for anecodotal purposes although it is wholly relevant to this discussion.

I emigrated to a foreign country and joined a local (not multi-national) company as a software programmer a few years ago. I am still in that country and I still work in IT as an Assembler/C/C++ programmer, having been immersed in IT and programming for nearly 25 years. I managed to learn a foreign language to the extent where I was able to join a foreign company in their country without them having to depend on their (very poor) English communication skills. I am the only foreign person, and the only native English speaker, in my company.

Being an IT company the internet is well used and Wikipedia and is often used as a dictionary with regards to the background behind certain English words. In this country, like in any other country, foreign words are creeping their way into the local language as people want to be fashionable and show they are world-aware. In this country, the foreign words tend mostly to be English.

It happens that my company were producing an English language version of their website for the benefit of foreign companies (US, Europe, etc.). However, the CEO of the company started to argue with me when he wanted to use the words "hack" and "hacker" on his corporate website in order to show how enthusiastic his staff were. Furthermore, he wanted to advertise for more "hackers" to join his already expanding team.

Thanks to the reputation of Wikipedia, I, a native English speaker born outside of the U.S, ended up almost being fired by my CEO for not agreeing that the word "hacker" should be on a corporate website because I believed it would generate a very bad impression for English speakers. This is when I first learnt about the "good" meaning of the word hack after more than 15 years of working in IT outside of the US.

And what was my CEOs only defence against me?

Well, it says it has a good meaning on Wikipedia, therefore I'm going to use it

We'll put aside the fact that such arrogance (i.e. believing yourself to be more correct than a well-educated person in a language which is not your own and that you can't speak) is difficult to understand unless you have lived in this particular country and worked for a local company (not a multi-national). But, for a person who cannot speak English to call a native English speaker wrong about their own language just on the strength of what appears on Wikipedia is a blatant example of what happens when cultural references are not taken into consideration when writing Wikipedia articles, the articles instead mostly focussing on a point understood by a very small number of people.

My initial reaction to the use of the word "hacker" being unprofessional on a corporate website was perfectly correct, both from a US and non-US point of view. However, this very article, which was thrown at me in evidence of the supposed fact I didn't know my own language, has already caused far more misunderstanding and cultural conflict than it should ever have done. Multiply this by a sizeable number of Wikipedia users in foreign countries and the situation becomes very, very worrying indeed.

As for me, the situation at my company gets worse every day. Not being an American born/educated person has led all people to assume that my English is not all it should be because "Wikipedia" (and the millions of contributors that Wikipedia knowingly represents) must be right compared to a single person's point of view. Well, no. The systemic bias of Wikipedia has destroyed my ability to properly educate my company in global affairs, something I was partly hired to do in the first place. So long as articles like this are not fixed, the situation at my company, and a sizeable number of other foreign companies around the world aspiring to break into the west, will deteriorate thanks to Wikipedia's proliferation of misunderstanding the world over.

Andrew81446 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your essay, but note that in Wikipedia, it is better to stay short and clear; else nobody will read what you write. However, your essay suggests that you did not actually read the article, or at least not read it carefully. Academic Hacking is purely related to what has become the Free Software/Open Source movement today. The Legion Of Doom, HOPE, CULT OF THE DEAD COW, which you erroneously label as academic, all have nothing to do with academic hacking; they all belong to the computer security hacker ("cracker") context. Hobby Hackers are a context on themselves, also unrelated to academic hacking. "academic" does not mean "good". "academic" means creating and sharing infrastructure and software with each other. Computer security hacking, which means looking for security holes, can also be "good" (see white hat hacker). There is also no "original 'good' meaning"; as you can read in the very introduction of the article, the original meaning was bad. Nothing is special about the understanding in the US. Hacker has manifold meanings, and this manifoldness is the same all over the world. You say that "each word is interpreted according to the cultural frame within which the listener has grown up". 1) That's incorrect. a) There is no such thing as a cultural frame. Cultural frames are chimera of postmodernism. b) Each word, if interpreted correctly, is interpreted according to the context within which it is used. So while a word has no (pure, true, ...) meaning at all on its own, it attains a meaning when used in a context, and this meaning is universal and independent of that context (Contrary to how it sounds at first, this is not paradoxical). 2) The contexts in which the word is used are exactly the Computer Security, the Free/Open Source Software ("academic") and the Hobby hacker contexts, and those are correctly described in the article and their subarticles (Hacker (computer security), Hacker (academia), Hacker (hobbyist)). These contexts are not bound at all to nationalities, although their US related aspects take most of the space in this article. This article describes all meaning of the word in all contexts, which includes several "good" and several "bad" meanings. If your boss wants to use the word in a positive sense, he is free to do so; if you have a problem with one of the positions described here supporting your boss, that's not Wikipedia's problem. Changing wikipedia to support your personal (i.e., irrelevant) position instead of (as it is now) describing all relevant positions on the issue in a neutral way, is not a valid way to solve disagreements with your boss. --rtc 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for your comments.
Wikipedia is an open resource, for everybody. Please do not attempt to dictate to anybody how they should express themselves, long short, or otherwise. You've had your say quite enough on this article and related discussion. I dare say, you may even have a vested interest in maintaining the absolutely unacceptable amount of bias that this article (under its current title) contains. However, it's now time for other people in the world to have their say so might I suggest that you do everyone else a courtesy and listen.
First, may I ask if you did two tasks that I requested everyone to do before contributing? Maybe you did, but I guess that you were so busy wrapped up in thinking that your cultural frame of reference is the only one that matters that you just decided that any other more widely accepted interpretations of the word "hack" don't have their place in this article. There is no universal "correctness" in the world and there is no such thing as a universally "correct" interpretation of anything, especially language. Situations may be similar (as you pointed out), but the words used in, and to describe those, situations can (and do) differ. Therefore, as the culture and the upbringing of the listener form the major components of any linguistic context, that is what I term as a Cultural Frame of Reference.
According to you, if every word has a universally "correct" interpretation, everybody always knows what you're talking about and all listeners will infer exactly the same meaning anywhere in the English-speaking world no matter what the subject. Well, my suggestion to you is don't ever step outside of US-cultural boundaries otherwise you could get into serious difficulty. What, you don't believe me? Let me enlighten you about a British-English word that isn't known in American English ("shag": Oxford Dictionary and Merriam Webster). Oh, and by the way, let me ask you, when was the last time you last had a good shag? What? You mean you've not had one in a while? You should live a little more! Sorry, I do apologise. I was talking about dancing, but you knew that because even though our countries are different, the "manifold" meaning was independent of that and you knew the meaning I was using, right? Or did you just assume that because I'm not from the US I was talking about your sex life? You tell me. Even if it was said at a barn dance you still couldn't be sure, especially if the dance was some kind of "dating party". I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there are such things as cultural frames of reference and the non-criminal word "hack" does not have a formal language definition or a cultural anchor outside of the US. If you disagree then please take up your argument with (for example) Oxford University Press in the United Kingdom (documenting language for 150 years), but don't try and give credance to your bias on globally oriented sites like Wikipedia.
Secondly, above language, there is also the simple distinction of IT and non-IT people, of which the latter make up the vast majority of the world's population. As I said before, people mostly only hear about hacking through the media, and other articles by hacking related organisations who publish articles intended for the majority audience. The "hacker" article (under its current title) does not represent the majority interpration at all, even if it does lend a whole line to it in the first paragraph.
Now, About The Article.
I will first start out by admitting that "academic" was the wrong choice of word to equate with my definition of "good". I wanted to define the word "good" in inverted commas to mean anything that can be seen, or wants to be seen, as "non-criminal". Organisations like the Legion of Doom, and their leaders, publish manifestos that justify their criminal activity as "correct". Indeed, the leader of the LOD in his manifesto calls himself a criminal "of which his only crime is curiosity". However, it is plainly evident that these groups are indulging in criminal activity under a "non-criminal" guise. This may well be stated in the current article, however prefixing it with a line such as "the unifying characteristic of [hacker] is only that it refers to a person who is an avid computer enthusiast" ("enthusiasm": Oxford, Merriam-Webster) does not equate to the universally understood notion "criminal". Corporations (IBM, Microsoft, Computer Associates, Hewlett Packard, Dell) do not refer to the menaces who wreak havok in the digital world as "enthusiasts" and do not disambiguate their use of the word "hacker" from the criminal meaning that is globally understood.
I don't intend to change Wikipedia for my own ends. If I wanted to do that, rather than invite a constructive debate, I would have just changed it and pointed out the new page to my boss before someone had a chance to roll-back my changes. I intend to update Wikipedia so that it reflects information in amounts which are proportional to people's general understanding of the notions being presented. Currently, this article defines the global term "hacker" from a purely US frame of reference and that is not a fair representation of this article. A large amount of this information already exists on Wikipedia in other articles which is why I am proposing to unify and restructure. If people who have contributed to this article/debate and, most importantly, people coming from a completely non-IT and non-US frame of reference, disagree then I won't implement the changes. However, if only a minority of people who have contributed so far disagree or, most importantly, people from a completely non-IT and non-US frame of reference agree, then I shall implement them. If this article is about "Hobby Hackers", the Open Source Movement, and related discussions, then the article should be titled and categorised to that effect (as I have proposed). It should not be titled just "hacker", just "hacking", or anything so general as to masquerade as being universally understood meaning. "Open Source Hackers", "Free Software hackers", and "Hobby Hackers" are not even intimately known outside of IT in the US, let alone outside of the US. Therefore, what are they (and the subsequent discussion) doing taking up around 85% of an article about the supposedly globally understood notion of a "hacker"? 15% being devoted to the majority-understood notion is not neutral.
Thus, to restore the neutrality of this article, the largest section (that it actually have had from the start) should be added: "Criminal Hackers" (or just "Hacker"). The Wikipedia headword "hacker" should point, without disambiguation, to an article which focusses on "hacking" as understood by all non-IT people, and IT people outside of the US. In addition to my original proposal for the structure, the new article should include amongst other topics:
  • Recent world-famous hackers and their hacks (e.g. Apple I-phone hack to release tie-in to a single mobile phone network CBS News, BBC News, Le Figaro (France))
  • Hacker's methods (worms/trojan horses/email "address book" viruses/remote control/network sniffing/phishing/rootkits)
  • Hackers in the media (films etc.)
The factual content of the current article is in little dispute. However, the title and mostly US-biased references incorrectly (and purposefully) mislead readers into thinking that the information presented is the most widely accepted interpretation in the English-speaking world.
As for the anecdote, it was just that - anecdotal. A demoralising demonstration of how presentational bias influences people to believe that a few minority interpretations are more widespread than the a majority one. If you have a problem with me not agreeing with the article's focus just because I read it within my cultural frame then it shows your ignorance and disregard for the world's cultures, as you expect me to take as "correct" anything that is accepted within the US cultural frame. My boss also read it within his cultural frame. Before reading, he didn't know any meanings for the word "hacker". Now, after reading only Wikipedia, he knows both "good" and "bad" meanings on paper. However, he now wrongly believes the criminal meaning to be less widely understood worldwide than the US-only meanings, citing that "most of the 'hacker' article doesn't mention crime or criminals, therefore it's mainly a good word". That is just obscene. My boss has a right to use whatever language he likes on his website. However, contributors to Wikipedia like yourself have an obligation to ensure that my boss is properly informed and not misled, especially when there are serious cultural and linguistic implications to word usage that he has absolutely little or no knowledge about. It is highly irresponsible to think otherwise. Thanks to people like yourself, my company website now proudly advertises for criminals (except if read by programmers educated in US universities, of course).
As stated before, words, or word meanings, that have a significant historical or cultural anchoring in only one single country should not have their place in articles purporting to represent global understood definitions. Might I suggest that you let the rest of the world have their say, and let the article correctly reflect all the interpretations with a level of bias that is appropriate to each interpretation. Wikipedia themselves acknowledge a bias problem with a good proportion of its articles which is why the Systemic Bias project exists. If English-speaking people can be misled by their own articles due to biased presentation, non-English-speaking people like my boss, who have little contact with the West, and have come to rely on Wikipedia to provide them with their balanced and unbiased window onto the English-speaking world, are certainly not going to be able to discriminate by themselves the vocal commentaries of a minority from what is already generally accepted understanding.
The English speaking world does not linguistically, or culturally, revolve around the US, and people like yourself who contribute to Wikipedia have an obligation to ensure that information destined for consumption by all peoples of the world is represented without bias; cultural, commercial, or otherwise. I suggest that if you can't accept the fact that there are people outside of the US who don't agree with the "neutral" and "correct" US-biased way in which the current article is presented then, until you do, you restrict writing your "universally understood" definitions to an appropriate US-only audience and use a vehicle other than Wikipedia to do it. Please kindly leave the rest of us with our "irrelevant" positions to discuss and present global definitions in a manner fitting for the whole world to relate to.
Andrew81446 02:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Nobody wants to prescribe you how to express yourself. It is just that you cannot expect other people to read such long rants ... Cultural frames simply do not exist. Read again what I wrote about words. Words do not have a universal meaning by themselves, but they have a universal meaning if used in a context, and this meaning is independent of that context. You are in the wrong article here. Please go to Hacker (computer security). This is what you are looking for. Wikipedia has not mislead your boss. You are the one who is misleading himself! Wikipedia wants a neutral point of view, and neutral point of view does not mean majority point of view. It means that all views are to be described, and that is the case in this article. Your claim that the article does not adequately mention the general, pejorative understanding of the word as a criminal is simply not true. It does so at quite some extent: To name only summarizing sentences, "It is most commonly used as a pejorative by the mass media to refer to a person who engages in illegal computer trespass," and "In common use, which was popularized by the mass media, that refers to someone who illegally breaks into computer and network systems. That is, the media portrays the 'hacker' as a villain." and "In computer security, [...] it is more often used by the mass media and popular culture to refer to those who seek access despite these security measures." There is nothing different about the common understanding of hacker in the US, by the way. --rtc 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


In the Wikipedia sense, "neutrality" means presentationally neutral, not just informationally neutral as you have been postulating. Presentationally-neutral information is accessible in terms that the majority understand, and is therefore is of widest possible value to the largest variety of people. Non-presentationally neutral content that informationally contains all sides of an argument (and so is informationally "neutral") is not accessible to the majority in terms that they want to access it in and so is not readily consumable. In Politics, they have a term to describe non-presentationally neutral information: propaganda (Merriam-Webster, Oxford). Therefore, as this article (under its current title) is not presentationally neutral (which is all I have been saying from the start), this article, or its title/categorisation, should be modifed. It may well contain the information you quoted about the non-criminal side, but the neutral presentation of that information has been lost, and swamped, by the unacceptable bias towards subjects that people in the world are thinking little about when they come to Wikipedia to know in-depth about the globally understood notion of a criminal hacker.
Regarding my anecdote, I don't create what goes on my company's website so I didn't even learn about my boss' dire misunderstanding until after my company had been advertising some time for hackers. My discovery came when I was informally interviewing two Ph.D-level candidate programmers independently of each other on the same day. One was from Canada and the other from Germany. While talking to each candidate independently (in English) I was asked, "What's this about hackers? Are you actually looking for people who have broken into somewhere?". It was only at that time I discovered what was in my company's recruitment literature and the unacceptable level of bias in this article (under its current title). Shortly afterwards, my boss complained that he wasn't able to hire two excellent people he was targetting, the reason being that (I was told) they didn't, amongst other things, feel comfortable working at a company that expresses any inclination towards hacking. But by that time it was too late as by boss had already thrown "the wikipedia" at me. Yet more (albeit anecdotal) evidence that cultural frames of reference do exist, which you might appreciate if you actually lived in a foreign country and speak one or more foreign languages (like I do, for example).
Wikipedia revolves around evidence. I have provided hard evidence in the form of news articles and informational bulletins regarding hacking and security issues from the world's biggest consumer-facing IT companies, using a number of US, non-US and even non-English sources. These show beyond doubt the most inferred meaning of the word "hacker" worldwide does not equate to the contents of the current article (under its current title). Assuming I'm wrong, where is your evidence refuting my proposal? Where is the hard evidence that shows conclusively (or even partially) that global corporations, global media, and people around the world, are talking about "hackers (computer security)" as opposed to just "hackers"? Where is your evidence that IT corporations addressing a global audience always disambiguate their usage of the word "hacker" in order to not to confuse their audience with talk of "Hobby Hackers", "Open Source Hackers", and the such like? Such evidence would easily refute my proposal. However, you haven't presented any evidence because there isn't any. Wikipedia, aspiring to be a global resource accessible by the world's people's, should be accessible in terms that the world is using, not just in terms that US-university-educated IT professionals and homebrew afficionados are using, and people who contribute to Wikipedia like yourself have a responsibility to maintain that accessibility and neutrality (presentational and informational) at all times in a manner which is not biased culturally, commerically, or otherwise.
It's now been just shy of a week since my proposal was posted and, of all the people watching this thread and/or article, you are the only one who is complaining; no-one else is. As I feel absolutely confident saying we both clearly understand each other's positions on this matter, I am going to politely call an end to this particular conversation and wait for anyone else who has a disagreement with this proposal have their say. If, after a time, there is no strong, evidence-backed opposition then implementation of the proposal shall go ahead. And by the way, before you even think about rolling back any changes, I hope you will be putting out a counter-proposal backed by hard evidence (as I have done) to show that your changes are inline with current world corporate and public thinking. At some future time there may be a time when everybody, not just in the US, IT- and non-IT related, will be talking about "security hackers" breaking into banks or launching global email viruses. In fact, rather than complaining about the "security hacker" who took down their company's email system again, Australians might be talking about the good old days of hackers pulling pranks at Australian Universities in the 70s and 80s, or British people (IT and non-IT related) might be talking about the hacker who skillfully modified some kernel component for the greater good of mankind. At that time there is every reason to change it back. However, until the time when English in the majority of English-speaking countries has changed to that extent, just accept the fact that all people in the world don't all think, act, and talk American and please show some regard for other nations and their culturally-dependent way of thinking.
So I say to you: actually, the section I was looking for was "Hacker". The section you want is called "Hacker (USA, Academic)".
And so it ought to be.
Andrew81446 09:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that there is no such thing as "evidence" (the same way that there is no such thing as cultural frames), and Wikipedia never creates a new point of view backing it by "evidence"; that is original research. It only describes existing ones. See, your view has been discussed so often already. You won't get what you want (essentially replacing this article with Hacker (computer security)); it's simple as that. Solve your company's problem in a different way. I suggest making clear which meaning of Hacker you mean on the website of your company; perhaps directing people to this article. I am the only one answering here probably because everyone else is tired of this discussion, and refuses to read such excessively long comments as you write. --rtc 19:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember a time when Hacker meant hero and cracker meant criminal. the media corrupted the difference between the two and called every one hackers. we the hackers of today need use wikipedia to recapture the original meaning of the terms hackers and crackers, and distinguish the 2 terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.45.110 (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Language is always evolving so the meanings of words are always changing and being used in contexts different from their original meanings. Indeed, as I mentioned in a reply to a previous person, in non-US English-speaking nations the English language may evolve to the extent where the word in its original US-only context is understood everywhere in the English-speaking world. However, until such time, as Wikipedia promotes itself as a world resource and an information repository for world as it stands today, it must not be promoting categorisation of information using out-of-date and minority-favoured terms when there are currently far more widely understood terms understood by the majority.
Andrew81446 11:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Lists

I removed these lists; they should be described in the main articles and, if some of these should be mentioned at all here, then this should be done in context and not in such a "hall of fame" fashion. --rtc 06:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Computer security

  • CULT OF THE DEAD COW — A high profile hacker group that has both made news and been consulted by the media on numerous occasions.
  • Patrick K. Kroupa (also known as Lord Digital) — Former LOD member, co-founder of MindVox, author of Phantom Access programs, and MindVox: The Overture. Appears in over 20 books and hundreds of media and press articles.
  • Kevin Mitnick — A former computer criminal who now (since his release from prison in 2000) speaks, consults, and authors books about social engineering and network security.
  • Stuart Goldman; Known as the "Hollywood Hacker," Goldman, who was working on an expose of the tabloid industry, was arrested in 1990 for breaking into the computers of Fox Television. Goldman later returned to court with evidence that he had been set up by Fox. All charges against him were dropped and his record expunged. Goldman sold a screenplay ("Spy Vs. Spies") to Phoenix Pictures and producer Oliver Stone based upon his experience.

Free Software/Open Source

Hobbyists

  • Steve Wozniak — Computer engineer who created the Apple I and Apple II series computers and, with Steve Jobs, founded Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.). He is known in the hacker community as "Woz" or "The other Steve". Woz came up with some ingenious hardware hacks to bring those machines to completion. He also had a background in the network hacker subculture before this and did blue boxing.
  • William Henry Gates III (Bill Gates) — is the co-founder and chairman of Microsoft Corporation. Although he personally demonstrated considerable personal coding skill early in his company's history [2][3], he is most widely recognizable today as one of the world's richest individuals. Formerly CEO, in June 2006 he also stepped down as chief software architect.[4]


Systemic and Cultural Bias: Fixes In Progress

As I outlined in my previous comments, this article is biased towards US University and IT-related people only and has no right to purport itself as representing world opinion or understanding on the notion of a hacker. Therefore, I have temporarily added the {{globalise/USA}} warning marker to warn non-IT related people and non-native English speakers of the dangers of interpreting this article in its current form.

In line with my previous comments, the new article I was originally proposing is work in progress and will be ready for submission shortly.

Andrew81446 (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You are at the wrong article here. Please go to Hacker (computer security). This is what you are looking for. Thanks. --rtc (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4757375.stm
  2. ^ Article from The Register [10]
  3. ^ Archive.org cache of discussion of Altair Basic source code [11]
  4. ^ Microsoft Press release June 2006 [12]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hacker/Archive_3&oldid=1047937718"