This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hack Forums article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
It looks like the issue of notability is well-addressed: dedicated news articles by BBC, entire sections in articles by Computerworld, Verge, and The Daily Beast - all reliable and independent sources. Enivid ( talk) 14:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
This content added today by an IP editor seems poorly sourced, based solely on an anonymous "guest post" on hackhex.com. Without a reliable source, including it in the article seems WP:UNDUE. Schazjmd (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The content added by HoboDyerProjection has no reliable source to verify the information is valid. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Please refer to WP:V on verifiability and WP:RS on what is considered reliable and what is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvalerionV ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Remove: "It has a reputation for being populated by trolls, chaos-driven children and brazen criminal activity." or Alter to "The forum caters mostly to a young audience who are curious and occasionally malicious, but still learning."
Reason: "without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"[ [2]] and yet only one non-neutral view from the source was added...Additionally "The forum caters mostly to a young audience who are curious and occasionally malicious, but still learning." should be added as it's also part of the "significant views" of the source. The full paragraph of the quote is also more viewpoint that's more neutral...
"Furthermore, HackForums is the kind of internet community that can seem impenetrable, even incomprehensible, to outsiders. It has a reputation for being populated by trolls, chaos-driven children and brazen criminal activity. It can, at any given time, count plenty of undercover police as watchful inhabitants. Despite it all, HackForums not only simply persists but, seven years after launch, it stubbornly continues to matter. "
Why only allow the worse statement about the site from the article? It's against WP policy and edits should be done immediately. Gotchynow ( talk) 15:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Regards, Spintendo 19:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
The forum caters mostly to a young audience who are curious and occasionally malicious, but still learning" is taken from the same source here: [ [3]] AvalerionV 19:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Criminal activity on the forum has been widely reported on in the media." I recommend adding a source to support the statement or it will be removed. AvalerionV 20:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Criminal activity on the forum, including the sale of illegal hacking tools, has been widely reported on in the media.There's a problem with using the sale of "illegal hacking tools" in a claim of criminal activity. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act states that online services cannot be liable for third-party content. Thus, selling these tools is not illegal. Also, the claim states that the tools themselves are illegal by calling them "illegal hacking tools" when that is not the case. If the claim is to state that the website is widely known for criminal activity, then the claim also needs to give examples of the activities themselves — and these activities (such as selling software) need to be shown as illegal either in new references to add to the lead section or taken from the already existing claims' references in the article. Regards, Spintendo 02:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The current images for the site are not current logo or site design. Gotchynow ( talk) 16:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hack Forums article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
It looks like the issue of notability is well-addressed: dedicated news articles by BBC, entire sections in articles by Computerworld, Verge, and The Daily Beast - all reliable and independent sources. Enivid ( talk) 14:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
This content added today by an IP editor seems poorly sourced, based solely on an anonymous "guest post" on hackhex.com. Without a reliable source, including it in the article seems WP:UNDUE. Schazjmd (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The content added by HoboDyerProjection has no reliable source to verify the information is valid. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Please refer to WP:V on verifiability and WP:RS on what is considered reliable and what is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvalerionV ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Remove: "It has a reputation for being populated by trolls, chaos-driven children and brazen criminal activity." or Alter to "The forum caters mostly to a young audience who are curious and occasionally malicious, but still learning."
Reason: "without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"[ [2]] and yet only one non-neutral view from the source was added...Additionally "The forum caters mostly to a young audience who are curious and occasionally malicious, but still learning." should be added as it's also part of the "significant views" of the source. The full paragraph of the quote is also more viewpoint that's more neutral...
"Furthermore, HackForums is the kind of internet community that can seem impenetrable, even incomprehensible, to outsiders. It has a reputation for being populated by trolls, chaos-driven children and brazen criminal activity. It can, at any given time, count plenty of undercover police as watchful inhabitants. Despite it all, HackForums not only simply persists but, seven years after launch, it stubbornly continues to matter. "
Why only allow the worse statement about the site from the article? It's against WP policy and edits should be done immediately. Gotchynow ( talk) 15:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Regards, Spintendo 19:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
The forum caters mostly to a young audience who are curious and occasionally malicious, but still learning" is taken from the same source here: [ [3]] AvalerionV 19:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Criminal activity on the forum has been widely reported on in the media." I recommend adding a source to support the statement or it will be removed. AvalerionV 20:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Criminal activity on the forum, including the sale of illegal hacking tools, has been widely reported on in the media.There's a problem with using the sale of "illegal hacking tools" in a claim of criminal activity. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act states that online services cannot be liable for third-party content. Thus, selling these tools is not illegal. Also, the claim states that the tools themselves are illegal by calling them "illegal hacking tools" when that is not the case. If the claim is to state that the website is widely known for criminal activity, then the claim also needs to give examples of the activities themselves — and these activities (such as selling software) need to be shown as illegal either in new references to add to the lead section or taken from the already existing claims' references in the article. Regards, Spintendo 02:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The current images for the site are not current logo or site design. Gotchynow ( talk) 16:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)