This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'd like to include the unofficial Hacker Emblem (the glider from Conway's Game of Life). Tyler 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
See linky.
Abb3w 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
...and declined. Copied from the SP request page:
Hacker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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)
I've heard alot about writing code But I have yet to find a manual or anything that teaches you how. Can someone help?
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
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
Probably another ego link. "Wahoo, I wuz a hackor!" Abb3w 04:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is it just me or is the introduction, just a tad bit too positive Creepzerg3 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to change the sentence
to
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)
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.
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.
Thank you.
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.
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 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:
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.
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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'd like to include the unofficial Hacker Emblem (the glider from Conway's Game of Life). Tyler 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
See linky.
Abb3w 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
...and declined. Copied from the SP request page:
Hacker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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)
I've heard alot about writing code But I have yet to find a manual or anything that teaches you how. Can someone help?
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
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
Probably another ego link. "Wahoo, I wuz a hackor!" Abb3w 04:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is it just me or is the introduction, just a tad bit too positive Creepzerg3 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to change the sentence
to
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)
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.
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.
Thank you.
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.
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 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:
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.
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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |