From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{annual readership} Tech hacking---

Hacker group

When referring to "The Shadow Brokers" I suggest to use the wording "hacker group". Instead of "threat actor". A few benefits for the article readers:

  • "The Shadow Brokers" group refer to themselves as "hacker group" not "threat actor"
  • The NSA and CIA do frequently refer to any hackers as "threats". But this Wikipedia article is about "The Shadow Brokers", not about the NSA or the CIA.
  • "hacker group" is more neutral than "threat actor". The word "threat" has a connotation. So "hacker group" seems like a better match for Wikipedia agreement about Neutral Point of View (NPV).
  • Continuity with other Wikipedia articles related to hacking group. Most use the wording "hacking group".

Francewhoa ( talk) 22:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

This page reads like a pile of shit.

You might want to improve it, then. -- Kraligor ( talk) 13:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Better third party analysis?

Can we update it with reliable 3rd party RS? Too much of primary here. But if no RS, better to keep it as it is than delete it. Zezen ( talk) 07:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{annual readership} Tech hacking---

Hacker group

When referring to "The Shadow Brokers" I suggest to use the wording "hacker group". Instead of "threat actor". A few benefits for the article readers:

  • "The Shadow Brokers" group refer to themselves as "hacker group" not "threat actor"
  • The NSA and CIA do frequently refer to any hackers as "threats". But this Wikipedia article is about "The Shadow Brokers", not about the NSA or the CIA.
  • "hacker group" is more neutral than "threat actor". The word "threat" has a connotation. So "hacker group" seems like a better match for Wikipedia agreement about Neutral Point of View (NPV).
  • Continuity with other Wikipedia articles related to hacking group. Most use the wording "hacking group".

Francewhoa ( talk) 22:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

This page reads like a pile of shit.

You might want to improve it, then. -- Kraligor ( talk) 13:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Better third party analysis?

Can we update it with reliable 3rd party RS? Too much of primary here. But if no RS, better to keep it as it is than delete it. Zezen ( talk) 07:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook