Talk:Binary Revolution Radio

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Binary Revolution Radio redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Notability

Binary Revolution Radio has hosted a panel at a national conference, HOPE 2006.

The individual hosts of Binary Revolution Radio are also quite notable, as are the co-hosts. You can see a partial list of notable co-hosts on the main page of this article. Also, individual hosts and co-hosts have been speakers at public events and conferences, and have published works of their own.

--Othtim 00:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa stats for binrev.com: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?amzn_id=binaryrevolut-20&url=http://www.binrev.com

--Othtim 00:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to mention section 3.2 in the self-published sources guidelines (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29)

"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications."

The hosts and co-hosts of this radio show are within the scope of "professional researcher in a relevant field." StankDawg holds an Associates of Applied Science as well as a Bachelors of Science degree with a major in Computer Science. He also has 15+ years experience as a programmer and systems analyst. On top of that, he has been a guest instructor and lecturer for a number of technology conferences and private certification companies. He also has "hacker street cred." He's published articles for years in Blacklisted!411 and 2600. He has also done a number of television segments for local media. Links to all of this information are available on his wikipage [1].

I believe that StankDawg meets the requirements for a valid self-published source. I believe this personal website should be valid reference material. So I've made references to his website where appropriate.

--Othtim 06:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (Redux)

Yeah, so, I'm not convinced by these arguments.

First, I don't think you can claim notability for a podcast just because it's distributed in podcast directories. NEWS.GOOGLE.COM finds no cites in any news media. Secondary sources need to be *independent*, meaning, not dictated by the subject.

Second, your snake is eating its tail on the "StankDawg is notable!" argument. StankDawg's assertion of notability depends on this subject. This subject cannot then assert notability based on "StankDawg".

Third, hundreds of thousands of people share the same credentials as are imputed to "StankDawg" ("associates degree", "years experience as systems analyst"). None of them are notable.

Similarly, hundreds of people have had articles published on 2600. It is far *harder* to get a story fronted on Slashdot or voted up on Reddit than it is to get a submission accepted to 2600, and yet the overwhelming majority of people with popular blog posts from Slashdot and Reddit are clearly not notable.

Can someone make a strong argument for the subject of this article, or can I AfD it as just another vanity page about someone's podcast?

Tqbf 00:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're beating a dead horse, tqbf. The flaw in your argument, as I see it, is that you aren't looking at the whole package. First of all, this isn't an article about StankDawg. The article is about Binary Revolution Radio. So let's take that one out of the equation.

To recap previous points:

This show has been going on for 4 years. In that space of time, it has had 200 episodes.
Throughout that period, they have interviewed cryptologists, film directors, and security experts. Topics have ranged from rainbow tables, to asterisk, to honeypots. Those interviewed have been featured on PBS and the Discovery Channel, have authored books, and of course have been published in a number of magazines (2600, PC World, etc.)
An episode of the show was recorded live at the sixth Hackers On Planet Earth conference in New York City. There was even a panel dedicated to the show's recording.

Hardly vanity to have it mentionned in Wikipedia, I'd say. --ISeal 19:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, ISeal. You will find that on WP, notability has an actual definition. --- tqbf 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome, tqbf. In reading the article you pointed to in the above, I failed to see how this article on Binary Revolution Radio contravened any of the points made. The article is not a dictionary entry, publishing original thought, making political/religious statements (soapbox), hosting the episodes themselves, a directory of the episodes, a manual/guidebook/textbook, etc. Thanks though the link, it was a nice read. --ISeal 01:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability ReRedux

This page has been tagged as non-notable for coming up on two months. I've seen arguments on this page, but not one reliable source added to back up the notability of the show. Fair warning: the arguments will matter far less than the sources will when this page gets AfD'd.

--- tqbf 02:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amalgamation

What about nuking this page, and creating a page for Binary Revolution, as a whole? I'd be up for working on it. --Othtim (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it merges in StankDawg and Strom Carlson and Digital DawgPound, I say, bless you! --- tqbf 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep it

Look Tqbf, you're not listening to the arguments: "He also has "hacker street cred." He's published articles for years in Blacklisted!411 and 2600"

"First, I don't think you can claim notability for a podcast just because it's distributed in podcast directories. NEWS.GOOGLE.COM finds no cites in any news media. Secondary sources need to be *independent*, meaning, not dictated by the subject."

'not dictated by the subject' -where does it say that in the rules then?

Stank has notablity and so has the podcast, independantly. It has thousands of subscribers.

The rules state: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. "

Stank is an expert who's been published in 2600. That, in hacking circles is your 'reliable third-party publication'.

I don't see the need to merge anything, you could, I guess create a binary revolution page which would include a summary of what the revolution is about, together with the radio show and links to the authors but I think that Stank and Co. deserve their own pages as they are experts in their various fields in their own right as are you it might seem, although sadly you choose to vote pages for deletion and talk smack, rather than do anything usefull with your time.

FbqT (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am listening to, and rejecting, your arguments. In the interest of not repeating myself, I'll say this: you want to take most of what you just wrote to Talk:StankDawg, where it will be on-topic and valuable (as I am inevitably going to AfD that article again in a few months when nothing improves in it). You're not talking about BinRev, you're talking about its founder.

To address the narrow portion of your argument that applies here: no reasonable argument presented so far establishes anything other than marginal notability for this Stankdawg person. He is notable principally for founding BinRev, which appears to be notable principally for being founded by Stankdawg. I submit that if you can't see the concern with that, you're not giving my argument honest consideration.

If you want to reiterate your argument on behalf of Stankdawg on that page, I'll be happy to address why your "hacker street cred" argument is inoperative over there. --- tqbf 19:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, for what it's worth: deleting crappy articles from WP is quite useful. Go manage someone else's time; I'm not interested in the help. --- tqbf 19:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Binrev isn't notable for "being founded by Stankdawg." It's notable in it's own regard. For one, Binrev has produced a 200 episode radio show which is widely recognized and disseminated (however you spell that). They've produced good articles (and often more than one per issue) for every 2600 edition for years. They run (of course) Binrev.com forums, which are an excellent and well-trafficked meeting ground for hackers and phone phreaks. They also run excellent content sites such as OldSkoolPhreak.com (which is currently one of the only useful repositories of present-day phreaking information) and other such sites which all host a great deal of original information submitted by the original authors. Binary Revolution members have hosted multiple panels at national conferences such as 2600 and HOPE (as well as multiple other smaller and regional conferences)- often multiple binrevians (?) host panels or presentations per year at a single conference. They've also created a number of other side projects (such as the Binrev meetings and their disposable email site). Altogether, members of Binrev have received a fair amount of media attention and have had a large influence in the "hacking scene" as it is today. --02:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Othtim (talk • contribs)

I don't blame you for feeling like I'm obsessing on the topic. I agree, it looks that way. While it's my prerogative here to obsess, it's not actually what I'm doing. My problem isn't with David Blake or with Binary Revolution Radio. It's with David Blake, Binary Revolution Radio, Digital DawgPound, BR Magazine, Strom Carlson, William Quinn (phreaker)‎, and so on, as well as the implied comparisons between these subjects and MoD and LoD on the "left" and, say, H D Moore on the "right". I feel like I could lose an argument on whether BinRev is notable. I can't lose an article on whether all these topics are notable, or whether they merit such extensive coverage in WP. --- tqbf 15:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stank is partly notable for founding BinRev but also for giving numerous talks at conferences and writing articles in 2600 and other projects, yes. What is your problem with that? We're not saying that BinRev is ONLY notable becuase it was made by Stank but the rules state that to be considered worthy, self-published material can be accepted if it's made by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. He is, it has, end of argument.--FbqT (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Blake is notable, reliable secondary sources will have written about him. WP:RS is, I believe, the "end" of this "argument". --- tqbf 15:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that to be notable some other source has to write about you? Surely the fact he's be involved in so many good projects, has the respect of a large online community and given so many well appreciated talks, presentations is enough - as mentioned above? Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Stank is a player in the hacking community - a community, which, I might add doesn't constantly go around trying to self-publicise and get into the media. You're not going to see a hacker on CNN until they break a law and Stank is smarter than that. You say you have a problem with the quanity of text writen about all these people and clubs but why should you care? Surely the quality of the information should be what counts and from what I've seen, nothing is wrong there. --FbqT (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that to be notable some other source has to write about you? --- I've tried my best to explain this concept to you, but I lack the patience and clarity of mind to do so, and am surrendering the discussion. As a friendly warning: WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:SPS are controlling arguments during an AfD debate, regardless of whether you agree with them, and AfD is where this article is headed unless Othtim makes some heroic effort that I dearly hope he does not make. Good luck with your future WP endeavors, FbqT. --- tqbf 15:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore Fbqt. Whoever he is, he's not reading wikipedia policy, and it's obvious he just made his account soley to troll you. I may not agree, but wikipedia policy stands. This article should be AfD'd just because of all the conflict happening here, I'd say. Oh also I'd vote delete on 4 outta 7 of those pages you posted there, eh. --Othtim (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the policy, thanks. It says that self-publicised material can be accpeted if it's from a notable author who's been published in another notable source - I thought I'd made that point. All I got back was attitude and snobbery. I can see I'm wasting my time here, so I'll leave this Torll to his deleteion-spree, I have better things to do than try to educate him or sort out his vandalism. My reason for creating the account was to stop a biggoted 'security expert', with a chip on his shoulder against the hacking community from deleting all the pages he thought were 'crap' by his over-blown sense of self-importance. If you let these people run riot over WP and let them get away with it then pretty soon there will be no hacking history on here - that's a shame but not the end of the world, we've got other places. Oh, and tqbf... this one's for you: Manners... I'd suggest you read it but I expect you'll just RfD it. --FbqT (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. --- tqbf 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]