Talk:Hacker Manifesto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer Security / Computing  (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
WikiProject Computing (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Dating problems[edit]

The dates here and in the Timeline of hacker history are contradictory. Does anyone know better to fix here or there? --Mikkalai 04:32, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Author[edit]

The Mentor = Loyd Blankenship - *adds to article*

Manifesto Removal??[edit]

One of the article's revisions back in september removed the actual manifesto itself from the page, and I have since readded it. If anyone can give me a reason for deleting it, please respond to this, but I doubt there are any copyright issues, considering its wide distribution on the internet. --67.184.163.248 21:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Ikiroid

Because we try to farm that sort of thing out to WikiSource. --Maru (talk) Contribs 07:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Removed. It really belongs on en.wikisource if anywhere, and there is a possible copyvio in principle, as noted on the wikisource stub for it. --Random|832 07:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
In that case, could you please add it to Wikisource?
I added it to wikisource, I'll link this entry http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hacker_Manifesto
It's been deleted as a copyvio and a repost of a copyvio by them. --maru (talk) contribs 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I had to remove it again from here (rv edit of 2008-01-02T20:10:19 by 207.42.49.250) --Arnauld (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

having an artical named hacker manifesto is kind of pointless without the actual manifesto included i have re added it again because the actual manifesto IS related to the article sorry if this bunches someones panties

And I'm equally sorry if America's legal system and Wikimedia Foundation rules requires it to be removed. --Gwern (contribs) 22:07 2 May 2008 (GMT)

NPOV[edit]

This article reads like a positive criticism of the Manifesto, and I can't exactly pinpoint what should be changed, but to some point it needs to be neutralized and wikified.--ikiroid | (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think i helped a little. dposse 22:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree i may be a little bias because i am interested in security but i see nothing wrong with it Kingpomba 11:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks better now, perhaps I'll remove the NPOV template.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I hereby grant Wikipedia the right to publish the Manifesto, as long as it includes 'Copyright 1986 by Loyd Blankenship. Used with permission'. [Loyd Blankenship]

Sorry. That's no good. Even assuming you are in fact Blankenship, such a permission is insufficient, as it extends only to Wikipedia, and we explicitly require that a license allow republishing by others, commercial and non-commercial alike. This is a precedent establish on the slaughter of many pictures, and I do not think it will be relaxed for you. Besides, it would have to be put on Wikisource anyway. --maru (talk) contribs 06:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Link http://www.phrack.org/show.php?p=7&a=3 is dead. (don't know how to properly edit this. Sorry)

It's moved to http://www.phrack.org/archives/7/P07-03 83.91.36.65 10:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved to http://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=7&id=3&mode=txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milos Stevanovic (talkcontribs) 12:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

What do the rest of you guys think about the imitation and updated "Manifestos" littering the external links section? I personally think they should go, as this article is about the original and fanboyism doesn't add much, but I could just be peculiar in this respect. --Gwern (contribs) 04:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the spoofs they are frivilous and deleterious to the already unfairly-tainted image of hacking. -barfnz

Kill them, they are terrible, and absolutely unrelated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.40.62 (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Title of page[edit]

I'm confused. What is the primary title of this? Should be Hacker Manifesto, The Hacker Manifesto, or Conscience of a Hacker? Enigmamsg 19:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no real answer to that question, y'know. It's like asking what's the real title of the Bible - the authors were none too clear themselves on that point. --Gwern (contribs) 21:26 27 December 2009 (GMT)
Its popularly referred to (in the books I've read that mention it) as "the Hacker Manifesto". That seems like as good a title as any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by *Kat* (talkcontribs)

I think I ever read some books that refer this as "Hacker Manifesto" without THE. I'm quite sure with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canestenmobile (talkcontribs) 16:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

phrack.org Dead?[edit]

phrack.org is currently offline and I've added a link to textfiles.com. I'll check if phrack.org is still down in a couple days time, if it is should we remove the link to it? As far as I know textfiles.com contains the exact original text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.22.94 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Section "In Popular Culture" seems biased against 2600[edit]

I think saying that Phrack is more historically accurate is implying that 2600 is not so whatsoever. Please fix that tone used. It sounds a little biased. 73.137.67.224 (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)