Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer Security / Computing  (Rated List-class, High-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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing / Networking / Software / Websites / Security (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-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 Networking task force (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (marked as High-importance).
 

Really suitable for inclusion?[edit]

Did you see the edit below is constantly added and removed at 2016 section?

* March: "Cyber Anakin", who is a teenage hacker, breached the databases of Russian online portal KM.RU and game company [[Nival (company)|Nival Networks]], ostensibly to avenge the [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17]] plane crash.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-teen-hacker-is-targeting-russian-sites-as-revenge-for-the-mh17-crash|title=A Teen Hacker Is Targeting Russian Sites as Revenge for the MH17 Crash}}</ref>

which previews to something like this:

and the sole reference:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-teen-hacker-is-targeting-russian-sites-as-revenge-for-the-mh17-crash

The passing mention is nothing different from others here but is there an edit war? In your opinion is it really OK to include the edit here?

198.98.51.57 (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hard to see why this should be considered significant when Nimda isn't even mentioned. Note that I was invited to comment on my talk page. User:Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Personally I see nothing wrong with the most-recently-deleted version, and would not have deleted it myself. Vice may not be the best source, but it's not bad, and we generally don't require multiple sources. It is somewhat notable because of the activist angle. Having said all that, I'm not going to get into an edit war to defend it's inclusion. (BTW The fact that other notable events are not in here isn't much of an arguement). Snori (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I'd not add it because I do not consider it notable enough. All these ransomware-attacks are also not notable enough in my opinion to warrant inclusion into this article. Look back at the pre-70's mentions: these are hugely important historical events, that shaped the future of hacking and computing. A teenage hacker performing some hacktivism isn't (again, in my opinion) an important historical event. (It could become one, though, but currently shouldn't be considered one.) --DanielPharos (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is major history. Inclusions should be referencing large stand alone articles, not light citations IMO Deku-shrub (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Therefore some trivial listcrufts are removed just now. John1234ou812 (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately User:Sro23 reverted the cleanup. Contents I tried to remove are like that one shown by "198.98.51.57". This is plain WP:UNDUE bias. Started new section to discuss these listcrufts. John1234ou812 (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Tend to agree with Jclemens but also see Snori's point. In the end I side with Jclemens and Snori. The fact of the matter is that there are thousands of hackers, cracker, malware authors, and script kiddies who have been mentioned in a single source, and we neither can nor should list them all here. Unless/until the article does include all the genuinely notables, this should not even be considered, and still should not unless/until the list is so long is has to be WP:SPLIT to a stand-alone list article, and this one pared back down the the top most notables about which we can present genuinely encyclopedic information.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Listcrufts removal[edit]

Here're the contents that are plain listcrufts. I tried removing those but Sro23 opposed it. Remove all, some or none? John1234ou812 (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

My thought is that events listed should have 1) Made national or international news, 2) for more than 1 news cycle. Without doing too much analysis, I don't see that any of the removed entries come anywhere close to those criteria. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jclemens:Does it mean that the contents can be speedily removed then? John1234ou812 (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm just one editor with an opinion; you and I do not a consensus comprise. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
One addition: this only works for "recent" events; for example, Enigma's cracking wasn't widely broadcasted, so you'll be hard-pressed to find it in any news cycle. Thus for "historical" events a different set of criteria should be used. But for recent events your criteria is a well-defined threshold that should keep the cruft out, so I'm in favor! --DanielPharos (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct. I think the issue above is about events which are themselves not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia articles, which Enigma certainly is. We could just limit the list in that manner, which would eliminate most of the flash-in-the-pan "X hacked Y because of Z" events without lasting impact on the industry or society as a whole... Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable set of proposed edits to me. That said, I think we should inch towards a set of inclusion criteria for this page for consistency. We might need different criteria for contemporary vs historical too Deku-shrub (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Another criteria that should be applied is restricting the entries to the subject: it's about "computer security hacker history", not "big malware attacks". For example, in 2016: "November: Liberia's internet is hit by a DDOS attack." has nothing (directly) to do with hackers. Or in 2007: "June 13: FBI Operation Bot Roast finds over 1 million botnet victims." --DanielPharos (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That's likely an accurate, but non-trivial, distinction. Perhaps two separate list articles are in order? Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see my comment in previous section regarding this. While we could have a split to a stand-alone list, this article doesn't seem to warrant that yet. Agreed with need to pare out the cruft/trivia, per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy, and to develop inclusion criteria, which are often necessary for embedded as well as stand-alone lists (the only difference between them is that one is in a separate article, and is subject to naming conventions and categorization matters detailed at WP:SAL).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Timeline of computer security hacker history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)