Jump to content

User talk:Andrew81446/Moved from Talk Hacker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moved from Talk:Hacker

[edit]

Official Response to "Sock Puppet" allegation and Arbitration Call

[edit]

With regard to the so-called "sock puppet", I have no idea who that is. Ask for a "check user" if you wish. In fact, I've already done it (check progress here). I'm never one for idle threats, as you're about to find out. It has absolutely nothing to do with me. I looked at those diffs and there is absolutely no mention at all that they were referring to this article. In fact, with currently 2,220,000 articles it could have been any article on English Wikipedia that was being talked about and, given the amount of prejudice and bias shown by the editors of this article, the number of similar articles within that corpus with similar problems could be staggeringly high. Another unverified claim of the type that is nauseatingly typical of the editors of this article. I notice that Orange Marlin didn't respond to the person, so they have basically come here and done it for themselves. Good on them, I say, and about time.

You know, it was probably actually somebody who wanted to avoid creating an actual account using a normal username, or maybe they have just created an account and wanted to protect it. Either way, acting as such in order to remain completely free of the harassment, personal attacks, and prejudice that I have been subject to in the last four months of this debate that is purely visible in the talk history for this page as seen by impartial third parties, is totally understandable. The people who contributed to the RFC (who could have been everybody else's sock-puppets) acted in the same way. Wikipedia is an open system, and anybody is perfectly within their own rights to go to other people in the system and solicit their assistance, and doing so anonymously doesn't add or detract anything from that fact. Nor does it detract from the fact that "experienced" users of this system aren't the only people who get angry and want to fix biased information they read in articles; novices do as well (gasp! What an absolute shocker!). Such novices would obviously require assistance and this person actually stated as such.

As a result of this latest assault on an editor of Wikipedia, that is, attempting to gag another editor who has come out in support of me with what looks like pretty damning evidence, I have now done the following:

  1. I have reproduced the post that was deleted, along with the arbitration summary and my last post. Wikipedia is not a democracy and yet your attempt at a "kangaroo court" and a sham vote to archive the page and try and physically remove my opinions was direct violation of this policy.
  2. I have called for a "checkuser" on my own account using the three "diffs" that you cited as evidence.
  3. I have offically called for arbitration as edits are being made to the article without a CONSENSUS being reached as to the article's target audience or English Wikipedia's target audience. Even though everybody was specifically invited to define this very basic and important information. Mind Games? How can you write an article when you don't know you your target audience is? This fundamental failure of the Consensus policy means that the problems are intractible, therefore other stages in the Dispute Resolution process which rely on the Consensus policy automatically become unusable, rendering arbitration the only option remaining.

You brought it upon yourselves. Congratulations.

Andrew81446 (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Claims and Counter-claims for Arbitrators

[edit]

This summary of the articles being debated, and the comments made about those articles, is for the benefit of the Arbitrators in the event their assistance becomes necessary. It covers the entire discussion regarding bias in the current article since the 1st November, 2007. All claims and counter-claims that have been made by all parties, anonymous and named, are included. The summary itself is not a comment or a proposal and so requires no response. However, it might be incomplete and so any omissions should be added by the relevant parties.

NOTES

  1. All information is plain text quoted directly from the version control system, including all spelling and grammatical errors. Each claim is reproduced with its original date. All formatting in claims (e.g. bold, italic, or hyperlinking) as been stripped, the rationale being that a quotation may end half-way through a formatting block and attempts to reinsert formatting for the sake of quotation could seriously affect the original intended emphasis of the claim.
  2. A "claim" has been interpreted as (1) a definitive statement made about something that is considered right or wrong with either of the articles being disputed, or (2) a definitive statement made in response to any claim (according to (1)) made by another person. Statements including, or prefixed by, phrases like (but not limited to) "I think that...", "It looks like...", "It seems like...", "From the evidence...", "On the whole...", "It necessary that...", have all been classed as opinions and have been omitted.
  3. No paraphrasing has been performed. Where a claim had an opinion inserted in the middle of it, an ellipsis ("...") has been used. Where the original word order of the claim results in it being misunderstood when taken in isolation, square brackets ("["..."]") have been used to insert the original context. All context insertions and removals should be verified by each claim's original author.
  4. Any claims that are believed to have been omitted should be added by the relevant party who made the claim in accordance with the above interpretation of what constitutes a claim.
  5. This is a summary. It is not a list so that people can choose which claims they wish to submit and which ones they wish to retract. Attempted correction, removal or concealment of any claim, as well as being visible in the page edit history, will be noted for the Arbitrators attention.
  6. Information in this summary should be locatable in the original version history by taking the entire quote (or any part between two ellipsis/square bracket points), URL, etc. and doing a literal string search on that quote in a browser on the rendered document (not the page source as formatting has been removed). No claim should be added that does not pass this test.

Thank you.

Andrew81446 (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Articles under discussion


People who have significantly contributed to the debate regarding the claims being made
(If any of this information is incorrect then please correct it).

Andrew81446 (not United States, IT related)
rtc (United States, IT related)
Pengo (Nationality not determinable, IT related)
Cyrius (United States, IT-related)
Kirrus (not United States, IT-related)
Colonel Warden (not United States, IT relationship not determinable)
Nandesuka (United States, IT-related)
Army1987 (not United States, IT-related)


Claims being made against disputed article with respect to bias
(In chronological order)

  1. English, as a language, is not the exclusive preserve of a single nation. Andrew81446 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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 [in the English-speaking world]. Andrew81446 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In the [Oxford Concise] 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. Andrew81446 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The [disputed article's] title and mostly US-biased references incorrectly (and purposefully) mislead readers into thinking that the information presented is the most widely accepted interpretation in the English-speaking world. Andrew81446 02:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "neutrality" means presentationally neutral, not just informationally neutral... as this article (under its current title) is not presentationally neutral ..., this article, or its title/categorisation, should be modifed. Andrew81446 09:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The entire focus of the previous [disputed] article was geared at US-educated, technical people and to trying to ... solve the US-centred Hacker Debate. Andrew81446 17:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The criminal notion of hacking is enshrined in the laws of numerous countries including the United States, where even the US Department of Justice uses the words as normal vernacular. Andrew81446 17:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Outside of the US, the term "hacker" only has a single, undebated meaning (that of criminal) Andrew81446 11:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Any term that attempts to distinguish good hackers from bad ones has absolutely no validity within a context (e.g. a country) where the word "hacker" already has only one, undebated, understood meaning Andrew81446 20:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Talking about hackers under the general keyword "hacker" without mentioning in any way the legalities or history of criminal hacking is absolutely biased Andrew81446 20:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The definition of "hacker", as written, doesn't match my experience in 24+ years programming and growing up around programmers. ... Usage of "hacker" to mean "computer enthusiast" and the new term "cracker" seem to be an attempt to control the usage of language. 69.231.200.128 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Location: San Francisco 94107, United States)[reply]
  12. I am merely documenting the current situation in the entire of the English speaking world, not just a single part of it. Andrew81446 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The previous article did not explain any history about the hacker at all, which goes back over 40 years. Andrew81446 09:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The previous article did not explain anything to do with the hacker's techniques, which apply to ALL hackers. Andrew81446 09:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. References are not just for additional information so that "readers can read about described views in more detail". References are there to substantiate information (i.e. provide information that verifies a claim). Andrew81446 09:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. [The Hacker] debate was, and still is, United States specific. ... The result of that US-specific debate was that English Language in the United States only changed to include the "non-criminal" use of the word "hacker". Andrew81446 10:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. A dictionary documents language within the regions for which it is purporting jurisdiction. Andrew81446 09:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Andrew81446 09:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. This dispute is about the native English-speaking world. Andrew81446 09:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Wikipedia is there to document all aspects of a subject, not just specific parts of it. Andrew81446 09:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. English Wikipedia primarily exists to document events and culture in the English-speaking world. Andrew81446 09:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. English Wikipedia is primarily aimed at people in the English-speaking world. ...all verifiable sources must be given in English unless where possible. ...articles on Wikipedia must document all corners of the English-speaking world, not a single part of it. Andrew81446 14:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Wikipedia demands sources that are verifiable within context. ... Claims within the article's context that cannot be verified constitute original research. Andrew81446 14:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. The [disputed] article attempts to define a hacker when Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it uses jargon and speaks like a reference manual when Wikipedia is not manual. Andrew81446 14:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. The disputed article, through deliberate non-disambiguation of the region to which it applies, is biased and gives hefty undue weight to the United States Academia/IT-professionals by not documenting what is understood and used by people (especially non-IT people) throughout the entire English-speaking world. Andrew81446 11:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. It's not so much the region as the context which matters. Colonel Warden 18:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. The [new proposed] article ... retains all of the definitions for all of the terminology from the original article plus those other statements that were re-usable. Andrew81446 11:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Impact on local culture within a wider context is absolutely not a prerequisite for inclusion when documenting the events as they have happened. ... The relevance and impact you talk about is with respect to your culture; not all culture in the English-speaking world, and that is the context that the disputed article is written in. Andrew81446 10:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. The statement that the "hacker community" is worldwide, and the statement that the "hacker community" use and understand the same United States based English regardless of which local region they are in, are not the same thing. Andrew81446 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. The phrase "hacker subculture" is United-States specific. The subculture may exist outside the United States but it is not called the hacker "subculture". In some places it has a different phrase, and in other places its not called anything at all because such a subculture doesn't exist to the extent that it does within the United States. Andrew81446 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Hacking outside of the United States means any kind of hacking. Breaking licensing in software, breaking network restrictions in mobile phones, copying CDs, as well as breaking into institutions using a telecommunications link, are all included. It is not internet security specific. Andrew81446 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. If every [hypertext] link in an article had to be pressed in order not to be misinformed a single Wikipedia article would take days to read. People take things at face value and that's a fact. Andrew81446 10:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. English Wikipedia to a foreign person is just that: English Wikipedia, the entire English-speaking world. [A foreign person will] think that everywhere that speaks English had a club called [The Model Railroad Club] becuase the article's title and context apply to the whole English-speaking world. Andrew81446 10:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. The target audience for the perfect article is simply the unification of all (not necessarily overlapping) target audiences for the article's different sections. Andrew81446 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. A Wikipedia article, ... if it perfectly adheres to Wikipedia Core Policy about documenting a notion, not defining it, ... cannot contain any new information, new assertions or new claims that have not already been documented elsewhere. Andrew81446 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. A document can only be verified by the people who originally formed the target audience of (and so basically understand) its sources. Andrew81446 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. The target audience for a the perfect article is exactly the combined target audiences for all the article's sources. Andrew81446 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. An article is not complete unless the entire context, as defined by its title, is documented within the body of the article itself. Andrew81446 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Documents offered to support the claims being made
(These documents appear only on the talk page and are in addition to those appearing in any article)

  1. Computer Associates (United States)
  2. Hewlett Packard (United States)
  3. Oxford University Press (non-United States) (word: enthusiasm)
  4. non-US US (non-United States) (word: propaganda)
  5. Dell (United States)
  6. Le Figaro (France)
  7. Microsoft (United States)
  8. Prospectus for Carleton University Computer Science Courses (Canada, top 5 University (Source: Maclean's University Guide))
  9. Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
  10. IBM (United States)
  11. Merriam-Webster (United States) (word: hacker)
  12. Oxford Concise Dictionary (non-United States) (word: hacker1)
  13. Oxford Concise Dictionary (non-United States) (word: hacker2)
  14. Oxford English Dictionary (non-United States)
  15. Roget's Thesaurus (all countries) (word: enthusiast)


Sources cited in the new proposed article to support its content

  1. United States Department of Justice - 18 U.S.C §§1831-1839 Theft of Commercial Trade Secrets (United States)
  2. United Kingdom Office of Public Sector Information - Terrorism Act 2006 ¶16 (United Kingdom)
  3. United States Department of Justice, Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section - Summary of Computer Crime Cases (United States)
  4. United States Department of Justice, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section - Press Releases (United States)
  5. $70M bank scam foiled; 7 charged - USA Today Newspaper Archives, 19th May 1988 (United States)
  6. Police Swoop on 'hacker of the year' - The Sydney Morning Herald, 15th November, 2007 (Australia)
  7. Dangerous Decisions: Problem Solving in Tomorrow's World - Enum Mumford. ISBN-13: 978-0306461439. Pages 161-165 (paperback)
  8. Edward Cherlin, Simputer Evangelist and son of George Yale Cherlin, Ph.D, courtesy of www.oldcomputers.com (Europe)
  9. New York Times, 20th August 2007 - "JoyBubbles, 58, Peter Pan of Phone Hackers, Dies" (Online Version: delete cookies before viewing) (United States)
  10. Origins of Phreaking - Gary Robson (United States)
  11. John Draper interviewed in early 1995 by Tom Barbalet, software programmer and Co-Chair of Intellectual Property Rights Special Interest Group (United States)
  12. The Trials of Kevin Mitnick - CNN Special Report, 1999 (United States)
  13. Biography of Kevin Mitnick - Courtesy of Takedown.com
  14. Prominent Hacker Mitnick Hacked - BBC News Online, 11th February, 2003 (United Kingdom)
  15. Teenage Hacker Unlocks the iPhone - BBC News Online, 25th August, 2007 (United Kingdom)
  16. Apple Inc. Press Releases - Apple Chooses Cingular as Exclusive US Carrier for Its Revolutionary iPhone, January 7th 2007 (United States)
  17. Legal Threats Halt iPhone Crack - BBC News Online, 28th August 2007 (United Kingdom)
  18. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998, U.S. Copyright Office Summary - Library of Congress (United States)
  19. Library of Congress, United States Copyright Office - Fair Use (United States)
  20. Canadian Hacker worked with MPAA to combat BitTorrent downloads - Financial Post, 22nd October, 2007 (Canada)
  21. The Library of Greek Mythology - Apollodorus (translation by Robin Hard) ISBN-13: 978-0192839244 (United Kingdom)
  22. How Viruses Work - Craig C. Freudenrich, Ph.D. Courtesy of How Stuff Works
  23. The Shockwave Rider - John Brunner ISBN-13: 978-0345324313 (United States)
  24. Xerox Parc - Innovation Milestones (United States)
  25. The "Worm" Programs - early experience with a distributed computation. Shoch, J.F and Hupp, J.A. Palo Alto Research Center NY: ACM; 1999; 19-27 (United States)
  26. Symantec Corporation: Security Responses - W32.Blaster.Worm (United States)
  27. Wireless World Is Vulnerable - National Post, 6th December, 2007 (Canada)


Counter-claims being made against the claims of bias in the disputed article
(In chronological order)

  1. [It's Incorrect] to say that "each word [of language] is interpreted according to the cultural frame within which the listener has grown up". rtc 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is no such thing as a cultural frame. Cultural frames are chimera of postmodernism. rtc 14:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cultural frames [of reference] simply do not exist. rtc 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is nothing different about the common understanding of hacker in the US. rtc 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There is no such thing as "evidence" (the same way that there is no such thing as cultural frames) rtc 19:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Your whole basic point is wrong, that there is something like an authoritative use of words, or that the plurality of uses of the word hacker is any different outside of the US than it is inside the US. rtc 15:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Hacker does not mean a criminal. Ever. Pengo 04:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hacker [is] the more general, but less used term. Pengo 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wikipedia seeks no "verifiable evidence" to "support" claims in articles rtc 18:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Even if the understanding of hacker were any other outside of the US than inside the US, which is not true, ... rtc 10:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. References are necessary, but not because they "verify" anything (which they don't). They are necessary for the readers to be given the opportunity to read about the described views more in detail. And they are necessary for the editors to check whether the view is correctly described. rtc 10:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Much of this [new proposed] article refers to crackers. ... They are two very different groups. 67.141.215.252 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (Location: Pennsylvania 15857, United States)[reply]
  13. Sources must be "verifiable", but they may not be used as evidence or to verify claims you want to put into the article. You may only use the source if the source says so. rtc 11:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. You are creating an original theory to explain why the definition of hacker in this dictionary and that dictionary differ, while both happen to be from different countries. You give no relevant source that holds this theory of yours. rtc 13:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. [I'm an] IT professional in Canada. My own experience is that, in fact, the pejorative usage of hacker meaning "criminal" is not the definitive international meaning, among IT professionals and amateurs. 216.144.119.132 20:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (Location: Valcourt, Quebec, Canada)[reply]
  16. The oxford [Concise Dictionary] definition you link is a limited definition, and incomplete based on modern published usage -- in multiple languages and continents. here 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The prosecution section [in the new proposed article] seems excessive and overly recent [for inclusion] here 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I am someone who works in the IT industry in the UK, I have come across all the terms "White Hat", "Black Hat", "Hacker", "Hacking" etc. Kirrus 12:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Relevance is given by the overall cultural impact. The Open Source/Free Software community may not be known so much, and even where it is known may not be associated so much with the word hacker in the general public. But it had a huge impact on our society ... and hence this article has to describe that. rtc 19:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I find your claim that non-IT people and non-US English people will not "understand" the article to be without any merit whatsoever. ... The proper way to handle this is through disambiguation, not through insisting that your pet (atypical) definition should replace an existing article. Nandesuka 12:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. TMRC already implies that it is in the US, and Homebrew Computer Club also implies that it is in the US. rtc 13:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. That one meaning is more prevalent than a different one here than there is hardly of any significance at all. It is false that how something is understood by the "intended audience" in any way matters for how an article should be written. rtc 13:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I agree that "the current opening paragraph does not fairly document the word 'hacker', as appearing in non-US contexts such as an Australian book, a Canadian Newspaper, or a British software programmer's blog". In fact, it does not document the word "hacker" at all, and doing so would not be its purpose. rtc 13:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. If one doesn't know a phrase and can't figure it out from the context, they can just follow the link. Army1987 14:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Wikipedia's job isn't exclusively documenting words used in mainstream English as of 2008. Army1987 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Your premise (that an article's context is "defined" by its title) is already wrong. Nandesuka 12:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. There is nothing specific about the word "hacker" that "implies the word hacker in all countries in the English-speaking world." Nandesuka 02:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Documents offered to support the counter-claims being made
(These documents appear only on the talk page and are in addition to those appearing in any article)

  1. "Die Hacker: Strukturanalyse einer jugendlichen Subkultur" -- "the hackers: structural analysis of a youthful subculture" (Germany)
  2. Oxford English Dictionary (non-United States)

Sources cited in the disputed article to support its content

  1. Fred Shapiro: Antedating of "Hacker". American Dialect Society Mailing List (13. June 2003) (United States)
  2. "webzone.k3.mah.se/k3jolo/HackerCultures/origins.htm". (Sweden)
  3. See the 1981 version of the Jargon File, entry "hacker", last meaning. (United States)
  4. "Computer hacking: Where did it begin and how did it grow?". WindowSecurity.com. October 16, 2002. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) (United States)
  5. Detroit Free Press, September 27, 1983 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) (United States)
  6. Elmer-DeWitt, Philip (Aug. 29, 1983), "The 414 Gang Strikes Again", Time magazine, pp. p. 75 {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) (United States)
  7. "Beware: Hackers at play", Newsweek, pp. pp. 42-46, 48, September 5, 1983 {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) (United States)
  8. "Timeline: The U.S. Government and Cybersecurity". Washington Post. 2002. Retrieved 2006-04-14. (United States)
  9. David Bailey, "Attacks on Computers: Congressional Hearings and Pending Legislation," sp, p. 180, 1984 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 1984.
  10. Eric S. Raymond: A Brief History of Hackerdom (2000) (United States)
  11. "www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch20s06.html".
  12. Graham, Paul (2004). "Great Hackers". (United States)
  13. See for example the MIT Gallery of Hacks (United States)
  14. http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/P/phreaking.html (United States)
  15. Thompson, Ken (August 1984). "Reflections on Trusting Trust" (PDF). Communications of the ACM. 27 (8).
  16. http://gnu.mirrorspace.org/philosophy/rms-hack.html (United States)
  17. http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/cracker.html (United States)
  18. http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/pt03.html#bibliography (United States)
  19. http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/magic-story.html (United States)

FAO All Editors: Consensus and Bias with respect to an article's Intended Audience

[edit]

Consensus

The concept of consensus is that all people agree before taking some kind of action. In the context of Wikipedia articles, all decisions about the article's title, and content with respect to that title, should be taken with the consensus of all editors for the article. For the consensus system to work properly, however, key fundamentals about the article's audience must be defined beforehand so that discussions regarding an article's content can be interpreted correctly, allowing editors to ascertain if fixes are necessary and to what degree they are necessary. Only then can consensus can be reached on whether the article's content is neutral, or biased, with respect to that audience.

As no statement has ever been made defining the exact intended audience of the current (disputed) aricle, every claim regarding content not matching the context of the article has been evaded, and arguments have continued relentlessly. Therefore, I am now calling on all the editors who are involved in the current article to define their article's intended audience. Below is a set of questions I have formulated for determining the intended audience of an article about hackers on English Wikipedia. Each question has a number of possible answers but has been designed so that only one answer is possible from its list of responses, so leading to an unambiguous definition of the intended audience.


Audience Questions

What is the current article's intended audience with respect to:

A1) IT industry association?
  • Only IT people
  • Only non-IT people
  • Both IT and non-IT people
A2) geographic region?
  • United States (and governed territories) only
  • United Kingdom (and sovereign states) only
  • Australia only
  • New Zealand only
  • Canada only
  • Whole English-speaking world
  • Whole World
  • Other (please state)
A3) the English ability of the reader?
  • Native speakers only
  • Native speakers and non-native speakers
A4) possible languages for translation?
  • No translation of the article into other languages is intended
  • Translation of the article into other languages is intended

As there are actually two articles being debated, valid comparisons between the articles is not possible until the intended audience for both articles has been defined. Once the audiences have been defined, comparisons can be made and decisions taken as to what content is most suitable for the audience of an English Wikipedia article. Below are two answer spaces, one for each of the articles being debated. I did not write the current article therefore the editors of the current article should answer the questions for their article. However, I proposed a new article and I did define the audience for the article before I wrote it, hence I have answered the questions for the new article below. Editors of the current article please answer the questions for your article below in the same style that I used for answering.

Intended Audience (Current Article):
A1)
A2)
A3)
A4)
Intended Audience (New Proposed Article):
A1) Both IT and non-IT people
A2) Whole English-speaking world
A3) Native speakers and non-native speakers
A4) Translation from English into other languages other is intended

The Consensus policy states that all editors views should be taken on board when writing an article. Therefore, as I have been involved in the debate about the current article as well, I have stated below what I believe the current article's intended audience should be, were it to be fixed:

Intended Audience (Current Article) (as proposed by Andrew81446):
A1) Both IT and non-IT people
A2) Whole English-speaking world
A3) Native speakers and non-native speakers
A4) Translation from English into other languages other is intended


Bias

The concept of Bias is that of the content of an article not reflecting a neutral or balanced account of the article's subject as seen from the point of view of the article's intended audience. In the context of Wikipedia, the editors of an article create bias which is then experienced by the readers of the article. As this is English Wikipedia, it is expected that all people in the English-speaking world are able to read, and have the option to contribute to, any article. However, the reality is that while most people do read Wikipedia articles, most choose not to contribute to them. Therefore, in order for the consensus system to guarantee, given the severe lack of editors, that bias is not experienced when an article is read, it is imperative that those who do edit articles take into consideration the geographic, cultural, and linguistic diversity of English Wikipedia's entire intended audience with respect to every content decision made on any article.

In normal cases, the concept of "Good Faith" allows one to assume that the comments of all editors do indeed take into account all the diversity of English Wikipedia's entire audience. However, the debate ensuing on this page has shown categorically that "good faith" cannot be assumed so I have constructed a set of questions, for each editor to answer, to enable the fundamental extent to which consensus is possible among editors to be determined. The questions ask an editor to declare how they believe English Wikipedia's audience to be comprised. Unlike the definition of an article's intended audience, which obviously must be decided before an article can be written, this is purely voluntary and all editors are being invited to participate.

Belief Quesions

Do you believe that:

B1) the intended audience of English Wikipedia is made up of citizens from more than one country? [Yes/No] (If "No", state country)
B2) the culture in all countries making up the audience of English Wikipedia is shared and identical? [Yes/No]
B3) each country served by English Wikipedia uses its own dialect of English, with its own grammar and meanings for words? [Yes/No]

The version control system for this page shows that the people who have contributed to this debate and/or have made edits to the page are as follows:

I have answered the questions in place. For other users who wish to declare their views, would you please enter your answers in the space opposite your name in a similar style to me.


Conclusion

This entire post is an invitation to the editorial community to determine the two most important prerequisites for any article on Wikipedia over and above its content. These are:

1) the intended audience of the article
2) the scope of the consensus that is possible between the article's editors

If the intended audience for an article is not defined before an article is written, or the beliefs of just one editor with regards to how English Wikipedia's audience is comprised are not known by all editors involved, then consensus will almost certainly be impossible and bias in the article will be inevitable (as has been demonstrated in the "Hacker" article).

The lock on the "Hacker" article will eventually expire meaning that editing on it will be resumed. However, if an editor makes any change to the article's content without (a) the article's audience being defined and publicly stated, or (b) that editor's views as to how they perceive English Wikipedia's audience to be comprised being publicly stated, I shall lodge the existing claims of irreparable bias to the Arbtration Committee, citing that the bias stems from a failure in the consensus system, caused almost certainly by partiality among contributing editors.

Andrew81446 (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sources Used in the Disputed Article

[edit]

A look at the currently disputed article sees Paul Graham being cited as a source, with the article "Great Hackers" being referenced with respect to the section on the Open Source movement. Mr. Graham appears respected in the US (where he grew up and was educated) academic and hacking communities, which is why I am curious that more of his views on this subject have not been cited. In particular, a very thorough insight into the US word "hacker" itself. What could be more pertinent to the focus of the current article?

If a source is going to be cited, then wouldn't it be better that a full balance of a source's opinions that are pertinent to the subject being documented be put into the article? Quoting only one half (or one side) of someone's opinions means effectively manipulating a living person's point of view to suit one's own and amounts to misquotation. And Mr. Graham holds nothing back as he states that hacking, in the sense documented in the currently disputed article, is purely a facet of the United States, and he offers no words about the "hacker scene" in terms of any other country. I won't quote him - read the "entire" article for yourselves.

In a similar vein, the Swedish source Jonas Löwgren, who is cited for writing the article "Hacker Culture(s)" (at the untitled URL: http://webzone.k3.mah.se/k3jolo/HackerCultures/sources.htm in the article itself), writes an article that looks pretty similar to the one being disputed, and this is borne out with a look at the sources for his article which show that his sources have exactly the same scope as, and in some cases are identical to, this article. Meaning that not only is Mr. Löwgren's document US-specific as his sources are only US-specific, but on a verifiability level it puts his article on the same level as this Wikipedia article, effectively meaning that it is Questionable as it does not appear to draw on any sources that are better grounded than the ones appearing the Wikipedia article that references it. Having said that, quite by accident, I do notice that his interpretation of the first hacker is the same as the new proposed article, citing the 1960s and a programmer on the (ex-military) computing project that went on to form the heart of the MIT AI laboratory.

Which returns me to the entire crux of this debate: if the "hacker scene", as observed by a prominent and respected insiders, is US-specific, what is it doing taking up the majority of an article that is for the entire of English Wikipedia's intended audience? Quite by accident, his observations on the history of the word "hacker" mirror the description that is documented in the various parts of the proposed new article, showing that the new proposed article documents, not defines, what as been independently observed by both US and non-US IT-related people in different parts of the world.

Andrew81446 (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Non-US/non-IT people in agreement about bias claims

[edit]

I'm a school teacher from the United Kingdom. I am not related to IT in any way and I don't normally edit on Wikipedia, but I just had to leave a comment on this (with the technical help of a friend, of course) when I noticed something amiss with this article. It does not document any history or anything to do with hacking. My internet connection doesn't work every now and then, or my email has a virus, and I wanted to know about how hackers do these things. That is what I consider Wikipedia to be for. However, what I found was difficult to read, full of acronyms and (American?) words I didn't understand, and as an article which I could use to teach to 14-19 year old children, I think this kind of material is one-sided and does not represent what goes on here in the United Kingdom. After showing the site page to my colleagues, they also agree.

I was researching hackers on the internet and was led to this article. However I was appalled by what I saw as people I personally know in IT (particularly friends and family members who have been programming computers for over 25 years) do not know or relate to any of the information in the article, except maybe for the part on "Computer Security". Hackers are generally considered to be criminals in the United Kingdom and Ireland, where I currently reside. I also have IT friends from Dubai, Australia, and India where hackers are only known in this context. Shouldn’t this article be documenting what is actually going on everywhere so lay readers like me are not being given a single point of view, which does not represent the country I come from? Isn’t Wikipedia meant to represent all points of view or common view?

I found an alternative article, which I saw when scanning over these comments, and it’s been extremely useful. I even gave it to my 16-year-old children, and my 60-year-old father who knows little about computers, and they had no problem understanding it, saying it was very easy to read and very informative (although the legal section was over the children's heads). The alternative article had the information I was looking for about hackers, but the current one opened my eyes to the biased writing that I thought didn't exist on Wikipedia.

As a teacher, I thought Wikipedia was independent, so I thought it would reflect, in part, what appears in UK newspapers and appears on UK television so that it could be used as a reference aid for deeper study of things going on around me. What I have seen on this page, and the attitudes towards people who try and be neutral, is absolutely appalling and it has made me seriously question previous information I have sought from this site. As a consequence, I shall be recommending to my teacher's union of 250,000 members that Wikipedia be removed as a research tool to protect our children, instead recommending that we focus more on the value of good quality, neutral, book-based research. I shall be distributing the alternative article in my classroom even though it is not the main one because as a completely computer-novice, I feel it is interesting, well-written and does not feel like it is trying to push or define something, perfect material for teaching children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.41.56.30 (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew81446/Moved_from_Talk_Hacker&oldid=192718856"