Talk:Basic Wiki Content and Editor Policies - Revision history

Mx Yzptlk: /* Content */ Added a question at the bottom

2021-12-27T21:07:32Z

Content: Added a question at the bottom

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:07, 27 December 2021
Line 77:		Line 77:
	** non-english content is good [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** non-english content is good [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* How should we handle articles for serialized hacks? e.g. Nintendo Gigaleaks seems to be a series of hacks collected under one banner/name - but the hacks and leaks took place at different times.		* How should we handle articles for serialized hacks? e.g. Nintendo Gigaleaks seems to be a series of hacks collected under one banner/name - but the hacks and leaks took place at different times.
			* How should we handle things that are definitely leaks - but the exfiltration had some element of hacking? e.g. Snowden and Schulte are both definitely leakers, but copying and exfiltrating the data involved some level of activity that could be considered hacking. There are other examples.

Mx Yzptlk: /* Content */ Added question at the bottom

2021-12-27T16:37:38Z

Content: Added question at the bottom

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:37, 27 December 2021
Line 76:		Line 76:
	* What about non-English content?		* What about non-English content?
	** non-english content is good [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** non-english content is good [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
			* How should we handle articles for serialized hacks? e.g. Nintendo Gigaleaks seems to be a series of hacks collected under one banner/name - but the hacks and leaks took place at different times.

Mx Yzptlk at 15:31, 27 December 2021

2021-12-27T15:31:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:31, 27 December 2021
Line 14:		Line 14:
	*** Speaking of technical information about the hack - does that include information from the subjects of the hack? Or third party analysis performed by cyber experts, etc.? [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 20:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)		*** Speaking of technical information about the hack - does that include information from the subjects of the hack? Or third party analysis performed by cyber experts, etc.? [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 20:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
	**** I'd personally favor first-party accounts from the hackers falling back on incident reports from the subject. With "cyber experts" you start running into things that are pure speculation. I'm trying to convey the instinct of what a hacker might look for with my writing, so where there is conflicting speculation, I'm favoring the easiest way in that "checks out." But people are welcome to add their own write ups/theories. If somebody does a better job trying to figure out how the hack was done than the cyber pundits, it's well researched and educational, I also don't see why we should not allow it. [[User:Amongomous\|Amongomous]] ([[User talk:Amongomous\|talk]]) 23:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)		**** I'd personally favor first-party accounts from the hackers falling back on incident reports from the subject. With "cyber experts" you start running into things that are pure speculation. I'm trying to convey the instinct of what a hacker might look for with my writing, so where there is conflicting speculation, I'm favoring the easiest way in that "checks out." But people are welcome to add their own write ups/theories. If somebody does a better job trying to figure out how the hack was done than the cyber pundits, it's well researched and educational, I also don't see why we should not allow it. [[User:Amongomous\|Amongomous]] ([[User talk:Amongomous\|talk]]) 23:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
			***** "I'd personally favor first-party accounts from the hackers falling back on incident reports from the subject." <--- Absolutely agree with this, especially for the purposes of this wiki. There are definitely times where we need to include both, though. One page I've been putting off creating is the [[Apple UDIDs]] entry, because it's a headache of contradictions and apparent lies. It's one of the instances where I don't think we can trust the hackers' account, but the full history and contradictory versions are definitely worth recording. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 15:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

	==Editor conduct==		==Editor conduct==

Amongomous: /* Content */

2021-12-26T01:53:42Z

Content

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:53, 26 December 2021
Line 50:		Line 50:
	** I think we should include them and generally take the hackers' word for it when they claim to be hacktivist until there is solid proof otherwise. Especially if we can demystify the hack to show that the level of technical sophistication is attainable by a single person or small group. Something like the recent Iran railways hack comes to mind where there is a lot of accusation of state backing, but no solid proof besides "it seems too well resourced to really be hacktivism." [[User:Amongomous\|Amongomous]] ([[User talk:Amongomous\|talk]]) 00:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)		** I think we should include them and generally take the hackers' word for it when they claim to be hacktivist until there is solid proof otherwise. Especially if we can demystify the hack to show that the level of technical sophistication is attainable by a single person or small group. Something like the recent Iran railways hack comes to mind where there is a lot of accusation of state backing, but no solid proof besides "it seems too well resourced to really be hacktivism." [[User:Amongomous\|Amongomous]] ([[User talk:Amongomous\|talk]]) 00:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
	*** Just chiming in here to say I think this is a really good point and goal. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 01:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)		*** Just chiming in here to say I think this is a really good point and goal. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 01:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
			** I'd eventually like to cover SolarWinds from the attackers' perspective and there is certainly a lot about this one that we do not yet know about, so it could be an interesting subject of leaks in itself. [[User:Amongomous\|Amongomous]] ([[User talk:Amongomous\|talk]]) 01:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
	* What about leaks of state sponsored hacks/hackers? e.g. Vault 7, Vault 8, Shadowbrokers		* What about leaks of state sponsored hacks/hackers? e.g. Vault 7, Vault 8, Shadowbrokers
	* What about cases where someone presents as a hacktivist, but there's widespread acceptance that they're a state sponsored actor? e.g. Guccifer 2.0		* What about cases where someone presents as a hacktivist, but there's widespread acceptance that they're a state sponsored actor? e.g. Guccifer 2.0

Amongomous at 23:55, 25 December 2021

2021-12-25T23:55:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:55, 25 December 2021
Line 13:		Line 13:
	** Mostly just most pages on here don't meet the standards of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also we'd especially like to include any statements or textfiles published by the hackers, and any technical information about how the hack was performed. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** Mostly just most pages on here don't meet the standards of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also we'd especially like to include any statements or textfiles published by the hackers, and any technical information about how the hack was performed. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	*** Speaking of technical information about the hack - does that include information from the subjects of the hack? Or third party analysis performed by cyber experts, etc.? [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 20:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)		*** Speaking of technical information about the hack - does that include information from the subjects of the hack? Or third party analysis performed by cyber experts, etc.? [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 20:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
			**** I'd personally favor first-party accounts from the hackers falling back on incident reports from the subject. With "cyber experts" you start running into things that are pure speculation. I'm trying to convey the instinct of what a hacker might look for with my writing, so where there is conflicting speculation, I'm favoring the easiest way in that "checks out." But people are welcome to add their own write ups/theories. If somebody does a better job trying to figure out how the hack was done than the cyber pundits, it's well researched and educational, I also don't see why we should not allow it. [[User:Amongomous\|Amongomous]] ([[User talk:Amongomous\|talk]]) 23:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

	==Editor conduct==		==Editor conduct==

Mx Yzptlk at 20:25, 25 December 2021

2021-12-25T20:25:29Z

Mx Yzptlk at 01:20, 25 December 2021

2021-12-25T01:20:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:20, 25 December 2021
Line 43:		Line 43:
	** What about cases like Shaltai-Boltai or Lulzsec that started off independent but were later run by states? I think it's fine to include but we should put a note about state involvement. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** What about cases like Shaltai-Boltai or Lulzsec that started off independent but were later run by states? I think it's fine to include but we should put a note about state involvement. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	** I think we should include them and generally take the hackers' word for it when they claim to be hacktivist until there is solid proof otherwise. Especially if we can demystify the hack to show that the level of technical sophistication is attainable by a single person or small group. Something like the recent Iran railways hack comes to mind where there is a lot of accusation of state backing, but no solid proof besides "it seems too well resourced to really be hacktivism." [[User:Amongomous\|Amongomous]] ([[User talk:Amongomous\|talk]]) 00:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)		** I think we should include them and generally take the hackers' word for it when they claim to be hacktivist until there is solid proof otherwise. Especially if we can demystify the hack to show that the level of technical sophistication is attainable by a single person or small group. Something like the recent Iran railways hack comes to mind where there is a lot of accusation of state backing, but no solid proof besides "it seems too well resourced to really be hacktivism." [[User:Amongomous\|Amongomous]] ([[User talk:Amongomous\|talk]]) 00:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
			*** Just chiming in here to say I think this is a really good point and goal. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 01:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
	* What about leaks of state sponsored hacks/hackers? e.g. Vault 7, Vault 8, Shadowbrokers		* What about leaks of state sponsored hacks/hackers? e.g. Vault 7, Vault 8, Shadowbrokers
	* What about cases where someone presents as a hacktivist, but there's widespread acceptance that they're a state sponsored actor? e.g. Guccifer 2.0		* What about cases where someone presents as a hacktivist, but there's widespread acceptance that they're a state sponsored actor? e.g. Guccifer 2.0

Amongomous at 00:45, 25 December 2021

2021-12-25T00:45:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:45, 25 December 2021
Line 42:		Line 42:
	* Do state sponsored hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Do state sponsored hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
	** What about cases like Shaltai-Boltai or Lulzsec that started off independent but were later run by states? I think it's fine to include but we should put a note about state involvement. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** What about cases like Shaltai-Boltai or Lulzsec that started off independent but were later run by states? I think it's fine to include but we should put a note about state involvement. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
			** I think we should include them and generally take the hackers' word for it when they claim to be hacktivist until there is solid proof otherwise. Especially if we can demystify the hack to show that the level of technical sophistication is attainable by a single person or small group. Something like the recent Iran railways hack comes to mind where there is a lot of accusation of state backing, but no solid proof besides "it seems too well resourced to really be hacktivism." [[User:Amongomous\|Amongomous]] ([[User talk:Amongomous\|talk]]) 00:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
	* What about leaks of state sponsored hacks/hackers? e.g. Vault 7, Vault 8, Shadowbrokers		* What about leaks of state sponsored hacks/hackers? e.g. Vault 7, Vault 8, Shadowbrokers
	* What about cases where someone presents as a hacktivist, but there's widespread acceptance that they're a state sponsored actor? e.g. Guccifer 2.0		* What about cases where someone presents as a hacktivist, but there's widespread acceptance that they're a state sponsored actor? e.g. Guccifer 2.0

Mx Yzptlk: /* Content */

2021-12-24T22:20:25Z

Content

Enlacehacktivista at 21:55, 24 December 2021

2021-12-24T21:55:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:55, 24 December 2021
Line 11:		Line 11:

	* How is the information on the wiki different from the information on Wikipedia?		* How is the information on the wiki different from the information on Wikipedia?
			** Mostly just most pages on here don't meet the standards of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also we'd especially like to include any statements or textfiles published by the hackers, and any technical information about how the hack was performed. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

	==Editor conduct==		==Editor conduct==
Line 19:		Line 20:
	* How should the community handle people using the wiki for self-promotion?		* How should the community handle people using the wiki for self-promotion?
	* How should the community handle people using the wiki to attack or defame others?		* How should the community handle people using the wiki to attack or defame others?
			** I think it's fine for people to edit pages about hacks they took part in and they shouldn't have to disclose it for obvious opsec reasons. If someone is using it to attack or defame others or for excessive self-promotion then we'll warn or block the user. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

	==Content==		==Content==
Line 25:		Line 27:
	* How are hacks attributed when they aren't claimed at the time, but alleged attribution is later given by a third party?		* How are hacks attributed when they aren't claimed at the time, but alleged attribution is later given by a third party?
	** How are hacks attributed when they aren't claimed at the time, but alleged attribution is later given by a third party - and denied by the alleged hacker?		** How are hacks attributed when they aren't claimed at the time, but alleged attribution is later given by a third party - and denied by the alleged hacker?
			** If there's conflicting claims I think we can just include both [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* If a hack is just a dox, should it be included with the wiki?		* If a hack is just a dox, should it be included with the wiki?
			** no [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* If attribution isn't widely known or accepted, should it be listed on the wiki?		* If attribution isn't widely known or accepted, should it be listed on the wiki?
			** If there's something public you can cite to back it [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* Do defacements count as hacks for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Do defacements count as hacks for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
			** We don't really want to have articles about every defacement on zone-h, but I think we can include defacements if it's well-targeted and not just randomly scanning for and defacing vulnerable sites. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* Does malware count as a hack for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Does malware count as a hack for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
	* Do ransomware hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Do ransomware hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
			** I think we should include if there was data leaked in the public interest. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* Do commercial hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Do commercial hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
	* Do state sponsored hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Do state sponsored hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
			** What about cases like Shaltai-Boltai or Lulzsec that started off independent but were later run by states? I think it's fine to include but we should put a note about state involvement. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

	* Do "script kiddie" hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Do "script kiddie" hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
			** I don't think we should include untargeted attacks, like script kiddies just scanning the internet and defacing whatever vulnerable websites they find. If the hack is of a well-chosen target but the methods are basic or "script kiddie" I think it's fine for inclusion. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

	* Do hacks have to meet a notability test, similar to Wikipedia articles?		* Do hacks have to meet a notability test, similar to Wikipedia articles?
			** I don't think there needs to be a notability test, but if the wiki starts getting unbalanced with too many articles about some not-so-notable hacker group then we'll think if we need standards [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

	** If something that wouldn't otherwise qualify is especially notable, does that make a difference?		** If something that wouldn't otherwise qualify is especially notable, does that make a difference?
	* How should the wiki treat anonymous (lowercase a) research?		* How should the wiki treat anonymous (lowercase a) research?
	* How should the wiki treat claims, statements and self-identifications from dishonest hackers?		* How should the wiki treat claims, statements and self-identifications from dishonest hackers?
	** At what point does correcting this become doxing and does it matter?		** At what point does correcting this become doxing and does it matter?
	* If the wiki seeks to capture a sort of oral history of hackers, it'll inevitably capture disputed claims - should it seek to reconcile these, or simply record them and their discordance?		** In theory this site is just documenting what's already been public so I don't think we're doxing anyone. If a hacker claimed something that's probably false, I think we should include it, with a note about why it's probably false. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
			* If the wiki seeks to capture a sort of oral history of hackers, it'll inevitably capture disputed claims - should it seek to reconcile these, or simply record them and their discordance?
			** We should just record the different claims, unless there's very strong evidence that one is correct and the other is just wrong. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* How should the wiki handle allegations of hackers cooperating with law enforcement, etc.?		* How should the wiki handle allegations of hackers cooperating with law enforcement, etc.?
			** We shouldn't accuse without good evidence but if there's solid evidence I think it's worth including [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* How much media should be hosted on the wiki?		* How much media should be hosted on the wiki?
	* Should the wiki include things like logs?		* Should the wiki include things like logs?
	* How much cultural content should go on the wiki? e.g. Hacker zines		* How much cultural content should go on the wiki? e.g. Hacker zines
			** It's fine to include but I don't think it's that important to mirror stuff that's already in phrack or textfiles.com or otherwise well-archived and unlikely to disappear. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* What about non-English content?		* What about non-English content?
			** non-english content is good [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 25 December 2021
Line 12:		Line 12:
	* How is the information on the wiki different from the information on Wikipedia?		* How is the information on the wiki different from the information on Wikipedia?
	** Mostly just most pages on here don't meet the standards of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also we'd especially like to include any statements or textfiles published by the hackers, and any technical information about how the hack was performed. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** Mostly just most pages on here don't meet the standards of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also we'd especially like to include any statements or textfiles published by the hackers, and any technical information about how the hack was performed. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
			*** Speaking of technical information about the hack - does that include information from the subjects of the hack? Or third party analysis performed by cyber experts, etc.? [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 20:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

	==Editor conduct==		==Editor conduct==
Line 21:		Line 22:
	* How should the community handle people using the wiki to attack or defame others?		* How should the community handle people using the wiki to attack or defame others?
	** I think it's fine for people to edit pages about hacks they took part in and they shouldn't have to disclose it for obvious opsec reasons. If someone is using it to attack or defame others or for excessive self-promotion then we'll warn or block the user. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** I think it's fine for people to edit pages about hacks they took part in and they shouldn't have to disclose it for obvious opsec reasons. If someone is using it to attack or defame others or for excessive self-promotion then we'll warn or block the user. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
			* What about first hand experience and knowledge? If the wiki attracts people in the community, it may very well draw people who were "in the room." How should the wiki handle those situations?

	==Content==		==Content==
Line 32:		Line 34:
	* If attribution isn't widely known or accepted, should it be listed on the wiki?		* If attribution isn't widely known or accepted, should it be listed on the wiki?
	** If there's something public you can cite to back it [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** If there's something public you can cite to back it [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
			*** What if it falls into that amorphous field of "community knowledge" but it isn't published anywhere that's still accessible? After all, pastes get removed, forums go down, etc. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 20:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
	* Do defacements count as hacks for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Do defacements count as hacks for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
	** We don't really want to have articles about every defacement on zone-h, but I think we can include defacements if it's well-targeted and not just randomly scanning for and defacing vulnerable sites. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** We don't really want to have articles about every defacement on zone-h, but I think we can include defacements if it's well-targeted and not just randomly scanning for and defacing vulnerable sites. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
			*** It was pointed out to me that some defacements were used for communiques by groups like [[AntiSec]]. These probably shouldn't be listed as separate hacks (unless there was more to it) but they should probably be included on the wiki if they include a communique from a notable hacker or hacker group/collective. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 20:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
	* Does malware count as a hack for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Does malware count as a hack for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
	** I'd propose that malware itself doesn't, but hacks based on malware obviously do. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** I'd propose that malware itself doesn't, but hacks based on malware obviously do. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Line 40:		Line 44:
	** Leaked negotiations and chats with ransomware hackers can also prove enlightening and interesting for cultural and historical value. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** Leaked negotiations and chats with ransomware hackers can also prove enlightening and interesting for cultural and historical value. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* Do commercial hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Do commercial hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
			** I feel like if maybe if there's information that would particularly fit the wiki, like communications/messages from the hackers or technical information about the hack. But if it's basically just a breach notification, it'd just be cluttering up the wiki and missing what I understand the intent of its spirit to be. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 20:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
	* Do state sponsored hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Do state sponsored hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
	** What about cases like Shaltai-Boltai or Lulzsec that started off independent but were later run by states? I think it's fine to include but we should put a note about state involvement. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** What about cases like Shaltai-Boltai or Lulzsec that started off independent but were later run by states? I think it's fine to include but we should put a note about state involvement. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Line 50:		Line 55:
	** I don't think we should include untargeted attacks, like script kiddies just scanning the internet and defacing whatever vulnerable websites they find. If the hack is of a well-chosen target but the methods are basic or "script kiddie" I think it's fine for inclusion. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** I don't think we should include untargeted attacks, like script kiddies just scanning the internet and defacing whatever vulnerable websites they find. If the hack is of a well-chosen target but the methods are basic or "script kiddie" I think it's fine for inclusion. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	*** This makes sense, especially considering the number of hacks that are simple or basic and waiting to happen, just lacking someone with the will and interest. After all, how frequent do articles after the fact marvel that a hack didn't happen earlier? Epik is recent one example that comes to mind where there was that sort of commentary. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		*** This makes sense, especially considering the number of hacks that are simple or basic and waiting to happen, just lacking someone with the will and interest. After all, how frequent do articles after the fact marvel that a hack didn't happen earlier? Epik is recent one example that comes to mind where there was that sort of commentary. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

	* Do hacks have to meet a notability test, similar to Wikipedia articles?		* Do hacks have to meet a notability test, similar to Wikipedia articles?
	** I don't think there needs to be a notability test, but if the wiki starts getting unbalanced with too many articles about some not-so-notable hacker group then we'll think if we need standards [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** I don't think there needs to be a notability test, but if the wiki starts getting unbalanced with too many articles about some not-so-notable hacker group then we'll think if we need standards [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

	* If something that wouldn't otherwise qualify is especially notable, does that make a difference?		* If something that wouldn't otherwise qualify is especially notable, does that make a difference?
	** I don't think it should, unless it was already very borderline. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** I don't think it should, unless it was already very borderline. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* How should the wiki treat anonymous (lowercase a) research?		* How should the wiki treat anonymous (lowercase a) research?
	** It should probably ignore it unless it's been peer reviewed in someway. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** It should probably ignore it unless it's been peer reviewed in someway. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* How should the wiki treat claims, statements and self-identifications from dishonest hackers?		* How should the wiki treat claims, statements and self-identifications from dishonest hackers? At what point does correcting this become doxing and does it matter?
	** At what point does correcting this become doxing and does it matter?
	** In theory this site is just documenting what's already been public so I don't think we're doxing anyone. If a hacker claimed something that's probably false, I think we should include it, with a note about why it's probably false. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** In theory this site is just documenting what's already been public so I don't think we're doxing anyone. If a hacker claimed something that's probably false, I think we should include it, with a note about why it's probably false. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* If the wiki seeks to capture a sort of oral history of hackers, it'll inevitably capture disputed claims - should it seek to reconcile these, or simply record them and their discordance?		* If the wiki seeks to capture a sort of oral history of hackers, it'll inevitably capture disputed claims - should it seek to reconcile these, or simply record them and their discordance?
Line 71:		Line 73:
	* What about non-English content?		* What about non-English content?
	** non-english content is good [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** non-english content is good [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* What about first hand experience and knowledge? If the wiki attracts people in the community, it may very well draw people who were "in the room." How should the wiki handle those situations?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:20, 24 December 2021
Line 24:		Line 24:
	==Content==		==Content==

	* How are hacks attributed when they aren't claimed at the time, but attribution is later claimed?		* How are hacks attributed when they aren't claimed at the time, but attribution is later claimed without definitive proof?
	* ~~How are hacks attributed when they aren't claimed at the time~~, ~~but alleged attribution is later given by a third party?~~		** I think it should be noted with context and skepticism. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	** How are hacks attributed when they aren't claimed at the time, but alleged attribution is later given by a third party - and denied by the alleged hacker?		* How are hacks attributed when they aren't claimed at the time, but alleged attribution is later given by a third party - and denied by the alleged hacker?
	** If there's conflicting claims I think we can just include both [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** If there's conflicting claims I think we can just include both [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* If a hack is just a dox, should it be included with the wiki?		* If a hack is just a dox, should it be included with the wiki?
Line 35:		Line 35:
	** We don't really want to have articles about every defacement on zone-h, but I think we can include defacements if it's well-targeted and not just randomly scanning for and defacing vulnerable sites. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** We don't really want to have articles about every defacement on zone-h, but I think we can include defacements if it's well-targeted and not just randomly scanning for and defacing vulnerable sites. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* Does malware count as a hack for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Does malware count as a hack for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
			** I'd propose that malware itself doesn't, but hacks based on malware obviously do. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* Do ransomware hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Do ransomware hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
	** I think we should include if there was data leaked in the public interest. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** I think we should include if there was data leaked in the public interest. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
			** Leaked negotiations and chats with ransomware hackers can also prove enlightening and interesting for cultural and historical value. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* Do commercial hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Do commercial hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
	* Do state sponsored hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Do state sponsored hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
	** What about cases like Shaltai-Boltai or Lulzsec that started off independent but were later run by states? I think it's fine to include but we should put a note about state involvement. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** What about cases like Shaltai-Boltai or Lulzsec that started off independent but were later run by states? I think it's fine to include but we should put a note about state involvement. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
			* What about leaks of state sponsored hacks/hackers? e.g. Vault 7, Vault 8, Shadowbrokers
			* What about cases where someone presents as a hacktivist, but there's widespread acceptance that they're a state sponsored actor? e.g. Guccifer 2.0

	* Do "script kiddie" hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?		* Do "script kiddie" hacks count for the purpose of the wiki and the [[Hacker History]] section?
	** I don't think we should include untargeted attacks, like script kiddies just scanning the internet and defacing whatever vulnerable websites they find. If the hack is of a well-chosen target but the methods are basic or "script kiddie" I think it's fine for inclusion. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** I don't think we should include untargeted attacks, like script kiddies just scanning the internet and defacing whatever vulnerable websites they find. If the hack is of a well-chosen target but the methods are basic or "script kiddie" I think it's fine for inclusion. [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
			*** This makes sense, especially considering the number of hacks that are simple or basic and waiting to happen, just lacking someone with the will and interest. After all, how frequent do articles after the fact marvel that a hack didn't happen earlier? Epik is recent one example that comes to mind where there was that sort of commentary. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

	* Do hacks have to meet a notability test, similar to Wikipedia articles?		* Do hacks have to meet a notability test, similar to Wikipedia articles?
	** I don't think there needs to be a notability test, but if the wiki starts getting unbalanced with too many articles about some not-so-notable hacker group then we'll think if we need standards [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** I don't think there needs to be a notability test, but if the wiki starts getting unbalanced with too many articles about some not-so-notable hacker group then we'll think if we need standards [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

	** If something that wouldn't otherwise qualify is especially notable, does that make a difference?		* If something that wouldn't otherwise qualify is especially notable, does that make a difference?
			** I don't think it should, unless it was already very borderline. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* How should the wiki treat anonymous (lowercase a) research?		* How should the wiki treat anonymous (lowercase a) research?
			** It should probably ignore it unless it's been peer reviewed in someway. [[User:Mx Yzptlk\|Mxy]] ([[User talk:Mx Yzptlk\|talk]]) 22:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
	* How should the wiki treat claims, statements and self-identifications from dishonest hackers?		* How should the wiki treat claims, statements and self-identifications from dishonest hackers?
	** At what point does correcting this become doxing and does it matter?		** At what point does correcting this become doxing and does it matter?
Line 62:		Line 69:
	* What about non-English content?		* What about non-English content?
	** non-english content is good [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)		** non-english content is good [[User:Enlacehacktivista\|Enlacehacktivista]] ([[User talk:Enlacehacktivista\|talk]]) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
			* What about first hand experience and knowledge? If the wiki attracts people in the community, it may very well draw people who were "in the room." How should the wiki handle those situations?