Talk:List of convicted crackers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just a note, that this should be merged elsewhere. The term cracker is ambiguous and bias and only has a specific meaning to those who want to redefine the term hacker. It's also incomplete.

--Netw1z 13:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be right. Some are listed under "Notable intruders and criminal hackers" at Hacker (computer security). Others have no Wiki entry at all, which makes their inclusion on this list questionable. Those on this list of Convicted Crackers, who aren't at the other article could be appended at the end of that list.Grimhim 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest changing the page name to List of cybercriminals. NorthernThunder 11:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Not the place for it, in my view. Because many of the individuals on this list evidently aren't sufficiently notable to warrant Wiki entries in their own right, it's not clear who they are or why they're on such a list. "Cybercrime" is therefore too general a term to accommodate them. It also fails to address the main problem, that the list is incomplete, arbitrary and unverifiable. I return to the suggestion I made above. Grimhim 11:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, should we include "handles" and aliases on this page?

Is this list even necessary or useful? Half the names are red (no Wikipedia entries). It completely fails WP:V, some of these would seem to fail WP:NOTE. Worst of all, Wikipedia is not a directory. If some of these names aren't even hackers or have had their convictions overturned, its potentially libelous. Worse, without cites - its a trollbait page. I'm considering nominating this article for deletion. --Eqdoktor 16:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, encyclopedias tend to have indexes. This is a good example of that. I-baLL 00:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)