Talk:List of convicted computer criminals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jeffrey Lee Parson is *not* a cracker. This page is disappointing.
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)
--Firealwaysworks 13:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Despite this articles short comings a list like this serves a purpose. Just because its dificult to manage or verify does not mean it should be removed. I don't think any Wikipeida article is complete. There will always be more information, there is always another view point. This is never going to change as long as Wikipeida exists! One of Wikipeida's greatest features is lists like these. There are going to be more infamous hackers in the news and thus on wikipeida. There should be a place to link them together. I agree that there are better titles for this list. I have added to this list and i will continue to add names like this. I think the list should be renamed to: "list of convicted hackers" . I didn't say computer hackers, after all Kevin Mitnick was really into phreaking...
[edit] Since when is article quality a reason for deletion?
Just because the body is not good in your eyes, it can always be improved. Don't throw away the entire entry. Qevlarr 09:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Computer crimes
I think the term Computer crimes describes best what these guys do. "Hackers" or "Crackers", this is not the place to argue about that. Personally, I prefer to use these terms the 'hacker' way, where a cracker is a hacker with bad intentions.
So how about "List of people convicted for computer crimes"?
It could be much broader, as well, including people engaged in phishing or spamming and other computer crimes. Improve this article instead of deleting it, this could be really good.
[edit] Rename and recalculate, or delete
This article is unencyclopedically vague as titled, and cannot be an objective accounting of the subject matter.
The term "cracker" is loaded and subject to debate, and carries no dictionary definition by which a reference list could be compiled.
I proffer that this article be renamed "List of people convicted of computer intrusion" with a mandatory case reference and statute citation for each entry.
If the community agrees, I can perform a portion of this work myself, though help would be nice.
Failing this switchover, this list should be deleted as unencyclopedic unverifiable (membership in a category with no clear definition is unverified and cannot be verified) original research (there is no citable source listed classifying these individuals as crackers) and recreated with a more accurate scope.
I'll check back in re. replies in a couple weeks, and subsequently action this either way, since no one else is gonna :)
—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-10 02:11Z
- Good thinking, Adrian. Now that the list has been whittled back to just those who do have Wiki entries, this page can, without too much effort, be transformed into an article with brief, one-paragraph bullet-point entries for each of the convicted criminals. Those subsequently added would thus need to conform to the style of the page: ie, no further details = deletion on the grounds of failing to be notable. Not sure by what you mean "case reference" -- I certainly have detail on the two Australians on the list, but the definition and relevance of "case reference" is something that can be debated. Grimhim 02:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I mean a verifiable criminal case resulting in a conviction for the alleged computer-related conduct (or using such conduct as "relevant conduct" for purposes of a related conviction), so that we aren't libeling anyone.
- I don't know about the inclusion of anyone found liable in a civil case for computer-related conduct ... I'm not sure keeping both in the same category would be appropriate.
- Seems reasonable to me, but I'm open to input -- that's why I posted, after all :)
- —Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-10 03:50Z
