Talk:Hack Forums

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hack Forums article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 6 July 2018 by reviewer L293D (talk · contribs).

Computer Security: Computing Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Gotchynow (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight. (Identifies as the owner of Hack Forums [1])

Notability

It looks like the issue of notability is well-addressed: dedicated news articles by BBC, entire sections in articles by Computerworld, Verge, and The Daily Beast - all reliable and independent sources. Enivid (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

This content added today by an IP editor seems poorly sourced, based solely on an anonymous "guest post" on hackhex.com. Without a reliable source, including it in the article seems WP:UNDUE. Schazjmd (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Additions by HoboDyerProjection

The content added by HoboDyerProjection has no reliable source to verify the information is valid. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Please refer to WP:V on verifiability and WP:RS on what is considered reliable and what is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvalerionV (talk • contribs) 04:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The additions and sources are not original research, they are old forum posts made on the official MyBB forum used by almost all MyBB big-board holders.
The list is not from a particularly reliable source, but the MyBB space is not a big one and all large forums using the software are commonly known. The list, and the comment underneath it, should be suitable for use to cite Hackforums.net as being assumed to be one of the biggest MyBB forums.
Multiple MyBB developers and team members have responded to the thread, in addition to numerous people crowd-sourcing large boards to add the list, boosting its reliability. HoboDyerProjection (talk)

I agree with AvalerionV, forum posts are not reliable sources. Adding "someone on a MyBB forum claims Hack Forum is the biggest MyBB forum" doesn't add encyclopedic value. Schazjmd (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would have rather kept the lede specific to MyBB, it seems this isn't going to be happening. So I'll replace that source with something more reputable even though more general. HoboDyerProjection (talk)

By any chance are you registered on Hack Forums? :) AvalerionV 09:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have an account on Hack Forums, as well as many other online forums (including the MyBB forum). I've owned a few mildly successful boards myself as well. They are a much cherished relic of the past. HoboDyerProjection (talk)

Quote Change

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Remove: "It has a reputation for being populated by trolls, chaos-driven children and brazen criminal activity." or Alter to "The forum caters mostly to a young audience who are curious and occasionally malicious, but still learning."

Reason: "without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"[[2]] and yet only one non-neutral view from the source was added...Additionally "The forum caters mostly to a young audience who are curious and occasionally malicious, but still learning." should be added as it's also part of the "significant views" of the source. The full paragraph of the quote is also more viewpoint that's more neutral...

"Furthermore, HackForums is the kind of internet community that can seem impenetrable, even incomprehensible, to outsiders. It has a reputation for being populated by trolls, chaos-driven children and brazen criminal activity. It can, at any given time, count plenty of undercover police as watchful inhabitants. Despite it all, HackForums not only simply persists but, seven years after launch, it stubbornly continues to matter. "

Why only allow the worse statement about the site from the article? It's against WP policy and edits should be done immediately. Gotchynow (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 11-AUG-2019

Claim moved

The claim has been moved out of the lead section. The reliability of Cyberscoop is unknown at this time.

Regards, Spintendo 19:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joining in: The quote "The forum caters mostly to a young audience who are curious and occasionally malicious, but still learning" is taken from the same source here: [[3]] AvalerionV 19:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the countless references to criminal activity on the website (both in the article and available), seems the existing quote is a more accurate representation. BLDM (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic: "Criminal activity on the forum has been widely reported on in the media." I recommend adding a source to support the statement or it will be removed.AvalerionV 20:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be repeated in the lede. BLDM (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the original source for the criminal activity claim the Cyberscoop article? Regards, Spintendo 22:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can be derived from multiple articles. BLDM (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The statement should be accompanied by a few examples of the criminal activities in the lead which are then fully described later on in the article. For example, an article about an office furniture manufacturer might state "The company manufactures tables, chairs and lighting fixtures for office spaces". It would not say "The company manufactures things (see below to see what they are)". In this manner, the lead should not operate as a teaser section. Could you word this to have a few examples from the article? Regards, Spintendo 23:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal activity on the forum, including the sale of illegal hacking tools, has been widely reported on in the media. There's a problem with using the sale of "illegal hacking tools" in a claim of criminal activity. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act states that online services cannot be liable for third-party content. Thus, selling these tools is not illegal. Also, the claim states that the tools themselves are illegal by calling them "illegal hacking tools" when that is not the case. If the claim is to state that the website is widely known for criminal activity, then the claim also needs to give examples of the activities themselves — and these activities (such as selling software) need to be shown as illegal either in new references to add to the lead section or taken from the already existing claims' references in the article. Regards, Spintendo 02:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be illegal (or at least it is debatable if it is) for Hack Forums to facilitate these sales, but selling certain types of 'hacking tools' is illegal because it is considered aiding and abetting computer fraud. This is covered by the refs about Zachary Shames that are already in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the source for the article you mentioned. I honestly think it should be removed because there is an entire section for it, the statement serves no purpose in the lead.AvalerionV 11:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia the purpose of the lead section is to summarize the article for readers who aren't going to look over the whole thing (See WP:MOSLEAD) so anything that is covered to the extent of a whole section should have at least a sentence in the lead. - MrOllie (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refs don't need to be repeated in the lead. BLDM (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shames sold his keylogger to over 3,000 users who, in turn, used it to infect over 16,000 victim computers. The keylogger itself is not illegal, it's the fact that the keylogger was used to commit crimes which caused this individual to be arrested. The lead sentence should not imply that software alone is illegal. Just as guns are legal but certain crimes they are used with to commit are illegal. Also, this is one case, so the sentence should be reworded to state this one case, that "The site has been widely reported as facilitating criminal activity, such as the case of Zachery Shames, who in 2013 sold a keylogger which was used to steal personal information" is a more accurate description than of describing the site as selling "illegal hacking tools". As BLDM stated, this would not have to be referenced in the lead because its already referenced in the main body of text. Regards, Spintendo 15:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it is the context as much as anything. Selling a gun in a retail setting is a very different thing from selling a gun where street gangs hang out. At any rate, the current version of the line seems good to me. - MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spintendo made fair and unbiased edits. Why add these new terms to lead? The new "widely reported as facilitating criminal activity" is inaccurate because we are like Google, Twitter, or even Wikipedia. We are an OSP. As such we provide internet service and are not facilitating any criminal activity. The lead was perfectly fine without that statement and I'll argue for its removal. There is continued accusations and misunderstandings about HF and our intent as a website. Wikipedia editors are showing bias. Please fix. Gotchynow (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your position that the article isn't summarizing the sources properly, or is it that the sources themselves are incorrect? - MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that the statement is not accurate. It's opinion as I have not see any articles state that HF facilitates criminal activity. No more so than Google does. The site is a service provider and actually protected by law as an OSP from activity of the members. So by saying the site has been 'widely reported' I think that's incendiary and inaccurate plus it's not cited. It's a judgement based on opinion by the editor. Every mass shooter had a social media account like Twitter or Facebook. Does that mean they facilitate mass shooting? Stating the arrests and actual news articles is more than enough. Further colorful characterizations should not be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotchynow (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image Changes

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

The current images for the site are not current logo or site design.Gotchynow (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to upload some and link here. BLDM (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the owner, you can e-mail me the logo and I will have it changed. I will need copyright permission from you. Also you can upload them and I will have them linked to the article. AvalerionV 17:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logo [4] and index [5] Gotchynow (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request approved. Try to upload the images here, next time (if required) instead of third-party websites due to copyright issues. AvalerionV 19:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]