4 ms·

Appears to be self-authored.

tenken 3y ago
... guess that's why it's comprehensive ^_^
jimmies 3y ago
A quick glance to the history of the article, I see it was edited by multiple usernames and IP address at different times. How did you come to the conclusion that it was self authored?
- whichfawkes 3y ago
  To be fair, if I was writing my own Wikipedia page, I would do the same.
  - hackernewds 3y ago
    Especially as a hacker
- uoaei 3y ago
  I don't think it's a stretch to assume that infosec experts/hackers have ways to falsify their online identities.
  - derefr 3y ago
    Funny to think about: "writing your own Wikipedia page without it getting taken down for Original Research" is a fun first hobby project to certain kinds of network-security people, as much as as "making your Github activity graph solid green" is a fun first hobby project to bot programmers.
- grumple 3y ago
  Because this is a person that doesn't meet the notoriety requirements for Wikipedia, and goes into a level of detail that is also totally unnecessary. It is trivial to connect to different servers via VPN and creating new usernames on Wikipedia takes seconds.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    They clearly do meet the notability requirements; the cites on this article are almost as long as the article itself. Notability on Wikipedia is a term of art; it refers ("mostly") to how much of the content of the article can be drawn from (ideally diverse) secondary sources. It's not an achievement award.
  - KomoD 3y ago
    > Because this is a person that doesn't meet the notoriety requirements for Wikipedia Very much does, just because you don't know them doesn't mean they don't.
  - ffjffsfr 3y ago
    Wikipedia has protections against this. it is not trivial. Each change by random ip also has to be accepted by editor with permissions, and getting these permissions is not easy. It might be possible to bypass all abuse counter measures, but it takes a lot of effort and is not trivial
status200 3y ago
Easy to check on wikipedia, looks like it was created by the user Ezlev [0], who does not appear to be crimew's wikipedia acocunt, and updated by several other users over the last couple years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ezlev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ezlev
- von_lohengramm 3y ago
  Because this literal fugitive hacktivist is clearly incapable of finding creative ways to get diversified contributions to their Wikipedia page. Heck, they even proudly link to their WP page from their personal site. If they didn't write the article themself, then it was most likely a friend who's close enough to write something that screams self-authored page. Like c'mon, just look at the thing. Have you ever seen that many citations on something that isn't just spamming them trying to stave off the Wikipedia police?
shp0ngle 3y ago
It does seem weirdly detailed about someone I would mark as not really encyclopedically significant; but it has the citations and quotes so what do I know. It's one of the better Wikipedia articles in general However, it is not self-authored as can be seen in the history of the article.
slim 3y ago
makes sense to maintain your own wikipedia page as an "about" page. but it's too much hassle for most people

... guess that's why it's comprehensive ^_^

A quick glance to the history of the article, I see it was edited by multiple usernames and IP address at different times. How did you come to the conclusion that it was self authored?

whichfawkes 3y ago
To be fair, if I was writing my own Wikipedia page, I would do the same.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  Especially as a hacker
uoaei 3y ago
I don't think it's a stretch to assume that infosec experts/hackers have ways to falsify their online identities.
- derefr 3y ago
  Funny to think about: "writing your own Wikipedia page without it getting taken down for Original Research" is a fun first hobby project to certain kinds of network-security people, as much as as "making your Github activity graph solid green" is a fun first hobby project to bot programmers.
grumple 3y ago
Because this is a person that doesn't meet the notoriety requirements for Wikipedia, and goes into a level of detail that is also totally unnecessary. It is trivial to connect to different servers via VPN and creating new usernames on Wikipedia takes seconds.
- tptacek 3y ago
  They clearly do meet the notability requirements; the cites on this article are almost as long as the article itself. Notability on Wikipedia is a term of art; it refers ("mostly") to how much of the content of the article can be drawn from (ideally diverse) secondary sources. It's not an achievement award.
- KomoD 3y ago
  > Because this is a person that doesn't meet the notoriety requirements for Wikipedia Very much does, just because you don't know them doesn't mean they don't.
- ffjffsfr 3y ago
  Wikipedia has protections against this. it is not trivial. Each change by random ip also has to be accepted by editor with permissions, and getting these permissions is not easy. It might be possible to bypass all abuse counter measures, but it takes a lot of effort and is not trivial

status200 3y ago

Easy to check on wikipedia, looks like it was created by the user Ezlev [0], who does not appear to be crimew's wikipedia acocunt, and updated by several other users over the last couple years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ezlev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ezlev

von_lohengramm 3y ago
Because this literal fugitive hacktivist is clearly incapable of finding creative ways to get diversified contributions to their Wikipedia page. Heck, they even proudly link to their WP page from their personal site. If they didn't write the article themself, then it was most likely a friend who's close enough to write something that screams self-authored page. Like c'mon, just look at the thing. Have you ever seen that many citations on something that isn't just spamming them trying to stave off the Wikipedia police?

shp0ngle 3y ago

It does seem weirdly detailed about someone I would mark as not really encyclopedically significant; but it has the citations and quotes so what do I know. It's one of the better Wikipedia articles in general However, it is not self-authored as can be seen in the history of the article.

slim 3y ago

makes sense to maintain your own wikipedia page as an "about" page. but it's too much hassle for most people