6 ms·

I find it regrettable that Wikipedia, which has lengthy pages on cartoon and soap opera characters, feels the need to save bytes by deleting a page about a real

by ableal 18y ago

I find it regrettable that Wikipedia, which has lengthy pages on cartoon and soap opera characters, feels the need to save bytes by deleting a page about a real person who publicly contributed knowledge to the community. (Google cache still has it, as of today)

alnayyir 18y ago
What the hell? They deleted his page? The man's papers and his +HCU crowd trained a whole generation!
- tptacek 18y ago
  Respectfully: says who? I'm a professional reverse engineer and heard about Fravia for the first time yesterday, on Hacker News. I know brl is also a pro, and he obviously holds Fravia in some esteem, so I don't doubt he's important --- but again, says who? You need sourcing to put something on Wikipedia.
  - narag 18y ago
    "Reverse engineering" is in this case an euphemism for cracking, in the sense of unprotecting programs. Of course there are also others meanings, like reconstructing the lost code of a program from binaries or looking at its functionality. Fravia had a radical point of view about cracking and compiled practical information, including how to search for anything in the web, that he loved. There aren't any "papers" that can be cited. There are thus two reasons why it's difficult to establish his notability. One, that he was in an underground (not to say illegal) field. The other that it happened in the web, I don't say that Wikipedia should do anything, I couldn't care less, But, as a matter of fact, he was indeed well known ten years ago.
    - tptacek 18y ago
      Everything on WP is supposed to be verifiable. It's an ironclad rule. That's not to say it's consistently applied, but it does mean anybody can select a piece of unverifiable content on the WP and zap it if it isn't sourced. So if it's hard to establish notability in a verifiable way because he's underground and online, it's probably not worth the trouble to fight to keep the article in the WP; it's not appropriate for the encyclopedia.
      - narag 18y ago
        I think that's OK and even consistent with Fravia's character. Why should there be _one_ site with all the relevent information? OTOH, I wonder what will happen when more and more people, events and... stuff will be relevant only online in blogs, forums and not necesarily press sites. Do you think Wikipedia will change its ways?
        wmf 18y ago
        I realize that this is semi-tautological, but if something has no mainstream media coverage it really isn't notable. Heck, even most things covered by MSM don't seem notable to me. (Example seen on TV today: Ferrari spins out of control in NYC! So what.)
        tptacek 18y ago
        If it's covered in the MSM (or even in a very reputable blog), it's at least verifiable. Which is why Pokemon characters and Teletubbies can have articles, but psuedonymous Italian hackers have a hard time.
  - gcabeza 18y ago
    I assume you're young, and if you're a "professional" RE, well that's not exactly what fravia was about. these people was reversing "the reality" before reversing could be considered a profession at all, from 9 to 18? 401K? best regards
    - tptacek 18y ago
      Thanks!
    - alnayyir 18y ago
      Professional REs have been around for awhile if you look in the right places. Nevertheless, I'd say he's young too if he doesn't know who +Fravia is. Kee-raist.
  - alnayyir 18y ago
    Who did you learn from?
pg 18y ago
Why don't you recreate it? Wikipedia is supposed to be edited by everyone.
- ableal 18y ago
  History page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fravia&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fravia&action=... ... Protected Fravia: Repeatedly recreated ... (wasn't me, by the way - I've only done occasional anonymous minor fixes and original source contribs) P.S. I also looked for a place to protest the deletion, but couldn't find anything suitable. P.P.S. Please do not upvote this and my grandparent comment. Thanks.
  - pg 18y ago
    Wow. If you ever wanted evidence that Wikipedia isn't genuinely open to everyone, that would be it: an entry that is "protected" against too many people trying to create it.
    - ableal 18y ago
      It's a tough row to hoe. How do you keep a crackpot with a couple of friends (or sockpuppets) from establishing an 'authoritative' beachhead ? In this case, I think someone well-meaning tried to enforce the 'notoriety' policy. Now, it's a matter of judgement if a reverse engineer known to hundreds or thousands deserves a place along Donald Duck. Personally, I don't see much harm in giving a Wikipedia page to anyone who ever lived.
      - jaaron 18y ago
        Personally, I don't see much harm in giving a Wikipedia page to anyone who ever lived. I feel the same way.
      - tptacek 18y ago
        You wouldn't lose an argument about whether WP should give articles to everyone --- it's not a crazy idea --- but you wouldn't win it, either: the WP community, guided by people who spend huge amounts of time working on the encyclopedia, has already decided that providing pages for non-notable people isn't part of WP's charter. They have arguments for that, and they are sensible arguments. For instance, if you provide articles for everyone who ever lived, someone needs to police those articles. If you don't police the articles, you end up with tens of thousands of pages making specious claims about people, some of which may be damaging to the subject of the article, others of which may be damaging to the fields those people represent, all under the aegis of one of the most important sites on the Internet. Also, WP is by design not a primary source. Original research isn't allowed on WP. It's not WP's job to validate and referee research, to provide political analysis, or to promote people and companies. But the overwhelming majority of the content you'd get in articles about non-notable people would be inherently original research. By restricting the WP to summaries of independent reliable sourcing on notable people, the problem of maintaining an entire encyclopedia as a volunteer effort is at least tractable. I think veteran Wikipedians could probably win the argument that eliminating those standards altogether could make maintaining WP intractable. Also, remember that the article we're discussing here really sucked. Fravia might be important, but whoever wrote that article did him a disservice if he was.
cninja 18y ago
No need to use google cache when wikipedia keeps the history of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fravia&oldid=287935442 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fravia&oldid=2...
tptacek 18y ago
The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia isn't "contributions to the community", or else everybody who had ever worked on an open source project would have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles aren't lifetime achievement awards. The standard for inclusion is notability. This argument is a tempest in a teacup. Either there are reliable independent sources establishing that Fravia is notable, or there aren't. If there are, you will have no real trouble getting and keeping an article. If there aren't, the article will be repeatedly deleted, by people who don't know anything about reverse engineering and thus won't care at all about your arguments. When this exact topic came up yesterday, I spent 3-4 minutes looking for a reliable source that established notability for Fravia, and I came up blank. Who has written about him, outside of blogs? Surely, given how important he was to reverse engineering, somebody has mentioned him, or he's been published somewhere.
- ableal 18y ago
  I half-regret bringing up the issue. I had wanted to know more, and was sad the info had been deleted. The half I don't regret is that maybe someone here can contribute better to Wikipedia. Reverse engineering guys are mostly tight-lipped, but they're family ...
anigbrowl 18y ago
One wonders if the user who deleted the article was sufficiently jealous of Fravia's reputation that s/he would rather delete the article than improve it. Though poorly sourced, the deleted material hardly qualifies as 'fanboyism'.
gojomo 18y ago
!#@!@^% deletionists are ruining Wikipedia. They'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

by ableal 18y ago

alnayyir 18y ago

What the hell? They deleted his page? The man's papers and his +HCU crowd trained a whole generation!

tptacek 18y ago
Respectfully: says who? I'm a professional reverse engineer and heard about Fravia for the first time yesterday, on Hacker News. I know brl is also a pro, and he obviously holds Fravia in some esteem, so I don't doubt he's important --- but again, says who? You need sourcing to put something on Wikipedia.
- narag 18y ago
  "Reverse engineering" is in this case an euphemism for cracking, in the sense of unprotecting programs. Of course there are also others meanings, like reconstructing the lost code of a program from binaries or looking at its functionality. Fravia had a radical point of view about cracking and compiled practical information, including how to search for anything in the web, that he loved. There aren't any "papers" that can be cited. There are thus two reasons why it's difficult to establish his notability. One, that he was in an underground (not to say illegal) field. The other that it happened in the web, I don't say that Wikipedia should do anything, I couldn't care less, But, as a matter of fact, he was indeed well known ten years ago.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    Everything on WP is supposed to be verifiable. It's an ironclad rule. That's not to say it's consistently applied, but it does mean anybody can select a piece of unverifiable content on the WP and zap it if it isn't sourced. So if it's hard to establish notability in a verifiable way because he's underground and online, it's probably not worth the trouble to fight to keep the article in the WP; it's not appropriate for the encyclopedia.
    - narag 18y ago
      I think that's OK and even consistent with Fravia's character. Why should there be _one_ site with all the relevent information? OTOH, I wonder what will happen when more and more people, events and... stuff will be relevant only online in blogs, forums and not necesarily press sites. Do you think Wikipedia will change its ways?
      - wmf 18y ago
        I realize that this is semi-tautological, but if something has no mainstream media coverage it really isn't notable. Heck, even most things covered by MSM don't seem notable to me. (Example seen on TV today: Ferrari spins out of control in NYC! So what.)
        tptacek 18y ago
        If it's covered in the MSM (or even in a very reputable blog), it's at least verifiable. Which is why Pokemon characters and Teletubbies can have articles, but psuedonymous Italian hackers have a hard time.
- gcabeza 18y ago
  I assume you're young, and if you're a "professional" RE, well that's not exactly what fravia was about. these people was reversing "the reality" before reversing could be considered a profession at all, from 9 to 18? 401K? best regards
  - tptacek 18y ago
    Thanks!
  - alnayyir 18y ago
    Professional REs have been around for awhile if you look in the right places. Nevertheless, I'd say he's young too if he doesn't know who +Fravia is. Kee-raist.
- alnayyir 18y ago
  Who did you learn from?

pg 18y ago

Why don't you recreate it? Wikipedia is supposed to be edited by everyone.

ableal 18y ago
History page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fravia&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fravia&action=... ... Protected Fravia: Repeatedly recreated ... (wasn't me, by the way - I've only done occasional anonymous minor fixes and original source contribs) P.S. I also looked for a place to protest the deletion, but couldn't find anything suitable. P.P.S. Please do not upvote this and my grandparent comment. Thanks.
- pg 18y ago
  Wow. If you ever wanted evidence that Wikipedia isn't genuinely open to everyone, that would be it: an entry that is "protected" against too many people trying to create it.
  - ableal 18y ago
    It's a tough row to hoe. How do you keep a crackpot with a couple of friends (or sockpuppets) from establishing an 'authoritative' beachhead ? In this case, I think someone well-meaning tried to enforce the 'notoriety' policy. Now, it's a matter of judgement if a reverse engineer known to hundreds or thousands deserves a place along Donald Duck. Personally, I don't see much harm in giving a Wikipedia page to anyone who ever lived.
    - jaaron 18y ago
      Personally, I don't see much harm in giving a Wikipedia page to anyone who ever lived. I feel the same way.
    - tptacek 18y ago
      You wouldn't lose an argument about whether WP should give articles to everyone --- it's not a crazy idea --- but you wouldn't win it, either: the WP community, guided by people who spend huge amounts of time working on the encyclopedia, has already decided that providing pages for non-notable people isn't part of WP's charter. They have arguments for that, and they are sensible arguments. For instance, if you provide articles for everyone who ever lived, someone needs to police those articles. If you don't police the articles, you end up with tens of thousands of pages making specious claims about people, some of which may be damaging to the subject of the article, others of which may be damaging to the fields those people represent, all under the aegis of one of the most important sites on the Internet. Also, WP is by design not a primary source. Original research isn't allowed on WP. It's not WP's job to validate and referee research, to provide political analysis, or to promote people and companies. But the overwhelming majority of the content you'd get in articles about non-notable people would be inherently original research. By restricting the WP to summaries of independent reliable sourcing on notable people, the problem of maintaining an entire encyclopedia as a volunteer effort is at least tractable. I think veteran Wikipedians could probably win the argument that eliminating those standards altogether could make maintaining WP intractable. Also, remember that the article we're discussing here really sucked. Fravia might be important, but whoever wrote that article did him a disservice if he was.

cninja 18y ago

No need to use google cache when wikipedia keeps the history of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fravia&oldid=287935442 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fravia&oldid=2...

tptacek 18y ago

The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia isn't "contributions to the community", or else everybody who had ever worked on an open source project would have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles aren't lifetime achievement awards. The standard for inclusion is notability. This argument is a tempest in a teacup. Either there are reliable independent sources establishing that Fravia is notable, or there aren't. If there are, you will have no real trouble getting and keeping an article. If there aren't, the article will be repeatedly deleted, by people who don't know anything about reverse engineering and thus won't care at all about your arguments. When this exact topic came up yesterday, I spent 3-4 minutes looking for a reliable source that established notability for Fravia, and I came up blank. Who has written about him, outside of blogs? Surely, given how important he was to reverse engineering, somebody has mentioned him, or he's been published somewhere.

ableal 18y ago
I half-regret bringing up the issue. I had wanted to know more, and was sad the info had been deleted. The half I don't regret is that maybe someone here can contribute better to Wikipedia. Reverse engineering guys are mostly tight-lipped, but they're family ...

anigbrowl 18y ago

One wonders if the user who deleted the article was sufficiently jealous of Fravia's reputation that s/he would rather delete the article than improve it. Though poorly sourced, the deleted material hardly qualifies as 'fanboyism'.

gojomo 18y ago

!#@!@^% deletionists are ruining Wikipedia. They'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.