5 ms·

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 17y 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 17y ago
  Who did you learn from?

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 17y 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 17y ago
Who did you learn from?