Talk:Reality hacking

To become a Good Article
In order for New World Order (conspiracy theory) to be judged a good article by the Wikipedia community, I am interested in collaborating with anyone who has created a user account to make it meet good article criteria. --Loremaster (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

About "See also" sections
"See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and "See also", which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. According to some Wikipedia administrators: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A few notes
The seminal cyberculture/psychedelia magazine Mondo 2000 was originally called Reality Hackers (see the Mondo 2000 entry here on Wikipedia) in 1988.

The tag line "hacking reality" appeared on the occult blog Technoccult, possibly before Irreality. This archive.org entry from November 2001 (http://web.archive.org/web/20011128152156/http://www.technoccult.net/) predates the launch of Irreality in December 2001 (reference: http://frequency23.net/content/view/777/).

The article has been changed accordingly for historical accuracy

The usage of "reality hacking" in White Wolf games precedes its use on Irreality or Technoccult. According to the Wikipedia entry for Mage: the Ascension the first edition was released in 1993 and the most recent release was published in 2000.

24.21.166.9 01:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reality Hacker

Magic?
Why is this listed under "Magic"? I'm taking that off. Kennard2 10:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Social redemption
The link to "social redemption", which I assume was meant to go to an article about the phenomenon of social redemption as a concept, instead goes to an article about a Christian organization that happens to have that name. Somehow I doubt that's what was intended. Any comments/insights? - Mark Dixon 04:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC) (Note: I removed the link without changing the wording. - Mark Dixon 02:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC))


 * I've replaced with the mention of "social redemption" with "social reconstructionism". --Loremaster (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad article
This article blows. It sounds like it was written as a college essay by somebody who uses a thesaurus to try and cover for their lack of writing ability. I would think about rewriting it if I had any clue what they are talking about in the first place. Hopefully somebody can make some sense out of it. 68.116.57.139 (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 2nding above comment. Nominating for deletion. 216.19.189.159 (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * uhh... no.  No deletion.  Just because you don't understand what the subject matter is doesn't mean it is non-existent.  I do understand it and practice it. Wikipedia itself is an example of reality hacking.  I can honestly say one purpose is to rattle people who do not get it.  There are many detractors of wikipedia, since it can be edited by anyone.  They detract because they are not in control of wikipedia.  You are a detractor of reality hacking because you either don't understand, or are not in control of it.  Still, like the wiki, it exists; anyone can play with reality, your reality, and they don't have to pay a fee, or ask permission, or even tell you.  They can just do it.  In fact, they probably already are.   btw, I learned from +fravia himself.  I'll try to edit the article over time to make it a better article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.245.139.67 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporting deletion. This article makes no sense. "reality hacking" makes no sense - basically it just means people using computers to write and talk about things, nothing all that different from regular computer use, hacking, trolling, or whatever. It's not a subculture - these people aren't playing with reality - they are playing with computers. I don't see why this needs its own article - the stuff about The Matrix and White Wolf Publishing has more real information than the rest of the article put together. 115.50.109.238 (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * +1 for deletion. This thing's a mess, and I don't understand what the point of this article even is. The history section, for all it's length and verbosity, says basically nothing; I don't see what part of the "Politics" section wouldn't be better served by any of the articles that it links to, like Hacktivism, Culture Jamming, Media Prank or Advocacy Journalism; and the rest has nothing to do with what the first part claims to be about and belongs on pages for the respective media properties they pertain to. The only thing that's sourced has nothing to do with the rest of the article. 174.102.196.179 (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * +1 for deletion. This article is completely wrong. Hacking has nothing to do with being a criminal. Michaël Malter (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly opposed to deletion. Instead, since “reality hacking” is a real concept (which gets 282 000 results when googled), I suggest we either radically improve the article based on information from reliable sources or we merge it with another article related to hacking or culture jamming. --Loremaster (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert in the field, but here's my take... No on deletion. The content on this page can be used to re-write some of the other Hacker pages (see Hacker).  Eventually, I either see it being radically re-written or deleted, but just not yet. The core problem with this page is that it hasn't clarified anything, it just makes people more confused on Reality Hacking.  The page is very repetitive of other Hacker pages. I'm working on re-writting some of those and will get around to this one.  For now keep this page.  Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJosiahT (talk • contribs) 02:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * +1 for deletion. This is clearly the product of an unstable mind. A recommended replacement would perhaps be Psychosis. 86.154.189.39 (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is, uh, not how you delete an article. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chaos5023. Someone needs to initiate the proper deletion debate process. --Loremaster (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Grand merge
I've just merged this article to hacking (innovation), which was formerly titled Hacker (programmer subculture). Please see the discussion at talk:hacking (innovation) for the rationale and a plan for moving forward. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)