Talk:Markus Kuhn (computer scientist)

Vanity entry

This looks like a vanity entry, and should be deleted. An encyclopedia should contain only individuals who have achieved fame, for example by their achievements. Editing wikipedia is a nice thing to do, but it doesn't justify an wikipedia entry. 147.188.192.41 17:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If anyone puts it to VfD, I'll vote to keep; Kuhn is a notable researcher in the field. Look at the work on Soft Tempest for example - incredible stuff.—ciphergoth 12:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record: I did not create my own entry. Others have quoted my work in several articles on computer security and standardization (see What links here) and found me noteworthy enough in these fields to have an entry. I'm honored by that. I got interested in Wikipedia when I found out that someone had created an entry for me. I did slightly revised my entry, and I hope that this revision will not be judged as a vanity edit. I chose as my user name my full name, gave a link to my home page, and have never made any efforts to act anonymously in my Wikipedia contributions. The vast majority of my edits are not related in any way to my own person. I see that there is recently a bit of a systematic witch hunting going on against wikipedia contributors who also happen to have an entry. This activity seems rather exclusively directed against those Wikipedia contributors who make no serious effort to disguise their identity. They are most easily identified, but also least likely to misbehave for the same reason. I think this witch hunt will only backfire. All it will result in is that

• non-notable people who come to Wikipedia mainly to sneak in a vanity entry will end up being slightly more careful about covering their tracks;
• notable people, get sent the message that their contributions to Wikipedia are not welcome.

The latter would be a big shame, because some notable people are knowledgeable researchers with decent writing skills, who could be of immense value to Wikipedia. Vanity entry witch hunters may want to consider second-order effects of their mission. Markus Kuhn 14:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I just want to comment that I'm satisfied very well that the subject is notable in research on Tamper resistance and other security related topics. Whether or not he edited the article really doesn't matter much, and there are independent sources, news items satisfying his notability. Thanks. --Ragib 22:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Media coverage

Following a recent call for references, here is the beginning of a list of some related media coverage that may or may not be of interest to editors of this article:

• 1996-11-18: Der Spiegel, 47/1996 (on tamper resistance and the DS5002FP attack)
• 1998-02-07: Washington Post, p H01 (on video eavesdropping)
• 1998-02-23: Der Spiegel, 9/1998 (on video eavesdropping)
• 1998-03-05: computing, p 1 (on video eavesdropping, also 1998-05-12)
• 1998-03-12: The Daily Telegraph, p 6 (on video eavesdropping)
• 2002-03-13: Times 2, p. 9 (on Audio CD DRM)
• 2002-03-16: New Scientist, p. 22–23 (on optical compromising emanations)
• 2002-03-23: New Scientist, p. 22 (on the NDS vs. Canal+ case, Chicago 1999 paper)
• 2002: FOCUS 12/2002, p. 159 (on optical CRT eavesdropping)
• 2002-05-28: Süddeutsche Zeitung, p. V2/11 (on optical CRT eavesdropping)
• 2002-06: Scientific American, pp. 18–19 (on the risks of Unicode domain names)
• 2003-11-22: New Scientist, pp. 30–33 (on leap seconds)
• ...

plus all the old VideoCrypt stuff. Markus Kuhn 14:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Primary non-independent sources don't establish notability

Since "2006 or so", what's required to establish notability of an article's subject has become generally better understood. Back then, we couldn't really put a finger on what was a just a gross queasy feeling about this article being an unjustified "vanity article". But, now we can.

Those entries (above) appear to be secondary sources that establish notability only of their subjects. That is, a source doesn't establish notability of its author. We need sources about our subject itself (Kuhn) to establish and prove notability. That, we don't got. Our subject might be notable enough, but if so, we haven't made it clear with adequate refs for that job.

This article has only one or two very weak secondary sources mentioning Kuhn. Almost all it's sources are non-independent primary sources written by Kuhn himself, they contribute nothing toward establishing the notability required for continued inclusion of this article.

If the subject really is notable enough to have an article about him (he might be), significant and reliable sources that are actually about him (and definitely not by him) must be found and added in.

142.105.159.178 (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)