# Style Guide

Editorial rules for all content in History of Hackers. Applies to the current
`index.html` articles and to future structured content under `data/`.

## Core principle

**Historical accuracy > quantity. Primary sources > rumors. Contributions >
controversy. Knowledge > sensationalism.**

A smaller, correct encyclopedia beats a large one built on invented facts.

## Tone

- Neutral, factual, encyclopedic. Not a fan page, not a tabloid.
- Written by someone who understands security deeply, respects hacker
  culture, and can tell legend apart from evidence.
- Accessible to a newcomer, still worth reading for a specialist.
- No sensationalism, no "world's most dangerous hacker" framing.
- No ranking content ("Top 10 Hackers", "Best Hackers"). This project
  documents history, it does not run a leaderboard.

## What to prioritize in a subject's page

Contributions, research, discoveries, vulnerabilities, tools, publications,
techniques, influence, impact, legacy, historical context — in that order of
emphasis. Personal controversies get only the space needed to understand the
historical event; they are not the center of the article.

## Handling illegal activity

Describe illegal acts factually and only when necessary to understand the
historical event (e.g. an intrusion that led to a landmark prosecution or
policy change). Never:

- provide operational/how-to detail that functions as a criminal instruction;
- romanticize the act;
- editorialize a moral verdict on the person.

## Claims and evidence

Every non-trivial claim needs a source. Distinguish explicitly between:

| Tag | Meaning |
|---|---|
| `CONFIRMED` | Backed by primary source or multiple independent reliable sources |
| `DISPUTED` | Sources conflict, or the subject/others contest it |
| `UNVERIFIED` | Plausible, reported, but not independently confirmed |
| `UNKNOWN` | Cannot be determined from available sources |

When in doubt, omit rather than guess. Do not invent dates, aliases,
nationalities, CVEs, affected companies, exploits, quotes, events, tools,
conferences, arrests, or relationships between people. The more
extraordinary the claim, the stronger the evidence required.

## Living people

Extra care applies to still-living subjects:

- Report facts vs. allegations separately and explicitly.
- Avoid speculation about ongoing legal matters.
- Do not infer identity, nationality, or personal details not confirmed by
  the person or a reliable source.
- Do not infer pronouns from a name; use they/them unless the subject's
  stated pronouns are documented.

## Writing mechanics

- Short paragraphs, clear headings, no filler.
- Dates in full (`August 6, 1963`, not `8/6/63`) to avoid regional ambiguity.
- Introduce acronyms once (`Chaos Computer Club (CCC)`).
- Internal links over repeated explanation — link to the related person,
  group, tool, or event page instead of re-summarizing it.
- Every article ends with a `sources` list; no source, no claim.

## What NOT to do

- No AI-generated portraits or invented images. If no properly licensed
  image exists, use none — see [SOURCES.md](SOURCES.md) for image sourcing.
- No copy-pasting text from Wikipedia or any other site. Use sources as
  references to write original text, not as text to lift.
- No new pages created just because a name appears in a seed list somewhere
  (including this project's own planning docs). Confirm the subject exists
  and has sufficient reliable documentation first — see
  [RESEARCH_BACKLOG.md](RESEARCH_BACKLOG.md).