Talk:Anonymous (hacker group)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Beck vs. Eiland-Hall link removed

I removed the Beck vs. Eiland-Hall link because it has zero bearing on Anonymous as a group. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Anonymous" Russia in action (and in the news)

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-own-wikileaks-takes-off/429370.html --94.246.150.68 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.rferl.org/content/putin_mansion_photographs/2283270.html too. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't be afraid to add the information to the article yourself- see WP:BOLD.Дунгане (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I take that back, i forgot the article is protected. You should create an account to edit the article.Дунгане (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Operation Egypt added?

I'm wondering if the "Anonymous Press Release" on "Operation Egypt" relating to the Egyptian government's shut down of the internet and cell phone service should be covered on this page. I am referring to the message as given in the following YouTube video and some other similar ones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZw9EzQIa4E&feature=related

I've seen the video or variants (same audio, different video) of it shown on Al Jazeera English, and it's probably been shown on other networks as well (confirm?). The page is of course locked; I can't make the edit. Errantsignal (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable mentioning anonymous in relation to egypt protests: msnbc [1] Huffington post [2] Washington post [3] IBTimes [4] 88.192.37.191 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And also a mention here, BBC [5]. If this page remains locked, wikipedia editors really needs to step up to the plate and take responsibility for keeping it up to date. 165.112.60.201 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Operation Egypt Should be fully explained! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.208 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to IRC and anonops

I don't see this in the article. Wouldn't it be appropriate to add a link to anonops.ru and the IRC channel irc.anonops.ru?--Drwwht (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

yes

Maybe, it's never been clear to me if anonops.ru has much importance. Aren't the protests organized through whyweprotest.net? Isn't the core history based more around /b/? Anonops might be most relevant to the LOIC, but presumably it's mentioned there already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.122.34 (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Anonymous" is not a mass noun

Mass nouns in English are pretty exclusively determined by the absence of determiners and the use of a single agent verb inflection. The are in "We are Anonymous. We are legion." is a multiple-referent inflection on the verb. The syntactic category is pretty clearly a regular use of a proper name NP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeminemaudlin (talk • contribs) 07:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Founded" field in infobox

What should we say for when this group was founded? The new infobox initially said 1997 but now it says 2008. According to the article, actions attributable to them have occurred at least as early as 2006 (i.e. Habbo). I understand it's difficult to be sure due to the loosely defined nature of the group. Discuss/consensus? 71.231.76.242 (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the field need not be filled at all until a source on the subject can be found. In reality, the meme holds its origins in the founding of 4chan, when Moot and other administrators first debated emulating 2chan's culture of anonymity. Some of the earliest memes, including catch phrases such as "Anonymous does not forgive" stem from this period. But until we get some original source on this, we can't cite it. However, citation is only necessary for statements that are potential sources of conflict. If no one disputes the origin of the meme, we can put the date as coinciding with the early years of 4chan. That would be 2003 to start, with a little bleed-over into 2004 for the development of the memetic themes. --Cast (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

HBGARY and stuxnet

See this and this the first is a link where the guardian reports that anonymous might have stuxnet, and the 2nd one says that (in the manifesto in the same link), in response to the declarations by Greg Hoglund, addittional 27000 emails were leaked. Please, if the page is going to remain protected (i understand the reasonning) then atleast have a minimum effort to keep it up to date.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.115.122.167 (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you want to see it edited, you could always create an account and edit it yourself. Be bold about it. --Cast (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous and Anarchy

Per Cast's (talk) suggestion, I'd like to discuss Anonymous as an example of anarchy with respect to self-organization or the political inclinations of its constituent members. I, for one, believe that Anonymous does exemplify anarchy in terms of self organization and that the article deserves a section on this phenomenon. Any takers? KLP (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the easy solution is Google to see if they've been described as an Anarchist group or not. If yes, then we can at least list it as a see-also. If the group disputes it, or there is commentary contradicting the label or its meaning, then we might need a separate section to address the philosophical nature/purpose of the group. Let's start with sources, both inside and outside Anonymous and see what they say. That way we don't have to rely on anyone's personal opinion of either Anonymous or Anarchy. Ocaasi (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Add... Also, it's important to distinguish between Anarchy as a method and Anarchy as a goal. I think it's clear that the lack of top-down coordination which Anonymous uses is a form of Anarchy, but that is quite different from the group wanting a world in which no governments exist. Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Your findings satisfy the see-also requirement, but we'll have to wait until someone publishes a an assessment in order to include a proper anarchy section. KLP (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there has to be a specific section on Anonymous philosophy. I think there is already plenty out there to focus on the sub-culture aspects of Anonymous (the memes, the aesthetics, the themes) and that minor references to politics can be safely made there. A section on origins as a meme already exist. Expand on it there. Specifically, take a listen to this: [6], a radio interview where the dark humor of Anonymous is discussed. There are other references and explanations of memes and mottos in several news reports. Throw politics in there and go with it. --Cast (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Anarchy/Anarchic

• http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/12894: "We are not a terrorist organization as governments, demagogues, and the media would have you believe. Rather, Anonymous is a spontaneous collective of people who share the common goal of protecting the free flow of information on the Internet. Our ranks are filled with people representative of many parts of the world and all political orientations. We can be anyone, anywhere, anytime. If you are in a public place right now, take a look over your shoulder: everyone you see has all the requirements to be an Anon. But do not fret, for you too have all the requirements to stand with those who fight for free information and accountability."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/dec/13/hacking-wikileaks: "Though it sounds like a coordinated organisation, the reality is that it's more like a stampeding herd - and members are fearful of standing up and being counted"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/02/anonymous_hacke_1.php: "The anarchic and amorphous hacker group Anonymous unleashed its online fury Sunday on Aaron Barr,..."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/09/operation_payback_anonymous_wikileaks_infowar_latest/: "Similarly there has been much discussion among the anarchic Anonymous collective on attacking Twitter..."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/02/hbgary-federal-hacked-by-anonymous/: "At the center of the storm is a leaderless and anarchic Internet group called Anonymous, which more recently has been coordinating attacks against Egyptian government Web sites."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20018175-501465.html: "The attacks by Anonymous, which describes itself as non-hierarchical anarchy, began after an Indian security firm called AiPlex Software assaulted the servers of file-sharing sites such as The Pirate Bay with distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) assaults."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcUEyx8YQHs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz5wCEkCwZo : (13:14 - 13:30) "What I have found on Internet Relay Chat, is that Anonymous has attracted Geeks and Hackers from across the political spectrum. Not so much from the Right, but some you would call Liberal, some you might call Libertarian, and some you would call Leftist and Anarchist..."

[Incidentally, also very useful for sources on other aspects of Anonymous as a sub-culture, such as the Guy Fawks meme (4:39 - 5:58), the importance of thematic iconography and memes (6:05 - 6:27, 12:00 - 14:32), and how an action becomes supported by Anonymous (1:32 - 2:42)] --Cast (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not Anarchy/Anarchic

• http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/12/anonymous_and_cyber_protest: "A group like Anonymous isn't really trying to impose anarchy as much as it's trying to impose the will of its members (or whichever members are active at a certain time). As it fights for freedom on the internet, it constricts the net itself, by taking down websites and halting e-commerce."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead focus

There seems to be some inadvertent disagreement over the lead's focus--anonymous the group or anonymous the meme. I think the title of this article gives primacy to the former, and that the opening paragraph should clearly identify Anonymous in its more recent collaborative and newsworthy form, then giving the meme as a background, and then focusing on specific activities, as well as public reception. We can work on adding the later parts, but I think the current lead gets the order backwards, or suggests a separate article (or a new title). Thoughts? (note: I think it's User:Cast taking the other side here, so I am curious what he/she thinks)... Ocaasi (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There is probably a lot to be said on this subject; for now, I'll focus on a few important points to think about going forward. First: as we gather information, the majority of news reports will only cover the activist elements of Anonymous. The difficulty in providing a factual basis for the background meme will be compounded by the need to avoid undue weight to obscure details. No one cares about the latest meme in the Anonymous lexicon, but how else do we explain references the articles themselves make? Second: Anonymous is gaining coverage at an exponential rate - Wikipedia can hardly keep up - but Anonymous, by vast majority consists of people on the sidelines. That wing of the Legion is busy with the latest memetic variation on Waha! and Nevada-tan. We should give all due weight to those most notable elements of Anonymous, while baring in mind that the present order is not indicative of long term trends (or Project Chanology would still be the prime mission of the activists.) After the short term raids have subsided, Anonymous will move on, but will still have the same origin and the same majority of non-activists. The activism will always be more notable and encyclopedic, but not the best way of promoting understanding of the surviving cyberculture. My primary concern is recentism. (And I'm a guy, as there are no girls on the interwebs.)--Cast (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see your concern with recentism. I would counter that although coverage of the group/activist aspects are more recent, it is also disproportionately the aspect that has received coverage from reliable sources, so it would seem to me per WP:Weight that we concentrate our focus on those aspects. I do see your point that acting as if activism was the real goal of the "group" rather than just one of the memes' manifestations is putting a box around a very amoebic thing. Still, I'd start specific, then cover the history, process, etc, and only in the latter half of the article discuss specific activism. Something along these lines, but not verbatim:

• History
• Meme-making
• Message Boards
• Lulz and internet culture
• General goals (freedom of info, taking down bad guys in positions of authority)
• Early projects (Chanology)
• DDos attacks
• Wikileaks activism
• Current projects (Westborough Baptist)
• Public Reception (support/criticism)
• Future orientation of the group (recent raids, planned projects, changing leadership, changing goals, etc)

Ocaasi (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we're largely in agreement. I referenced the importance of the weight of the activities. However, I think this is all moot. The lead should reflect and summarize the article as a whole. The article must take shape before changes to the lead become fixed. I think we've put the horse before the carriage, and I'm prepared to drop my objections to alternative versions of the lead for now, assuming editing the the main article continues at a steady pace to keep up with current events and available sources. If the main article becomes moribund while the edited lead does not reflect it, the neither part of the article is serving its proper role. --Cast (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.164.136.226, 21 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} On 20 February 2011, Anonymous posted a press release claiming that Westboro Church was the true author of the "open letter", and that above all else Anon supports free speech http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=494

173.164.136.226 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a very interesting situation. Can we trust the site's reliability as the 'official' spokesperson for the group? Or could it just be someone else, individually, or contrarily posting to create confusion? If the site is itself relevant, we can probably use it, but may need to attribute the statement specifically to AnonNews rather than 'an Anonymous press release'. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

From the website: AnonNews uses an open-posting concept. Anyone can post to the site, and moderators will approve relevant posts. No censorship takes place! For information, edits, moderator applications, and everything else join the IRC channel or visit info@anonnews.org. Press can contact press@anonnews.org. We are not an official press platform, but we'd gladly answer questions about AnonNews, or, more broadly, get you in touch with other Anons.

From the press release: To the Media: Just because it was posted on AnonNews doesn't mean every single Anon is in agreement, in fact in this case it doesn't even mean a single Anon is in agreement. Next time, if you could give us a few minutes to put all our paperwork in order, we'll be sure to let you know what we're up to. (LOL) To Anonymous: It's a trap. They've got their ports wide open to harvest IPs to sue. Don't DDoS, and boycott Operation Westboro. If you really want to continue messing with them, just send them a few male prostitutes and faxes of goatse. Nothing more. (Note: This letter was written by more than 20 Anons, at the same time, and none of them were inbredfamily members. Unlike that other, shitty "Press Release".)

So my question would be, how can we know the press release is or is not accurate? Ocaasi (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the neutral perspective for Wikipedia to take on would be to cite that competing posts were made, and that accusations of illigetimacy were bandied about. The prose doesn't have to say "Anonymous released a press release," but rather, "a press was released on a website associated with Anonymous. Various media sources reported the event and ascribed the actions to the larger group. However, this was disputed by a second press release on the same website hours later." Just an idea. The best thing to do would be to wait until the dust settles before we made moves on it. --Cast (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag

De facto flag for the Anonymous group

I can not edit the page. --212.183.198.9 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Put the flag!!! --212.183.198.9 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a version without the green-and-black background (a "coat of arms") would be more appropriate. I have not encountered this background on Anonymous-related media ever. Ian (87.205.138.43 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC))

The 'coat of arms' is becoming increasingly popular and useful for the media, as it presents an easily copy/pasted element to use in place of an unavailable photograph. However, while the flag is less frequently used, it is nonetheless a good choice for this article for its use of colors. Green and black are also common themes in Anonymous iconography. We just need to cite it properly. --Cast (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead of an unofficial flag at the top of the page, we should include it at the bottom in a gallery with Anonymous related images and symbols. I prefer an image of people participating in an Anonymous event to any flag graphic. KLP (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem with using human activists is that it tilts the perception of Anonymous towards the activist angle. My decision behind including two images, a flag image and activists, in the Infobox was to give equal weight to Anonymous as concept (graphic symbol) and as activist cause (unknown people in a group, on the ground). I'm prepared to replace the flag with a simple coat-of-arms, but I insist that it be set beside masked activists. One should not replace the other. They've become indivisible at this point. Also, don't forget that masked activists have only been associated with one operation— Chanology. The most well known activist causes (Payback; Tunisia; Leakspin) are still not associated with masked protesters yet. We should consider issues of weight. --Cast (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. I would prefer the simple emblem to the flag, as the flag seems to be just one of many variations of the emblem. As for the photo, perhaps we can find one a little more illustrative than guys in masks. I'd suggest this one, less the demotivational part, but I haven't found its source yet. KLP (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few images that may be of use, if we dig around on Wikicommons. How about this protest at Hamburg, which combines the Anonymous flag with activists? Then we can safely replace the flag with the coat of arms, and maintain the link between the emblem and activism. I'll create a small gallery we can use for the purpose below. Feel free to add more for consideration.--Cast (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to find something with more irreverence. The image I linked to included a reference to long cat amid a serious protest against CO$. IMHO, that, or something similar, could successfully typify Anonymous. KLP (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I figured that's where you were going, but there was nothing like that in commons. Well, we could always skim through some photos of the era and ask if anyone has images of a meme-riddled protest they can upload. I hoped the Hamburg image would be useful, as it at least has the Anons being playful ("Free Brainwash" and such). --Cast (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  No flag, but useful for the emblem.

Libya

No section on the Anonymous page yet, despite them saying they would help. I just tried to go on the official website of Moamar al-Gaddafi, but it appears to have been taken down. I dont know who did this, but I assume it was Anon. Can somebody verify/debunk this and create a section for Libya on their page?

Website I reffered to: http://www.algathafi.org/html-english/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.239.134 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we took it down. Check HiveMind status on LoIC, more to come ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.88.166 (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Westboro Add

Add the info: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9211305/Anonymous_hacks_church_Web_site_during_live_interview http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/frvmz/westboro_baptist_church_smited_by_anonymous/ http://browsershots.org/screenshots/d182f4c25d5ef3a56a25d48eee29e932 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.88.166 (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, you could just create an account and edit it yourself. If you have time to make a Talk thread, you have time to sign in and edit an article. --Cast (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is semi-protected (there is a small bronze lock in the upper right corner of the article page). He can't edit the article to add anything. He has to post the info here in the talk page so someone with editing rights can add it. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I know what that silver lock indicates. It indicates that people should create accounts and sign in. It only blocks edits from—wait for it—anonymous editors. I don't mean to be rude here, but this is getting frustrating. We're constantly getting edit suggestions from people who are more than capable of signing in on their own to make their desired edits. --Cast (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, you don't. Because it does not mean just anonymous editors, it means you have to be autoconfirmed or confirmed as well. For instance I would have to find somebody and explain to him why it is so important for me to be an exception just to edit one article, instead of simply submitting an edit suggestion. Now, if you would rather have lots of confirmed people who have not edited anything or too little for autoconfirm yet - make it happen if you can. Sh4dow83 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't get snippy about what I know of policy. As a matter of fact, I can confirm edits (I hate that stupid policy) and I'm monitoring this page for requests, but none are coming. My simple request to anonymous editors: help me help you. Sign in. --Cast (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Operationanonymous, 26 February 2011

{{subst:dtag|nowiki|

Operation Anonymous

This website was conceived by the Anonymous group in order to inform the general public, and news stations, or anyone else who might be interested, on who and what Anonymous is. Intended ref:operationanonymous.org/ (Please feel free to correct this, i know this article is horrible, i just want this in here to, so that others may be able to become informed on the very latest in happenings.) }}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Operationanonymous (talk • contribs) 2011-02-25T17:45:41

Thanks for the suggested edit, but please don't create a massive page dump like that. It makes navigation difficult, to put it mildly. Also, please sign your talk page comments as a courtesy. Finally, your reference is no good for our purposes. We need a verifiable third-party source with notability. Your blog isn't notable. We're is the coverage of it? And who has covered "Operation Anonymous"? And external links with general signifiance should go in the External links section, and even there, they should be limited to those which are vetted as significant to the article topic. Other Anonymous related websites included in the External links section have each received coverage and have been referenced in major news media outlets. There are as yet no references to Operation Anonymous. Since you're new to this, it's understandable that you'd make some novice errors. But don't worry, this isn't like 4chan. You don't have to lurk moar to get ahead. Continue to jump in. You'll get more knowledge through trial and error on Wikipedia than by sitting on the sidelines.--Cast (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

They got that cat beater and that woman who thre away the cat

Weren't anonymous responsible for getting that kid who posted videos of abusing his cat charged? Also that one lady who threw a cat in the trash can, didn't they severely harass her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.196.186 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. Do you have sources for those stories?--Cast (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Open invitation to anonymous and novice editors

I've been observing and growing increasingly frustrated with the semi-protected status of the main Anonymous article. Anonymous is increasingly coming under the media microscope, and new sources of content are becoming unmanageable for the few regular editors of this article. Two recent events, the attack against HB Gary Federal, and the Westboro Baptist Church website attack are now large enough in scope to deserve their own articles, and so would need to be split off from this page, in the same way that Operation Chanology, Payback, and Leakspin have. It's time to create new wiki articles, and to allow anonymous editors to participate with their own energy and enthusiasm. Below I've created two sandboxes where editors can freely create and expand upon the coverage of these events, and since they are taking place in a userspace, we don't have to be too concerned with the content becoming semi-protected. When they are of suitable coverage and scope, we'll perform a simple move function to take them live.

• 2011 Westboro Baptist Church website attack
• 2011 HBGary Federal controversy

I invite everyone interested to contribute to these and learn about editing on Wikipedia in the process. Cheers! --Cast (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)