Talk:Anonymous (hacker group)

Clarification of Anonymous

I may be not be the first to notice, but to me it seems like this article is saying, that anyone, calling themselves Anonymous, is part of one big group. Now i seriously doubt, that this is the intention of the article and all the writers, and im fairly sure that the writers know that this isn't one big group, but for the less informed that use this site as their main source of information, the article could very well lead to misunderstandings. And with all the negative reputation that the word "Anonymous" has gotten over the past months (playstation network being a good example) i think it would be good to clarify, that Anonymous is not one big group - and only rarely sytematic long-lasting groups at all - but that it rather seems to be spontanious assemblys created for a once time purpose and with very short livespans. So to sum it up, my request is that it be clarified that Anonymous is not one big group, but that it is instead lots of smaller assemblys, and that the actions of those calling themselves Anonymous is only rarely connected with each other, and that is is rarely the same persons participating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumal0 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous is not a groupGlajaklsgjkd (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ruma. Anonymous is not a group in any way shape or form. It has no structure. It has no organisation. It is simply a group of people. I am anonymous right now (save for my IP). Anyone can be anonymous. This article credits Anonymous with many hacking/DDoSing activities, which is wrong. It should credit Anonymous PEOPLE, not the 'group' anonymous, because of course we all (should) know that anonymous is not a defined group. ANONYMOUS IS NOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE, IT IS A CONCEPT THAT IS USED BY PEOPLE. 109.158.131.50 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

To credit the individuals seems like a rather pedantic endeavour. Firstly, one of the concepts of the Anonymous collective is that you are not an individual, but a part of the hive. Secondly, the acts were carried out under the guise of the Anonymous collective, so attributing it to the group is more than reasonable. Anonymous technically has no individuals or members, as it is merely a set of loosely defined ideals that people can stand with for certain issues AnonNietzsche (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This really does need to be clarified. This article is very misleading about what anonymous is. It's not a group. There is no membership. Nstring (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this going to be done soon? Especially because of the current goings-on with people like Lulzsec. Guyag (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

These should be mentioned

Operation Andes Free

• An attack On Peru and Chile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.51.101 (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Anonymous demanding child porn from an 11-year old girl and sending death threats to her family when she asks them to stop.
• Anonymous defaces Facebook pages for dead children.

Most of the present coverage on this page covers their "activist" actions, while in reality the bulk of their actions are the harassment and bullying of children.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The latter doesn't mention Anonymous. Adambro (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cracked.Com is a comedy web site (after the well known pulp comic book.) I don't think a reference to a comedy web site web page is a very good reference, Gawker would be a better reference for that series of incidents, in my opinion. Damotclese (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The dead children thing isn't Anonymous is it? It was reported in New Zealand as being the work of a US neo-nazi group. NZ forever (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with these actions being attributed to anonymous is that anyone can claim to be part of the group. So these may be separate circles. --Mutlee (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is very biased towards Anonymous. Efforts need to be put forth to present the article from a netural point of view, instead of just trying to make Anonymous look like a bunch of heroes. --Little Jimmy (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And if it helps, heres a better link to the case about the 11 year old girl. --Little Jimmy (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The better link mentions random 4chan users, not Anonymous. SuperPurple (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You use a cracked aricle as a source? Wow. This just makes me assume you read the article, rushed to Wikipedia, and started your bias propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.247.135 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't Anonymous that defaced the RIP pages it was 4chan trolls, get your facts straight newfriend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.208 (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It WAS Anonymous who defaced the pages. It was not the "hacktivist" group from WhyWeProtest/AnonOps, but those sites do not represent the views and opinions of Anonymous. If the posts originated from 4chan, they are inherently and automatically part of Anonymous (provided they didn't use tripcodes). I recommend a section about these articles (and others like it) to illustrate the fact that modern Anonymous is NOT about nonviolent protest, these are only the views of a large portion of Anonymous. If it appears otherwise, I believe this is only because the hacktivism activities are the ones that make national news. Anyone can be part of Anonymous and have any kind of opinion they want as long as they are anonymous. --Y5Phl2x (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Westboro Church attacks

It should be noted that the hacker who attacked the Westboro Church isn't Anonymous, it was another hacktivist named Jester.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/24/jester_westboro_baptists_anon_silliness/

https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/12400-Assault-on-Westboro-Baptist-Church-Website-Continues.html

I'm sure it is well known by now in the hacker community.

Levardi (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? This article is about what Anonymous have done, not what they haven't done. FYI, Anonymous did "attack" Westboro Baptist Church. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9211305/Anonymous_hacks_church_Web_site_during_live_interview Chronom (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you actually watch the interview, Anonymous hacked a portion of a Westboro Baptist Church site, but they (and Jester) claimed that the websites brought down by DDOS attacks were done by Jester.

Sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM

Levardi (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The writing in this section has a bias. It says that Anonymous supports free speech NONETHELESS the group still attacked the Westboro Baptist church's website. It argues that Anonymous is hypocritical, while making no mention of the difference between a right to free speech and laws against propagating hate. F.noone (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)F.Noone (talk) june 26,, 2011.

Most 4chan users hate the "anyonymous" movement and activist actions

it's worthy to add. if you doubt it start a thread in 4chan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.137.252.79 (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the news flash. Get a citation and you can put it in. --Cast (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

FAQ Bias

I found some bias in the FAQ, most notably the second to last answer. The question is valid, but I find the link to the No true scotsman ironic since there are several examples of this fallacy being applied to the other side in this very article - calling trolling and other non-activism behavior cited here not the doing of Anonymous. I suggest rephrasing it in a way that doesn't use the fallacy, like "Some consider it a splinter group because it doesn't have the motivations Anonymous originally followed".

As for the first question, I suggest calling it a meme instead of a group. It's a broad enough term to cover all the various definitions internet users have of it.--Y5Phl2x (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your suggested sentence for Q4 is problematic. Who says that the "activist" oriented wing of Anonymous doesn't share the original goals of Anonymous? They cite "lulz" as being important, and the news media has been consistent in reporting that. The activists seem to merely orient their entertainment towards social ends. Besides, that specifies only the problem some groups cite for disliking the activists among them. Another reason may be a disagreement with the political orientation being espoused. Some activists in Anonymous may prefer other agendas, and are dissatisfied with current projects. That example isn't addressed by your suggested answer. I tried to keep it bare, while making it a little sarcastic. I'll tone that edge down, but the questions need to remain basic and broad, covering the similar nature of the questions—not the specific reason behind them. As for the No Tue Scotsman reference, I don't see how this is being made in the article. Those statements which redirect blame for actions allegedly made by Anonymous are cited to express the confusion held by various parties as to who was responsible for the actions. It isn't intended to cast Anonymous as innocent, or to disparage any wing of Anonymous that did take part. To take the most prominent example of this on this page, I recall the Epilepsy Foundation raid intimately when it took place. There was a great deal of confusion on all sides, and while I personally believe that the raid was carried out by Anonymous, I have no proof of this. The only sources on the subject I can cite are those which also point out the lack of proof on it. So, that becomes this article's narrative. On the other hand, I wrote up much of the section on the SOHH! defacement raid and contributed the screen shot image. No attempt was made to muddle who was involved in that trolling event, because the sources were clear. Trollish behavior is not being excluded from the characterization of Anonymous. The elements on trolling simply haven't been expanded. Common editors don't seem to be oriented towards that, preferring to edit the latest cause oriented events. That may represent a systemic bias, but not a dismissive agenda. [Incidentally, I recall that the SOHH! sub-section on this page also hurt the Chanology protests at the time, because the Church of Scientology held a counter protest at the next Los Angeles event, and I even saw that they downloaded my screen shot and turned it into a poster board for Angelinos to see. A caption read, "We do it for the lulz!" Was this damaging to one wing of Anonymous? Yes. Does it matter? No. Anonymous lives on—both troll and protest—another day.] Regardless of agendas held by third parties, this page must stay focused on representing the meme, subculture, history, and current activities of Anonymous as accurately as possible. If it can do that, external biases and agendas don't matter. Common internet viewers can visit this page and learn as much as they need to know about Anonymous and formulate their own opinions on this inter-Anonymous schism. As editors, we just have to bring it up to a certain standard of quality that provides for understanding from multiple angles. Now I'll be editing the FAQ a bit. Hope you'll prefer the changes I make. Hope you understand the changes I don't. --Cast (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of Anonymous's goals. Just by reading the front pages of the various activist Anonymous websites, I see a definite lack of lulz-based or lulz-involved activity. All of the operation posters carry the "vigilante internet rebel" vibe, and make no mention of doing anything because it's funny. Could you cite the news articles and operations (specifically on or about the activist websites) where lulz is involved? (By the way, I understand the confusion with the lack of sources, since there are no official archives of most image boards)

On the Scotsman reference - one post I was referring to was "That wasn't Anonymous that defaced the RIP pages it was 4chan trolls, get your facts straight newfriend". See my reply for an argument why it was Anonymous involved regardless of sources (or lack thereof). Regardless of counter-examples to the fallacy, the mere fact that there can be a counter-example is proof that the link has bias. Revising my original replacement, I suggest (paraphrasing) "Some members of Anonymous believe the activism or trolling actions of other members do not exemplify the group as a whole." I suppose you could fit in the fallacy link too as it applies to both sides in this case. --Y5Phl2x (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No criticism section??

I find extremely remarkable that there is not a criticism section in this article. In fact, Anonymous has been criticized widely for their double standards regarding their fight for freedom of speech but at the same time censoring those who do not agree with them in such or similar concepts. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it extremely remarkable that you didn't just add it yourself. (Read more at: Be bold). Oh, no, actually I don't. That's why I wrote an answer for you in the FAQ. Read Q3. Now if you'll take another look at this article you'll see a "Reception and impact" section. That is the perfect spot for a sub-section on "Free speech and censorship", which can speak to both criticisms and compliments Anonymous has received. You should also be made aware that "criticism" sections are generally discouraged because they lend themselves to slanted perspectives and pov criticisms. (Read more at: Wikipedia:Criticism) All articles must remain as neutral as possible, only reflecting the general reaction among the public. As far as I can tell, the general reaction to Anonymous's anti-censorship campaigns has not been to assume double standards. I have seen that criticism myself, but I see it as being a minority perspective. I think criticism should get a mention, but not become a major theme. --Cast (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck trying to add anything on Wikipedia given the biased nature of the WikiAdmin cabal.

I didn't add it because I am sure there are editors heavily involved with this article. That doesn't keep me from pointing out one of the group's more well known criticisms, so is not really a minority. I believe most people think that Anonymous strategy of censoring those who want censorship is an irony and double standard, part of being an advocate of free speech and freedom is having to put up with those who don't put up with it. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then please allow me to inform you that you can edit this article and any others without concern for active editors. There is no such thing as article ownership. Don't let active editors stand as an excuse not to jump in yourself. You might also want to add in the references made by an Anonymous "press release" referencing Beatrice Hall. ("When Anonymous says we support free speech, we mean it. We count Beatrice Hall among our Anonymous forebears: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'" Is the Anonymous-Westboro Baptist Church feud a hoax?) Incidentally, I dislike that statement, but we've got citation for it, so it would be derelict of you or I to ignore it. So feel free to add it yourself if you care so much about the topic. --Cast (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is an important example of the hypocrisy of anonymous. They hacked a PBS server simply because they didn't like the article criticizing Wikileaks. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the "hypocrisy of anonymous", but not of "Anonymous". The article you link to does not state that Anonymous was involved in this. It states that a anonymous hacker group named "Lulzsec" committed the act, and Anonymous is briefly mentioned in reference to its hack of HBGeary. Further Lulzsec has tweeted in response to that accusation, "We aren’t Anonymous you unresolved cow-shart". This source isn't useful for this article, but it would be useful for the article on responses to the controversies about Wikileaks. --Cast (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No mention of their postive efforts?

I remember quite a few incidents where they tracked down individuals who were caught doing cruel things to animals on video, why does this have no mention? O perhaps it was just 4chan, not anon, I don't remember exactly. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not the first to mention this. The feel free to use the search bar in the archives template on this page. Now please see Q3 of the FAQ, also on this page. Please provide reliable citations for the event, if you can find any. --Cast (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammar error in the Operation Sony section

The section says: "[...]they were the cause behind the a major outage[...]" 212.33.81.230 (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

-- Upcoming Internet Filter & Anonymous Protests == What about the upcoming internet filter in Turkey and about actions prepared for that? 121.242.207.242 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Group

Since when has Anonymous been a group? And how is it a group? It by no means fills the definition of social group.Glajaklsgjkd (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

THIS (call it an anti-group, movement, mindset or whatever) Zoef1234 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Infact, referring to it as Anonymous only would be much better as it is quite random bunch of people. Glajaklsgjkd (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So, it is not a group, it is a bunch? DigitalC (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a group, nor a bunch, it's a name and a label. Anyone who wants can simply "claim" to be part of anonymous or not at any given time, for any reason. Because of this trying to attribute anything that anyone does in the name of "Anonymous" to "Anonymous" as though it were one entity is meaningless. It's like trying to say that "Author Unknown" is one single person, which ironically is one of the tongue-in-cheek jokes on which the "Anonymous" name and concept took off. In fact, with no membership structure it becomes impossible to have a criticism section on any of Anonymous's actions because trying to hold "Anonymous" as responsible for anything its self-proclaimed members do would be an exercise in stupidity. If President Obama were to sign a bill into law and claim that he did it as a member of "Anonymous", could "Anonymous" be held responsible for the bill being signed into law? No, because Anonymous is nothing more than a label. All we have here are a bunch of individuals who went out, did things, and all gave themselves the same name, or lack thereof as the case may be. As such, the article should reflect this, and rather than treating "Anonymous" as any kind of entity, simply identify it as a concept and label to which many people have attached themselves. As it is, the article appears to have unsourced implications that the people which committed one act in the name of "Anonymous" had something to do with the people who committed other acts. All we know is that they both used the same name, or lack thereof.Ziiv (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Operation Empire State Rebellion

http://www.youtube.com/user/AmpedStatus http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/103623/flag-day-protest-anonymous-operation-empire-state-rebellion-begins/ http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ctrlaltbernanke-operation-empire-state-rebellion-resumes-attack-fed-chairman http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/06/13/revolution-america-protests-scheduled-june-14th-operation-empire-state-rebellion-engaged-26771/ http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=215659122039078971677.0004a3a944bafe3a247b7&ll=41.508577,-98.261719&spn=49.644969,70.136719&z=3&source=embed

And this email I got from them on the 14th: File:Http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/7378/65714753.png

Just thought it would make a interesting addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legendman3 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Plan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_9T1SPJXRI --74.102.158.16 (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin

Information about how the Kochs donated money to other charities is completely irrelevant to the article, as such donations were not a motivating factor for the actions taken, while it does serve to "Balance" the article, that is information that should be saved exclusively for the page on the Kochs. 76.247.131.65 (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you are looking for this: Political activities of the Koch family ? 99.181.136.35 (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Operation: Restoration," the restoration of Encyclopedia Dramatica

You may want to add Anonymous's recent project dubbed as Operation: Restoration, in which Anonymous is attempting to restore Encyclopedia Dramatica after it was taken down several months ago. They have recreated the website at encyclopediadramatica.ch, with most articles brought to their original state (including the fabled "Offended" page). They are seeking out the help of former ED users to restore several articles of which could not be replaced originally. I am just an anoymous Wiki user passing along new info. Forgive me for any errors in this post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.130.225 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Add "The Plan"

dear wikipedia, i as a former anonymous member noticed that no one has mentioned "the plan" look it up on www.whatis-theplan.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackslasher (talk • contribs) 20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hackslasher, 12 July 2011

in the membership section, i have a note, membership can be terminated if the group wishes one too, for example, if someone new ( anonymous calls them newfags)is getting anoying, anonymous will gang up and join forces to terminate them from the group, also, if you are discovered lying or bragging about something, they will gang up and try and throw you out by threatening, and or destroying your computer. Hackslasher (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Oslo explosion

Hi, I have read in some websites that Anonymous has claimed responsibility. Is this so? can anyone confirm? Thank you very much. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Media interest

5.1.3 Anonymous was featured on Australian Radio National on 30 July 2011 in a story called "Anonymous: Just for the lulz?" by Gabriella Lahti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.72.73 (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

biased

i personally think this page is biased and was written to make anonomys (i cant spell) look like the bad guys -.- i cant wait for them to kill facebook! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.121.52.2 (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

civil disobedience

based on what the civil disobedience article says, anonymous doesn't engage in civil disobedience because they don't reveal their identities 173.51.187.83 (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong 8/15/2011

The "Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is a group initiating active civil disobedience and spread through the Internet while staying hidden" is incorrect first and foremost it is not civil disobedience they are trying to achieve. They are trying to make a better world for people making the government more transparent, make the government work for us not apposed to us. unify people of all races ethnicity, political views or financial positions. This website is the reason people dont know the truth about Anonymous they are fed lies by the disgrace of a web page such as this.

for the truth go to whatis-theplan.org and watch the video on the front page and you will get the truth