Talk:Anonymous (hacker group)

Wiki and other chans

I am changing the page to denote that the Partyvan Wiki and the IRC channels are based off the imageboards and simply an extension of them, and 711chan is just another one of the "larger of the smaller chans" where smaller chans means "Not 4chan." The imageboards are the core of Anonymous and it is not moving beyond that, into any sort of movement or culture, unless you count where it becomes obvious that one is a *chan user by their actions or when a raid is interpreted as a social movement because of misguided media. Kakama (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

90.211.189.171

Perhaps someone could look into the claims that scientology is impersonating anonmymous and attacking the catholic church to make anonymous look really bad and at the same time generate sympathy for scientologists who are also being "persecuted" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.189.171 (talk • contribs)

The claim is made here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgVgx-5rbIM , and is being debated on Anonymous sites. But are there any reliable secondary sources yet? AnonymMouche (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

From the very first post about project chanology, some anons were claiming to be Scientologists. Anonymous can have no official stance on anything. So far I've seen (a) anons who want to destroy the CoS for fun, (b) anons who want to destroy the CoS for great justice, (c) anons who want to troll the CoS for fun, (d) anons who want to troll the people fighting for great justice, and (e) anons who don't care either way but are amused by all the drama. If the CoS are trying to discredit anonymous anonymously, then they are just anons in group d regardless of their religious affiliations. Anons in group b are being trolled by those in groups c and d. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.197.209 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

March 15

It says that "a member" has chosen march 15, when in fact all the members gave agreed on march 15. do a google/ youtube search for "march 15 anonymous" and you will get countless hits. So it should be made plural. 24.90.116.17 (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Internet forum vs. Imageboard

I'm not sure about changing it but Anonymous always applies to imageboard users. Comments? BJ^Talk 18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it important to note that the "Anonymous" group congregates around imageboards, but that the very nature of this medium has contributed to the rise and development of internet culture, and within internet culture, what I would refer to as an anonymous centric subculture. The constant bombardment of users with images that convey a message as significant as the text, or more so, has created a grassroots viral advertising space. Anonymous is not just to be understood as a group. This group also has a host of esoteric taglines, cliches', injokes, rules and ethical codes of behavior, and a history which is venerated (i.e. Never 4get 7-12-2006!) by long time "anons". Being a combination of multiple mediums, the internet is the only medium that can virally spread these as rapidly. The subculture of Anonymous would not have come into existence if not for imageboards.

The proliferation of these cliches, or cultural viruses referred to as memes, has had an unseen hand in spurring on many of the internet phenomenon documented months later by mainstream media, and never attributed to Anonymous as the source of the "lulz". This will be the greatest problem for this article. I have no doubt that Anonymous deserves a high rating in importance, at the least, but due to a lack of verifiable sources it will never be recognized as anything beyond low (maybe mid, if project chanology goes further in destabilizing Scientology). This is not to say the history of Anonymous is not documented, but we can hardly use oral history and Encyclopedia Dramatica as respectable sources. Personally, I think there should be papers written by sociologists on this phenomenon. As a viral subculture almost exclusively removed from meatspace for the early years of its inception, Anonymous has had an unique development, and it's future will be utterly unpredictable.--Cast (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a new section to make note of the potential use of 4chanarchive as a source. Kakama (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, an imageboard is a more specific type of internet forum, and the anonymous feature is not limited to imageboards. It might be best to state that Anonymous' culture developed around imageboards, a type of internet forum that focuses on images more than text, dedicated to the topic "Random". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Can Not (talk • contribs) 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, those shouting "its not a forum" need to look up the definition of forum in a dictionary. Just because it's not phpbb doesn't mean it's not a forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.197.209 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous in society

Should we not also add to this article that Anonymous has now grown to encompass more than just forums and Imageboards? That Anonymous has now come to grow into a grassroots activist group, where many of the participators of Project Chanology are not just members of the Anonymous subculture inside the chans; but instead are, for a large part, members of the public as well? Many of whom have made an effort to stay away from the chans. This sort of claim can be evidenced through the participation of the February 10th, 2008 protests at: Wikinews international report: "Anonymous" holds anti-Scientology protests worldwide.

I think it would be beneficial to add this to the article because the group does not seem to be losing interest, but in fact, is gaining. If we are to accurately maintain this article it should be noted that Anonymous now is more than just hackers and 'anonymous' posters on forums and Imageboards. - Joshua McNeil (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• It is also notable that much of partyvan.info can be used to reference members of the general public and their growing role in Anonymous. It is currently maintained by members of the Anonymous chan administrators, primarily of eBaums. Historically accurate and they have often times confessed to whatever negative facts may be associated with them: if the accusations are in fact true.

This is also the main site for organization and participation in Project Chanology. - Joshua McNeil (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

-Joshua McNeil (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This thinking is wrong on several points. Anons who are taking part in Project Chanology are hardly making efforts to "stay away from chans". This can be understood on several levels. While perhaps they are not associating Project Chanology with any particular image board, and are often referring to Ebaumsworld as their center of gravity, in an attempt to shift blame from their beloved boards, this is not new behavior. This is standard operating procedure for raids. They've done this since their earliest Habbo raids. Anons, as individuals, are still associating with each other on boards.

Further, they are not avoiding "chan subculture". Many picket signs referenced memes, and a costumed individual dressed as Raptor Jesus made an appearance at the San Francisco protest. The constant use of EFG masks (yes, I know they are V masks, but the meme is tied to EFG) is yet another act of embracing *chan subculture even when in the public sphere. An outreach video calling for the 2-10-08 event did hand out "rules of engagement," amongst which was the insistence that memes not be used, as they would alienate the public. This, obviously, was ignored en masses. Anonymous is not disassociating form the *chans, and never will. The concept of Anon is intrinsic to the *chans. It is, however, true that Anon exists outside of this subculture now.

Further, do not make the mistake of buying into mass media representations of Anonymous. The group was never comprised solely, or by a majority of Hackers. Hackers have always comprised a minority, if not a vast minority. The tactic most often employed by Anonymous during online "Raids" is that of the DDoS (distributed denial of service) attack. This does not involve any hacking whatsoever. It is an act of overwhelming a webserver's bandwidth with massive packets of data. Media outlets simplified this as an act of "hacking."

No actual intrusion of the Scientology websites was executed by the majority of Anonymous. It is possible that a small minority of Anonymous did hack Scientology computers to acquire private documents, but it is highly unlikely this was achieved by hacking websites. I can't imagine why Scientology management would keep confidential documents on their websites. Scientology servers may have been hacked. As it is highly unlikely any Anon will ever step forward, we will never know.

I think this article can't just refer to Anonymous' interaction with society. It also has to address their subculture, explain how the concept of "anonymous" developed, and why. We'll eventually have to pull up the code of Anonymous, and explain each. The hard part of all this, as I noted above, will be finding verifiable sources. You note that partyvan.info can be used, but this is already known of and rejected. The problem is this is a wiki, and unacceptable as a source.--Cast (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. I wasn't solely referring to the Anonymous of the chans. I was referring to the general public and people who have simply adopted the pseudonym Anonymous as an umbrella name for a new activist group. You've also assumed that I'm unfamiliar with the chans and that I'm "buying into mass media". This is not the case. I know well that many of Anonymous, while 'channers', have little to no experience in "hacking". I suppose though that I was rather unclear as to what I meant. So my apologies, I've now clarified. Forgive me for suggesting partyvan.info be used. I hadn't realized. Summarily, I never said that this article refer to just Anonymous' interaction with society. But instead it should be noted that Anonymous has grown past the chans, even if the chans are still a fact hitherto synonymous with Anonymous. - Joshua McNeil (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of the Partyvan Wiki is to facilitate a perment source of knowledge, just as ED and Wikichan exist; it is just the /i/ part of that. Our general reactions and actions within society are not an action of growing past the chans at all. Anonymous is not an activist group or some sort of hacking clan, as the article notes well. Anonymous are imageboard users who upon occasion do things in real life or on other forums. Is not the eBaums World user who raids a website (like they so often do) still an eBaumber?

/b/ tards

can all the b tards stop stop vandalizing this page all the content keeps getting deleted. All the links, eg http://www.asyd.org was gone and was a very informative site, I learnt a lot from it. Why is the only link 4chan? /b/ tards are constantly destorying this article Unclekev (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea how unwise it is to make a request for restraint from a 'tard. You're irritation only brings them pleasure.--Cast (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

/b/tards ARE anonymous. all edits by them are evidence to the organization's disruptiveness. This article Should not be on wikipedia, it has exactly the same problems as the GNAA article, if not more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.64.195 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous does not approve of this article, copyright infridgement... the only wiki allowed to write about us is Encyclopedia Dramatica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.129.172 (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not censor itself, at least not in any way due to displeasure expressed by a group or person about which an article is written. This article's potential for vandalism by the hivemind of Anon does not indicate the article's worthiness for inclusion on Wikipedia. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 01:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No they don't. 125.237.195.86 (talk) 10:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Posting in an epic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.246.45 (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To the wikipedians: Removing spam from talk page To the Anons: Stop sounding like fucking idiots, this page is wrong anyways. -->

sage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.157.110.11 (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC) SAGE GOES IN EVERY FIELD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.197.209 (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really a group

"Anonymous" really isn't a group. Nothing is really organized, and often the "group" is just defined by who is interested at a certain time over a certain thing. I'd call it a concept more than a group. Certainly recent events with Scientology has made "Anonymous" seem more like a group, simply because it's the first time such a large number of us went in on the same thing, but over-all it's still mostly a concept. Ideas are thrown out, some catch on, some don't. Or maybe you could call it a demographic on the internet. Granted it's hard to define this without going into original research, but given that our published sources are often half-informed news reports, it kind of paints a false picture of what really happens. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This brings up one of the big (and probably unsolvable) problems with Wikipedia, which is the distinction between "objective truth", and "verifiable truth". When the "reliable" sources don't exist for a notable topic, or worse when they get it wrong, it is hard to justify adding the correct info to WP in light of the No Origional Research policy. One might invoke the Ignore All Rules policy, though with a controvertial article such as this it would be very difficult for that to reach concensus here. Z00r (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This analogy might draw fire, but I'll risk it. I will compare Anonymous to the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The ALF's membership is comprised entirely of those who voluntarily associate with it in secret. There are no member lists, no centralized organization. There are a few magazines that publish and encourage the behavior, but there certainly are no leaders. To be a member of ALF, you take part in an action ALF would approve of and state you did it in the group's name. After the action, you are no longer a member of ALF. Now all of that said, ALF is still an organization. I would say Anonymous strives even more so not to be an organization, but the generic term "group" still applies, because Anonymous admits that at any given time there is more than one Anonymous. Anonymous is legion. Legion implies a group. That all said, I agree that Anonymous is a concept; I just think this article can serve to explain all of the faces of Anonymous; that of the group, the culture, the tactic, and the idea.--Cast (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A very good way to put it. -- Ned Scott 17:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I've heard, Anonymous was really just a amorphous collection of Channers and Encyclopedia Dramatica users (I think many of them are now tied to E.D., as it provides info for Anonymous, but I'm not too sure). I know they've allegedly attacked the womensspace forum. The motives revolved around the moderator BitingBeaver after she wished she aborted her teenage son once witnessing him view and masturbate to pornography. This whole conflict is noted on E.D., so if you want more info, just key in either "BitingBeaver" or "TheBitingBeaver." Can't quite remember. 24.250.58.113 (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess by your logic, we can say that humans aren't a group.--Can Not (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

An organized group, not exactly. A group of living things, yeah. Context goes a long way. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

List of False and Misleading Information

I just deleted some false information. Anyways, I think we should make a list of things that aren't true for future note.

• "The Northern Light interviewee suggested that the Anonymous organising Project Chanology and the Anonymous "that became infamous" through the Fox report "are different groups"." - Everyone who is remotely familiar with the anonymous would know how clear it was that both organizations are the same. Also, why state that someone (non-notable, nor an expert) was suggesting this in an encyclopedia? This isn't a myspace shoutbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Can Not (talk • contribs) 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• But there's the problem, they're not really groups to start with. No doubt some of the same people are involved, but because there's no major organization, and because they're.. well.. anonymous, it's a different group every time something happens. Even within the Scientology stuff, the people involved in the first DOS attacks on the websites and prank phone calls are not exactly the same group as the people who went out to actually protest in person. They might involve some of the same people, but again, who's involved constantly changes, and along with that the ideas and motivations shift slightly as well. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course "they're not really groups to start with", they are just one single group. I don't see how what you said makes since. If the same people did two different things under the same group name, what could possibly make them two different groups? Let me force your logic into the business world. Programmers, Hardware Technicians, and Janitors are not the same group, right? But all three belong to their own individual organizations called Nvidia. No, that is stupid. You are confusing the term group with roles. Many anons prank phone call, DDoS, IRL protest, or make up propaganda. This is called specialization. When different members of an organization do specific tasks and work together, efficiency is increased. Anonymous is one single group. Fox News and Project Chanology were talking about the same Anonymous.--Can Not (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tons of people are doing things under the name Anonymous because anyone can make that claim. I can go out with ten people and poop on a car and say "Anonymous did this crazy zomg thing". You could describe them as a group (all of humanity can be seen as a group, after all), but what is being implied with reports from Fox News and other places isn't the same thing. This isn't an organization. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Granted, the terminology and "identity" that is implied is pretty much the same. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the way Ned Scott explained it. There are also another two ways to look at it:

1. One could argue that they are a "different group" because their ideologies and tactics have changed drastically – even if the members remained the same. As an example, The Road to February 10, 2008 video (endorsed by the Insurgency Wiki) states that Anonymous "embraced" Mark Bunker's words: "His advice to protest peacefully would become the cornerstone of their plans as they moved forward", effectively halting activities of questionable legality such as the DDoS attacks.
2. The Fox report has been widely dismissed or derided as biased, sensationalistic, inaccurate, or fallacious. According to this viewpoint (which is quite popular online), the portrayal of Anonymous as a bunch of "hackers on steroids" does not reflect the actual group, thus "different groups".

Regarding the non-notability of the individual: the criteria for inclusion within an article is citation against a reliable source, which is met for the case you mentioned. But the sentence probably can be paraphrased to make the intended meaning clearer. Ayla (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Ayla (talk · contribs) and with Ned Scott (talk · contribs). The material is duly cited, attributed to the appropriate source, and should go back into the article. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous, as it exists today, began a few months ago. Prior to this time other groups called Anonymous existed but, as far as Ottoson knows, the Anonymous that organized the Feb. 10 protests and the Anonymous that became infamous after a Fox News investigative piece exposed the group as a cyberterrorism outfit are different groups.[1]

Perhaps none of you understand. Look at the first bold item. This item is not a fact. Look at bold item number 2. The information that "Ottoson" knows is not only false, but the article itself states that he isn't 100% sure. I will now remove the false/misleading information.--Can Not (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with the paraphrasing idea. Anonymous isn't a centralised orgonization with a governing body or an oversight group that regulates its members or attests principals and ideas. Rather it is an label that has been applied to people who chose to communicate though set mediums and apply a loose set of principals to those interactions (note that the prinicpals that are set to gobvern those interactions only apply to third life, and have not spillover into real life). Anonymous as it exists today did in fact begin a few months ago prior to that point, it didn't make any political or social "raids" that where focused on long term goals, only "raids for Lulz". So they are "different orgonizations" if the term "orgonization" can be applyed at all. all of that beeing said, I think that paraphrasing it into somthing like "After the Project C (I can't spell it) raid the composition of anonymous drasticly changed from the origional group" or somthing like that (it was a off the cuff paraphrase that can get the conversation started).Coffeepusher (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Is Microsoft a different company now than it was 10 years ago because it made a long term investment into the console industry? I'm afraid not. Anonymous has done many raids in the past, some raids to destroy furries, faggotry, racists, pedofilic predators, etc. The only thing different about raiding scientology is that scientology is rich and just as morally grey as anonymous. IRL protests are nothing new to Anonymous, this is simply the biggest IRL protest they've ever done. They haven't changed, they aren't secretly three organizations, etc. Anonymous may have changed in the eyes of the news media or the public (or just became generally known, period), but they haven't made any significant cultural or practical changes. Nothing more than new jokes, same old style. There is also no evidence or reason to believe this drastic change has happened. Care to elaborate?--69.1.35.136 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft is a corperation that has a ruling body and governing structure as well as rules and regulations for its members, Anonymous is a culture not an orgonization. It is more closely identified with a speech community, or a counterpublic, however it dosn't have either ideals or an agenda (except for "we do it for Lulz" which is cryptic at best) and its only cohesave element is the method of communication. in other words Anonymous isn't a single orgonization, it is a label that is slaped onto acts of vandalism, hackery, protest, electrical assualt, in such a way to make those events appear more sinister than they actually are. Mostly Anonymous is a group of people who crack jokes on web sites, and blank pages on wikipedia. So saying that the anonymous that crank called a woman on Fox News is a different structure from the anonymous that protested outside Hollywood scientology center is correct.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous is not unorganized at all. This shows a clear lack-of-knowing-what-you-are-talking-about on your part. Calling it a label on internet terrorism is also pretty stupid, considering that Anonymous is a consistant integrated network of websites and chatrooms that acknowledges that they are all one entity called anonymous (which is a running gag to refer to their ORGANIZED group efforts such as raids, photoshops, photobucket fishing, etc., as something done by "Anonymous", thus where the name came from). While it is true that there may be two events that involve two different groups called Anonymous, FOX News and Project Chanology both deal with the EXACT SAME group that refers to itself as Anonymous. That is a fact. Quit trying to talk about something you don't really know anything about. The statement does not belong in this article. End of story.--Can Not (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The websites and chat rooms didn't protest scientology...people did. Being organized (by your definition I am assuming collective effort) Dosn't make an orgonization. Just by saying that I don't know what I am talking about dosn't make it true, it is actually a Ad Honimin falicy in logic (every time someone loses their temper on wikipedia I end up typing that word), which was explained in the intro section of "Welcome to Wikipedia." Right now you are arguing over semantics, the bottom line is that the actions that where discussed on the fox news report delt with a different segment of the population than the people who participated in the Scientology protests and raids. They used different methods, communicated using different boards, and had different goals, which for all intensive purposes can be seen as two different groups or "orgonizations". The statement is technicly correct, it comes from a WP:RS, and your only counterargument (which you have employed at length) is "Everyone who is remotely familiar with the anonymous would know how clear it was that both organizations are the same" with your "gut instinct" being the only source. So no matter what my or your opinion is, this source can be used in this article.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't simply saying you don't know what you were talking about, I was pointing out an obvious observation. Also, I am not using gut instinct, I am using first hand experience. Now on to the "debate" part of this. Fox News did a report on Anonymous as a whole (or simply how they perceived it, or what they thought th public needed to know), and mentioned a few things that Anonymous did. Now Anonymous has organized a raid (aka protest) against the "church" of Scientology. Saying that those two Anonymous' are not the same group is like saying that the Intel that released the Pentium 4 is a different Intel than the one that released the Core 2 Duo. It makes absolutely no since and it's not true.--Can Not (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"obvious observations" and "first hand experience" arn't admisable to wikipeida without reliable sources. I do understand what you are saying, but please read the quote. "sudjesting...the Anonymous organising Project Chanology and the Anonymous that became infamous through the Fox report "are different groups". the fox news report was a less than thourough representation of anonymous, and in that representation it used different tactics and goals than the "Project chanology" group. thus Anonymous that became infamous in the public eye (because they phish paswords and put up gay pornography...crank calls...basic middle/high school stuff...videos of blowing up vans...) does not accuratly represent the group that Project chanology came from. now I do stand by the fact that anonymous is an ideology rather than a orgonization, but that is semantics. The point is this article isn't wrong, it just sees things differently than you are comfortable with. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Anonymous did not become infamous through the FOXNEWS report. They have been infamous ever since their e-violent culture stabilized, which would be more than 2 years before the FOXNEWS report. 2. FOXNEWS's misrepresentations and/or "lies" does not infer that a second imaginary group exists. 3. No, no NO NO NO! It DOES accurately represent the group Project Chanology came from. Just because Anonymous has recruited half the public into it's own personal army against scientology does not mean Anonymous suddenly stopped executing its normal activities.--69.1.35.136 (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) and I agree with you on all but the first point. prior to the fox news report there was little in the public eye that pointed to Anonymous...effectivly they where infamous in their own circles, but I challenge you to find any reports about then identifing their actions with the group itself (please find them...we would like more sources). next I am confused on how you can say that anonymous created a personal army that acted in different ways from their normal activities, seperate the two in your third point...and have a problem with this quotation (the one we are discussing at the top of the page). it appears that you recognise that the activities are seperate, the individuals involved are seperate, and the ideology itself is seperate.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I don't think I properly understood Can Not before, but I think I got it now. Think of Anonymous as a concept, then we're saying that the Fox News and Scientology anonymous are the same concept. And while I don't think anon is a "group" in the way that some news reports have make it seem like, but yes, they can be considered a group, thus they would be considered the same group. -- Ned Scott 05:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

MediaShift Idea Lab, PBS

1. Schultz, Dan (February 15, 2008). "Anonymous vs. Scientology: A Case Study of Digital Media". MediaShift Idea Lab: Reinventing Community News for the Digital Age. PBS. Retrieved 2008-02-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Schultz, Dan (February 15, 2008). "Community Organization with Digital Tools". MediaShift Idea Lab: Reinventing Community News for the Digital Age. PBS. Retrieved 2008-03-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Interesting info and commentary on the methods of Anonymous in those 2 pieces. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Included in the article as external links, should eventually be incorporated into article text. Ayla (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Wikipedia Material

This article does not appear to be worthy of having its own page. There are large amounts of vandalism and the article seems to detail a group that does not want to be discussed. I think it should be removed from wikipedia and all references to it removed due to its irrelevance and general faggotry. Mc.7winkie (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The two main points you made are both moot. The level of vandalism will never be as much as say, George W. Bush, and it isn't a deciding factor on whether or not an article should stay. And whether they want to be discussed or not is again, irrelevant - they are encyclopedic, and previous AfD's have decided that. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

They are of incredible minuscule importance and quite frankly the article itself is vague, uninformative, and incapable of being informative unless you plaster GO TO 4CHAN.ORG /B/ all over the page. This entry sucks and should be killed.

One Sided?

I fear that this page showing a member of anonymous being a sicko is misleading and baseless how many sickos are in christianity or islam you canot spoil a group because of one person what is the purpouse of this give the sicko his own page of shame —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaharous (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to see more showing of the darker, more common side of Anonymous, and you, Zaharous, are not Anonymous. The majority of the actions Anonymous has committed are "sick." Kakama (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

They do sick things? You mean like rape, child molestation, murder, holocausts, and evironmental desstruction? Oh, my bad, you meant internet harassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.35.136 (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to go stand outside a building and upload some YouTUbe videos.

Will I get a Wikipedia article?

Please delete this shit. Anonymous is not Wikipedia worthy.

The mere idea that you, and anyone else, believe that Anonymous is not worth mention is the reason this article is here to begin with. Your attitude betrays that you don't have the maturity to grasp what Wikipedia stands for. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Internal fighting

I think it should be mentioned that not all Anons agree with project chanology, as I have seen many flaming each other about how chanology is stupid because it defeats the purpose of Anonymous and brings new users. Also, generally users are also grouped into being oldfags, newfags or somewhere in-between, with more or less everyone hating newfags. 71.247.32.244 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

if you have a WP:RS that says as much, then it can be added.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Would archived threads containing these micro flames wars count? I doubt we can get anything from a third party news source on the matter. So far, the Anons in Project Chanology have successfully put forward an image of a firm, unified front.--Cast (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am really reluctant on primary sources in this matter, because Anonymous dosn't have any centralized leadership or spokespersons...or consistant ideology for that matter, theirfore there arn't any primary sources that can be seen as authoratiative of Anonymous. allowing primary sources could cause this entire article to erupt into chaos while people cherrypick their favorate message boards to post their view on wikipedia for example:

"anonymous consists of free speech advocates who exchange pediphilic jokes and images on message boards. When thier primary board cracked down on the Illegal images, they switched boards with the invitation to new users 'here is your complimentery 12 year old girl'" I can cite this statement based on message bords and primary sources, however we can all agree that it is a gross misrepresentation of Anonymous.

additionaly because of the nature of the orgonization it only pragmaticly exists in the media. The views that get talked about in the media, become the public view of Anonymous, which is the Anonymous that people react to. Coffeepusher (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I, for one think this is relevant to the article. This should be added, as a large percentage of the userbase frowns upon this faggotry. User:AnonymousSpecial:Contributions/138.86.166.64 (talk)

ok, do you have any reliable sources that will back it up? (message boards don't count)Coffeepusher (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A better poster

You want it? ViperSnake151 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about this. The thing about Anonymous is that no single individual can represent it. The great thing about the cartoons – that of a green person and "no image available" or the invisible person wearing a business suit – is that they were more clearly symbolic of the concept of anonymity, and were so often used either as a logo (invisible male) or as a dark comedy character (the green no-face). A picture of a random guy wearing a Guy Fawkes mask just doesn't have the same effect. Also, that "expect us" line is still just a very new, and very Project Chanology related line. It was never used before Project Chanology, and so it betrays a certain degree of recentism. --Cast (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

look what I found -- Ned Scott 05:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This also might be a good time to bring up an idea I once had.. a motivator template for Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Restraining Order Petition

I assume this would be a RS & VS? (crossposted to talk page of Chanology) - injunction.pdf DigitalC (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but the associated article would be. Eleven Special (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Found and uploaded this.

Forgot the source, never copyrighted, simple. Don't flame, I have little/no idea what I'm doing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anons-business-card2.PNG

CompuHacker (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I should point you to this discussion and this discussion (check the "Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg" sections) to show the opposition being offered against such images. Can you demonstrate that the image was never copyrighted? Ayla (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded a free logo from Insurgency at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anonymous_ring_logo.gif Anon031408 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, can you demonstrate that it is free? (I'm not saying that it's not, but we need some evidence to show that it is, such as a statement by the creator.) Ayla (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Logo replacement

The second deletion review for Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg has just closed as keep. A few days ago, an editor uploaded another version of the logo, Image:Anonymous ring logo.gif, which could be used to substitute the current one. However, considering that the current logo has undergone a heated debate spanning an IfD discussion, a former deletion review, an ANI discussion, its talk page discussions, and the second deletion review, I feel it would be unfair for such a decision to be taken by an individual editor. Thus, I am inviting community input on which version of the logo should be chosen, especially from editors who participated in the said debates. Keep in mind that, per WP:CSD#I5, the non-chosen logo would be deleted as an orphaned unfree image. Thanks. Ayla (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ugh decisions! although I applaud the work of the editor who added the new logo, I feel that the origional one it more recognised and should be kept on the page. That and I feel that the first image has more history on this page (all that debate) and has less chance of beeing deleted because of WP:NOMINATINGUNTILLITGETSDELETED (someone please help me out, what is the correct wikilink?).Coffeepusher (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it, What I was saying was under frivolous WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETEDCoffeepusher (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I agree with your second point (and also with your first, except that the new logo appears to have become more popular recently). Image:Anonymous ring logo.gif will be deleted as orphaned fair use after Thursday, 20 March, so unless there is a consensus favouring it by then, I will let the deletion take its course. Ayla (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous' Focus

I would like to propose that a list of some sort is compiled to display the various goals of Anonymous over time. This could show how Anonymous has changed from an undefined objective, to attempting to revoke the CoS tax exempt status, to the new "Operation Reconnect" Additionally, it would demonstrate how quickly Anonymous has evolved and grown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.199.153 (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't just about the Anonymous project, "Operation Chanology." It's about Anonymous in general, and so we shouldn't just look at the work some Anons have been doing for the past three months. Anonymous has been around since 2003, with most of the mottos and the green face cartoon coming from 2004. For the majority of it's time, it hasn't been focused. I'd hardly call this a quick evolution. More like a temporary deviation.--Cast (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the idea of a timeline for pre-Chanology Anonymous, but sourcing is too sparse. The only event I found decent media coverage of was Chris Forcand's arrest. Ayla (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've got information on the origin of 4chan, the first western imageboard Anonymous called home. Anonymous now has a website where it refers to itself as a "social phenomenon" and that it originated on the chans. Now that Chanology is spreading out to non-wiki websites, we can start citing those. Here is an essay on the Anonymous imageboards written back in 2004, when Anonymous as a subculture took off, explaining what the imageboard was and what were the perceived advantages to Anonimity. Note that an addendum was added in 2006, noting concerns with the Anonymous system stemming from 2005 and 2004. This can make for a bare but useful timeline. --Cast (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism accusations?

Scientology has accused Anonymous of planning terrorist activities or claiming they are a genuine terrorist organisation numerous times both unofficially and (I'm pretty sure) in some of the injunctions and claims they've tried to file against the group.

In fact in the "Clearwater Petition for Injunction For Protection Against Repeat Violence"* they even claimed Anonymous had stated: "A seperate personal attack on Heber Jentzsch will be launched on the 13th of March 2008 at an undisclosed time. His execution along with the deaths of other countless scientologists will strike fear into the hearts ofevery member"

Think it's worth giving it a mention somewhere in the article if only "for the lulz" as they say ;) --85.62.18.8 (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

_{Injunction petition can be seen here: http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/12/images/Scientologyinjunction.pdf}