Jump to content

Talk:Anonymous (hacker group)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tuxmascot (talk | contribs) at 15:34, 21 March 2012 (→‎Group). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeAnonymous (hacker group) was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 12, 2008Articles for deletionKept
March 19, 2008Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
March 11, 2009Articles for deletionKept
April 26, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Rtnews

Group

I would think that Wikipedia could be allowed to not be nuetral on the subject of anonymous.-Anonymous 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)[reply]

THIS (call it an anti-group, movement, mindset or whatever) Zoef1234 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Call it a movement. I think that's the best description of an 'organization' like this (but it's not really organized enough to be an organization) -A friend (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous hate the Scientology religion. They protest out of the Scientology church. Anonymous always wear masks. Some people think that most of them are Mexican. They do not like the U.S. Congress. [ Enter SOPA OR PIPA] to find out more about the U.S. Congress and what they are changing on the internet. Many people are joining the people in the Anonymous group. They protest in a lot of parts in the world. They also, hate the U.S Goverment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.249.246 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Anonymous isn't a group. Anonymous is a brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.215.107 (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What authority do you have to put any label on anything? Anonymous is beyond a "group" or a "brand" - it is an idea. An idea of freedom. An idea of true justice. How is that a "brand?" Please elaborate. Also, elaborate on what gives you the authority to label anything. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.148.184 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous may or may not be an organization, it may or may not be consistent from day to day, but it is a group. "In the social sciences a social group can be defined as two or more humans who interact with one another, share similar characteristics and collectively have a sense of unity." Two or more, yup. Interaction, yup. Similar characteristics? How about using the same name and the LOIC? Sense of unity? Can't get much more hive minded than a bot net. Peboki (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Group used in the above context is not practical or meaningful in common conversation (as used by the media such as the Fox 11 report) where "group" is used as interchangeable with "organization" which is the exact polar opposite of Anonymous. The shared traits of Anonymous are exactly one trait "no identity" and nothing else. And by lacking identity it defies conventional concepts that we use to identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.249.69 (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best information on Anonymous I have read so far. our weirdness is free by Gabriella Coleman (on Triple Canopy) Perhaps someone who is a real writer will find it useful in improving this entry. If providing resource material here is inappropriate, PM me and I'll stop ArishiaNishi (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support changing this from group to movement. Off the top of Google here is an article from this month describing it that way. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-02-14/anonymous-hacks-tear-gas/53087858/1 , There are several groups claiming to be anonymous. A few of these could be considered the founding members of the movement. I do believe at its current scale, it is a movement. Gsonnenf (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in the support of changing it from group to movement. This makes much more sense. A group proliferates a hierarchy, while there is no hierarchy in the Anonymous movement.Tuxmascot (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Internet meme

According to article: "Anonymous is an Internet meme that originated in 2003..."
The source[1] do not say anything like that, is it an internet meme or not? How about the year 2003?

Kartasto (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely not an internet meme... there will be many sources available that say they are a loose-knit activist group. 03jkeeley (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous started on 4chan.org. It is considered a meme because of how "Anonymous" is referenced on there. When a person leaves a comment or thread, it leaves it as "Anonymous". People began to joke about it and thus "Anonymous" is born. I will link to a source in a later update.Tuxmascot (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wow

I visited this page a few months ago, and it was much better and detailed than it is today. That is very disappointing. I wonder who was responsible for its demise?? 74.241.95.91 (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - their goal is not to promote digital piracy

It doesn't state in either apparently quoted article that they have a goal of "promoting digital piracy" as is stated to be in: [4][5]

5 doesn't even mention them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.206.226 (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC calls them "Piracy activists" and The Telegraph says "Pro-piracy sympathisers".
"Piracy activists have carried out coordinated attacks on websites owned by the music and film industry. ... The attacks were declared on notorious message-board 4chan and were reportedly in retaliation for anti-piracy efforts against file-sharing websites."[2]
"Pro-piracy sympathisers have launched distributed denial of service attacks against a number of high-profile music and movie industry websites".[3]
There are lots more sources via Google — ThePowerofX 17:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it was WP:OR. Someone else deleted that info completely but it was at least partly ok, so I rewrote it to say what the sources say. Night Ranger (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous isn't one "group" of a select number of individuals, if you've actually read this very article. It makes no sense to say that Anonymous are "Pro-piracy sympathisers", and those at BBC and The Telegraph are doing a horrible job at reporting. See also Talk:Megaupload#Retaliatory attacks by Anonymous. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes sense is multiple reliable sources that observe a tendency on behalf of Anonymous to defend pirates or people accused of copyright infringement. — ThePowerofX 11:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Define "Anonymous". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not my job. At Wikipedia, we determine the essential quality of something through the use of reliable sources. — ThePowerofX 11:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ resource

  • Retaliation Fears Spur Anonymity in Internet Case January 28, 2012 by Devlin Barrett; excerpt ...

    Federal law-enforcement officials say they are concerned about cyber-retaliation against agents and prosecutors, in light of suspicions that people linked to the hacker collective Anonymous targeted the private life of a government official investigating WikiLeaks.

99.181.159.67 (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done too much work, next time please summarize the article in your own words as well. The quotation is fantastic though, a big help. So please use your wikimarkup skills to do something I can just cut'n'paste, cool ? Penyulap talk 13:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the "LOIC" Section

Can we remove the LOIC section of the page? We are talking about Anonymous as a vigilant group of people. We are NOT talking about the tools they use to perform the act. We need to talk about what Anonymous has done, not what they use to get the deed done. Tuxmascot (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add, I don't see how the LOIC section adds to the background part of the page. LOIC has nothing to do with Anonymous. They even stopped using it and switched to SlowLORIS and HOIC. This should be removed. Tuxmascot (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could I see an RS on the claim that they don't use it? Also, that section is notable because it was used prominently in Operation Payback

A Dirty Watermelon (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be in the article, per A Dirty Watermelon, maybe Tuxmascot can suggest a better presentation of the information ? Penyulap talk 13:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done is how the use of LOIC led to the arrest of several Anons that used this tool. That is why they stopped using it. If you visit in any Anonymous Op, you will see that they say to NOT use LOIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxmascot (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case Syria

"The emails were hacked by the cyber group Anonymous and leaked to the Israeli news organisation Haaretz".[4] Kartasto (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

Edit request on 27 February 2012

quote 37 is incorrect in that the Wired post used for the quote does not call Anonymous a bored group of 15 year-olds, it is calling the participants in the chat channel bored 15 year-olds

75.74.167.200 (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please express your request in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail. I don't read that the same way you seem to be reading it, but what is it you would like the line to say? Celestra (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Read the report, gave what I hope is a fair summary, feel free to edit or suggest further edits. Penyulap talk 13:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: move sections under "Activities" to Timeline of events involving Anonymous

The Timeline of events involving Anonymous was created so that we could list their activities there, so why do we have the "activities" section in this article? Tschis (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

meme, really?

please change from internet meme to self described hacktivist group. more accurate from what Ive read — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.144.86.95 (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anonymous_(hacker_group)&oldid=483152605"