This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It provides responses for certain topics repeatedly brought up on the talk page. Providing similar answers each time a topic is brought up uses up many editors' time and energy. The FAQ addresses these common concerns, criticisms, and arguments, and answers various misconceptions behind them. (For information about the Wikipedia project itself, see Wikipedia:FAQ.)
These FAQ answers reflect the decisions found in the talk page archives. Please feel free to change them in light of new discussion.
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Anonymous.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1:I have an issue with Anonymous being referred to as a "group".
A1: The purpose for the disambiguation in the title is so that readers know we are not talking about Anonymous (the concept of being unknown). If you have a better suggestion, please include it in your comments.
Q2: Why isn't the most recent activity associated with Anonymous presented here?
A2: Wikipedia is not a news service or a promotional space for events. Important topics related to Anonymous may be included once they have become notable and are reported upon by verifiable media sources known for accuracy. These sources can then be cited within the article.
Q3: Why isn't an important topic related to Anonymous included in this article?
A3: This article is a work in progress. A topic related to Anonymous may simply go unnoticed by Wikipedia editors, lack notability, lack verifiable citations, or all of the above. If a topic related to Anonymous is notable, please wp:BE BOLD and include it in the article if you can, but remember to try to confirm the accuracy of the topic with verifiable citations. If you wish to remain anonymous :) then just type what you would like to see in the article on the talkpage, so others can cut and paste for you. Try to tell us the web address, book, newspaper, or wherever you found the information, this will help your edit to last longer.
Q4: A particular wing of Anonymous is not liked, respected, or appreciated by another wing of Anonymous. Some consider specific sub-groups to be a splinter organizations, and no longer part of Anonymous. As such, their actions shouldn't be attributed to Anonymous. Why isn't this contention mentioned in the article? Why aren't the actions by these groups excluded from this page?
A4: See answer to previous question. There is currently no way to discern in clear terms who comprises various sub-groups of Anonymous, and individuals may only be judged by their actions in a given situation. A "member" of Anonymous may act as a cause oriented figure in a particular project, and then switch to other projects or non-participation in minutes, without a paper trail to document this. This often presents media sources with confusion, leaving attribution of actions unclear. Lacking citation, this article cannot discern which individuals and sub-groups are and are not members of Anonymous at a given time, and which actions are and are not attributed to Anonymous. Strict sourcing is necessary to reference activities as ventures carried out by Anonymous. This article may reference schisms and group infighting, but cannot exclude any wing of Anonymous from representation if verifiable sourcing is provided.
Cleanup : —Chronology: goes too much in details about incidents, which should be summarized and linked to their own articles for major events, or which can be moved to the chronology "Timeline" article for minor events.
Expand : —Iconography and aesthetics: expand with information on origin of memes, masks and mottos.
I boldlytook out a sentence about part of Anonymous targeting Israel on Holocaust Remembrance Day because it was seemingly only included to paint the the group/collective/community in a certain light without adhering to due weight. Looking at the more than 106 operations mentioned on Timeline of events associated with Anonymous, I don't see any other reason why this one would be singled out. Project Chanology, the only other operation specifically mentioned in the lead, is justified by being their first large-scale operation and arguably the one that started it all. However, I was reverted by User:Rainbowofpeace, so I thought I'd bring it up here for discussion with other editors. I think their edit reasoning that it "caused many to question Anonymous motives" perpetuates the misconception that Anonymous is an organized group with a shared idealogy, and implying the whole group is anti-Israel because apparently a part of it is would be unfair. Besides, lead inclusion has higher standards than just being sourced. For some WP:OR evidence of its low relevance, compare the Twitter followers of YourAnonNews (1.67 million) and Op Israel (41,000). Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The following is on the anonymous wiki page: "Some actions by members of the group have been described as being anti-Zionist"
Why is it that when anonymous does activism against Jews/Israel it's labelled "anti-Zionist"???
That's just the politically motivated claims of Jews/Israelis and we shouldn't pander to it; the wiki page should remain unbiased.
On Twitter Anonymous is commonly decribed as being a group of criminals and morons, so should this description of anonymous also be included in the wiki page as well?
Or are we being selective as to the descriptions used for anonymous, descriptions being maliciously politically motivated.
Blackhats/anons were congregating on a particular forum other than 4chan long before 4chan ever existed, we're talking late 90's/turn of the century, and on this forum was discussed: hacks, scripts were shared, info shared, advice was given, and people agreed to join forces and do joint ops against certain targets such as large corporations.
There were even incidences of people joining forces to target other well known hackers (self confessed best hacker).
Back then such people usually did their own thing but as I've stated people did also join forces to work together against certain targets for political reasons, there were acts of hacktivism.
Back then we were covert, we all agreed and advised others that we shouldn't bring attention to what we did.
We used no logo or name, we were just anonymous Blackhats/hacktivists.
At the time the press and authorities would refer to hacks as being by unknowns and that the perpetrators were anonymous (as in unidentifiable).
During that period there were repeated incidences of members from that forum doing hacktivism that made major news, hacktivism against major companies and against certain governments (superpowers). Some acts made a small but significant change to the world.
Thats the real true beginnings of anonymous, it's groups of persons such as that which anonymous derived from, that's essentially faze one in the evolution of anonymous.
The public and more annoyingly today's anonymous members and even older and self proclaimed original anonymous members aren't aware of that as they weren't around then, and also as that early faze was covert and not publicised, it was only later when anons ceased being covert and fully anonymous and became boastful and took to role playing and wearing masks and using a name that they became known to the world.
Several years ago i made such claims (as well as disputed certain claims regarding anonymous on 4chan) in anonymous circles such as in anonops, anons in anonops as I'm sure you can imagine hated me for making such claims and tried to prove me wrong by publicly (in anonops) asking topiary if my claims were true, they expected him to publicly discredit me but he confessed I was telling the truth and also that he had deceived anons for years and that some not all of what was claimed about him, his links to anonymous was lies made up by the press, yes there was some truth in it but also some lies.
Of course none of what I've just told you can be proved nor will you edit the anonymous wiki page accordingly, I know that and I don't expect you too, I only tell you of such things as I thought it only right that persons contributing to the anonymous page know that there is more to the story of anonymous, I just thought some of you might be interested to hear it. HardeeHar (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a relatively new movement. It does not have their own Wikipedia page. T I have try to verify their connection with Anonymous (the hacktivists group). AFV's website does not mention they are connected with the hacktivists group.
There is a picture added a couple of months ago seem to suggest they are affiliated where this is in fact not verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Anonymous isn't institutional enough to really say who is or is not a member. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
hii im rajat shah im new on hacker world how to hack fb plz halp me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonashah835 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)