From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removal of Text[edit]

I have removed some of the unreferenced text... there is a difference between anti-copyright groups that are self-proclaimed Infoanarchists and anti-copyright groups that are sensationalised by the media as "infonarachists". Just because the mainstream media would call anybody who is anti-copyright anarchist or communist, does not mean that they have to be listed here. I have extended the anti-copyright article to make it clear that this "movement" includes a wide range of groups and people.--SasiSasi (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


Infoanarchist groups can include... People who simply think copyrights are a barrier on society, especially to poor people accessing to the culture (mainly people who are in behalf of copyleft

Copyleft relies on copyright. Someone who supports copyleft by definition supports the idea of copyright law. And, the sentence is gramatically incorrect.--AdamGomaa 00:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Information about security holes[edit]

AFAIK Infoanarchy is also releated to Full disclosure —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to Delete[edit]

I'm not sure I understand this article. If its goal is to make the case that "infoanarchism" is a "school" of anarchism, I've never seen or heard any anarchist use this descriptor for themselves or other anarchists - and the cited sources on this page reflect that. The only source on the page that has ever used the term, used it as a headline - and headlines use clever wordplay all the time; I hardly think TIME Magazine imputing the title of "anarchist" onto someone is relevant. The term "anarchist" appears twice in the article, both times in passing. Further, the Siva Vaidhyanatha book cited also does not use the term at all. This page is almost entirely citation-less except for the introduction, and for some reason at the end of the article it lists two people's social media profiles as being "infoanarchists" (do you know how many leftists have blogs and come up with all sorts of hyper-personalized descriptors for themselves? It's hardly relevant). I recommend majorly cleaning this article up to delete the self-promotion of people's blogs at the bottom and add citations that this is indeed a living breathing "thing" going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Au166 (talkcontribs) 17:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)