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 SineBot (talk | contribs) at 15:56, 7 June 2008 (Signing comment by 92.18.209.10 - "→‎Anonymous - Origin: new section"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconInternet culture Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template:Multidel

Moral being?

Ok, why is the moarl being phrase still there? Anonymous never claimed to be moral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.167.31 (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised by that, too. Anonymous is not moral and never claims to be. 207.190.244.74 (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even when being nice or doing nice things anonymous never claims to be moral, someone write that off. Anonymous is the embodyment of the concept of amorality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.165.124 (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sites

The article says that Anon uses sites like Facebook and Youtube. This is untrue. These sites are regular enemies of Anonymous and users of them are shunned. Another thing is that the Chanology protests are becoming independent of Anonymous. Although it is unfair to say that the early raids were not Anonymous. The same people who did the early protests are the SAME Anonymous that raided the Epilepsy forums. I should know, I participated in the Epilepsy raids. The announcement on 7chan that Scientology did it, is in fact a troll, something the 7chan staff does regularly. Back to that Chanology thing. Many Anonymous are becoming dissatisfied with the recent events in Project Chanology. It is said that the more recent protesters are doing it in the name of righteousness, rather than lulz, the only thing Anonymous cares about. Another fact is that Chanology is becoming polluted with the participation of "Gaiafags" (users of the forum, Gaia, a notable enemy of Anonymous that is currently being raided) and other sorts of unwanted types. The epilepsy raids were a show of power. To show the world that Anonymous is not the internet vigilante that the media wants to romticize it as. It is a cruel "internet hate machine". But the internet hate machine is not a group, it is just another name for Anonymous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.16.225 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, and it bothers me as well, but there's not much we can do about it unless the folks over at enturbulation.org stop referring to themselves as anonymous. But at this point in time, there's no way to persuade them to stop. Llxwarbirdxll (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Chris Forcand

The two Anonymouses are UNRELATED. That section should be edited to include that, if not entirely left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.131.228 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except they aren't unrelated. DigitalC (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous stronghold

It must be noted that anonymous's stronghold is not considered to be 7chan. Anonymous main activities are both 7chan and 4chan, 4chan being the 'stronger' one in terms of member saturation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.199.99 (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


nothing but original research

blah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.9.121 (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

original research is a misnomer: if it were original it would be called search, not re-. amirite? Hypatea (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hihi

The fact that this page even exists and without being edit-raped, is great success. DJLarZ (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube

Is it true that a member of anonymous attacked a kid on youtube for being blatant annoying, by finding out his address from his videos and using google maps. After he found it he added free trials of "stuff" off of the internet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.71.106 (talk • contribs) 08:18, May 29, 2008 (UTC)

talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article. If you have a reliable source that discusses what you mentioned above, then we might be able to work that into the article. DigitalC (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you read about it? I couldn't find whatever you're talking about through some google searches.

By the way DigitalC, give us a break. As I said, this article is just original research and besides, it's completely biased. From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources : "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." Many sources here violate this rule. I'll give just an example from the second source (the first source is a blog): "In all likelihood, Anonymous is the face of the future." blah. Also, some links are broken. And all blogs should be considered spam and deleted.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/02/protesters-asse.html

http://www.statenews.com/index.php/blog/entertainment/2008/02/internet_group_

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/anonymous-attac.html

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/07/investigative-r.html

http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/blog/2008/02/this_weeks_show_feb708_1.html

Bedides, they're so biased and badly written you can't possibly define them as reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.8.149 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

As far as I understand it, blogs with editorial oversight, such as from wired or LA times, are considered just as reliable as print articles. If the article is being used to establish opinion, and not fact, attribution to the source can be used. However, if you feel that I am wrong about this, I suggest posting to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to get some outside input (WP:RSN). Cheers, DigitalC (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got the information from one of my friends who is affiliated with anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.221.178 (talk) 20:18, 30

May 2008 (UTC)

That's not a good source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.165.124 (talk • contribs)

Anonymous - Origin

First of all, why the hell have Anonymous and The Internet Hate Machine been separated? Also why is there no mention of the fact Anonymous IS the Internet Hate Machine and the Co$ protests are a splinter group of Anonymous . . . NOT the majority and certainly NOT the true face of Anonymous. Requesting a cleanup on this because it makes it sound like Anonymous is the Co$ group . . . whereas Anonymous IS the Internet Hate Machine, the Co$ protests are just a side project and in reality other than the mask and the sites where the protests originated, have nothing to do with Anonymous at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.209.10 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anonymous_(hacker_group)&oldid=217766617"