Talk:Anonymous/Archive1

Coincidence
Coincidence! I'm writing something on this at the moment. Sequel to Catwatcher's Information Handbook. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
 * Neat. I was just going through "What's Wanted." Researcher 19:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Revert
I'm not sure about the revert I just did. I know some of the mentions were vague references to things Anonymous has been credited with doing, but as it was, it just seemed like a stream of consciousness hit piece. If I missed the point, feel free to revert back. --Arcan  ¡ollǝɥ  17:43, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps too biased and ED-ish
That's really all there is to my thoughts. I know RW is no Wikipedia, but the article makes Anonymous look quite a bit better than it really is (lulz is little more than glorified spite, after all). It almost looks like the "fun" and "normal" articles were swapped. 89.3.236.183 (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, the focus should not be on their internal lingo (which is useless for someone who stays away from imageboards), but on who they are. And that would be: some of the most spiteful, vitriolic and intolerant people on the Internet, who are often not much better than their attack targets. I'd also like to have more criticism of imageboard culture in general. - LucidFox (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Imageboard culture isn't completely made up of /b/. Their intolerant by necessity. I'm not glorifying 4chan, but it wouldn't be 4chan for long if they welcomed newcomers. I just don't think their all bad. 15:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This whole website is basically ED for liberals. If this site was ever supposed to represent rationality and a neutral point of view, those days a long gone. 02:36, 25 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Incomplete?
This article seems to present an overtly positive and rather whitewashed account of Anonymous. Anyone else think it's at least incomplete? 21:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll get to it. Anonymous has various factions, and pretending that it's all chanology is ignoring the html flashing graphics put into a forum for epileptics.--  22:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe snarky, but not critical
Have Anons already infiltrated RW, are the editors too afraid of backlash or why does this article read like a paean on a bunch of maladjusted teens and script kiddies that you can join simply by claiming you're one of them?

I dunno, but I thought scientific, rational views can only be reached by critically analyzing the available info on a subject to derive an objective understanding of it. This here looks more like it's copypasted from ED. --Barkeron (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What are we, seven years old?
Though /b/randon was never found, it was undeniable that the Internet belonged to Anonymous. God, what an embarrassing paragraph. Yeah, the whole fuckin' world quakes in fear when a bunch of 4chan wannabe-terrorists decide to prank someone. Can we strike this lame (self-?)adulation of dull pranks and focus on the few times when Anonymous's activities were actually noteworthy (if not nearly as admirable as they seem to think)? Phiwum (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. Er.  I was reading a page I loaded this morning, and in the interim, the paragraph I hated was removed.  Never mind. Phiwum (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

???
What happened? This used to be a great article, now it's shit. 64.131.153.95 (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This used to be a great website until people started letting their feelings and emotions dictate their reactions to the world. Get over it. 02:38, 25 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Steubenville
I understand that the response to the Steubenville rape case wasn't only mobilized by Crackers under the Anon moniker, But like, They had an integral part in digging up the videos and helping spread the word of what happeneds there. There also the whole Amanda Todd ordeal where several Crackers, calling themselves Anons, tried to find the man who had blackmailed her. I get that MRAs use the Fawkes mask, but I heard several people, feminists in several forms, refer to them favorably. I don't agree with the way they do things, and I personally don't like the idea of a bunch of faceless people despensing what they see as justice without regard for the law, but they aren't entirely ineffectual and not all their activism is fueled by misogny, or an Atheistic superiority complex. Sometimes the police fail, and gotham finds itself in the need of a geek living in his mother's basement. 22:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What you are saying is, anonymous is made up a diverse group of individuals with differing opinions and motivations. Some of them good, some of them bad, and it is impossible to stereotype them under a single banner.  The problem is, that point of view is very inconvenient.  You are forced to form opinions on people actions on a case by case basis, it's much easier to just take a small sampling, preferably hose who are most noticeable, and assume the entire community is like them.  That way, you just need a few paragraphs, say they are a group of shitlords, nothing more.  You don't have to clarify, that some of them are shitlords, some are various other things, just say they are all shitlords, and you'll be at least somewhat accurate. 02:43, 25 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Deletion
Deleted a section of text. Partially unsourced, a link to a clothing site and an editorial. And nothing of value was lost. Acei9 06:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

== As per my suggestion in Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica#Should this be in Category Homophobia, Category Racism and Category Sexism ==

Talk to Civic Cat  19:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)