Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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)


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[edit]

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. (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.— Unsigned, by: Legal JWH-018 / talk / contribs 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.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 02:36, 25 October 2014‎ (UTC)


This article seems to present an overtly positive and rather whitewashed account of Anonymous. Anyone else think it's at least incomplete? Blue Talk 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.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe snarky, but not critical[edit]

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?[edit]

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. (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.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 02:38, 25 October 2014‎ (UTC)


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.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 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.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 02:43, 25 October 2014‎ (UTC)


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[edit]

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

I am triggered by this article[edit]

Ugh. I just loathe it when all what people associate with Anonymous are some script-kiddies with LOICs. Even when constricted by the scope of 4chan, being an anonymous is so much more than that! There are many dozens of different ways to commit senseless acts of cruel idiocy, make a flaming ass out of yourself, dig up and stir the most disgusting pile of human perversion you can find, and generally engage in meaningless ritualised banter composed of jokes that aren't funny and mutual mental masturbation -- and the usual "hacktivist" thing is just one tiny slice of it! So stereotypical.

I don't even mention the cases where we actually stand up to do noble and productive things to the society, which most always fail spectacularly in a pile of absurdity and leave everyone wondering what and why we did in the first place. How could one possibly say this amounts to nothing? I would even say that the Anonymous subculture is one of the most shitty examples of postmodern perfomance art humanity has suffered in this century! And yet everything people seem to talk about is some random DDOSes of government websites. Honestly, I feel like the contemporary society just cannot appreciate the intrinsic value of the lack of any intrinsic value anymore. -- (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Should 4Chan Redirect to Anonymous?[edit]

I'm no expert on either, but I feel they are distinct enough to warrant separate articles.

Based on my own cursory observations, Anonymous seems to have a social libertarian streak with elements of liberalism or leftism, and seems to be more sympathetic to, say, minorities or women's groups than the pretty reactionary userbase of 4Chan.

Of course, like I said, I'm no expert, and haven't looked at any sources to support my impressions of them, but I'm just throwing this out here for people more versed in their actions to deliberate on.

Many 4chaners are fucking bigots, racists and misogynists.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 21:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay? Ikanreed (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
K.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 21:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Bigotry, racism and misogyny are rather not okay, actually. (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


Is adding a section listing a book(s), including one that is widely considered the most comprehensive on a topic, considered irrelevant? Is it revert-worthy? ---Mona- (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not just put it in the external links section? Player 03 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Done, thanks. I had considered that initially but my brain wouldn't quite wrap around calling a book an "external link." It's no doubt available as ebook, but it's also paper.---Mona- (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Why did you add the book? As far as I'm aware, no other page has suggested book reading lists on them. What makes this one book that important? And I've removed it again because I've had a ton of edit conflicts when responding.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I just know people who say it's a good treatment of Anonymous by an academic. There are some criticisms of it -- some think she's too close to her subject. But she's an activist in her own right and I just thought it merited inclusion. If youtube videos, why not books? ---Mona- (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
It's better to incorporate information from the book and cite it rather than just dump a link to it on the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Why? I really don't get your objection. How is THE book about Anonymous not relevant? I honestly don't get how that could be?---Mona- (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I've just not seen a precedent for just linking to books like that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'd prefer that you restore it since it can't reasonably be said that it's irrelevant, as you stated. But I'm not going to the mat over this. So I leave it up to you. Good night.---Mona- (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


They are dead now, right, dude? if not, then that's pretty not awesome.— Unsigned, by: IniStrasmInta / talk / contribs

Please sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. Spriggina (sgwrs) (cyfraniadau) @ 02:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s one Long Ass intro[edit]

The opening section this article looks to be about as long as the entire rest of the article. I’m thinking, would it be a good idea to possibly split the intro into multiple sections to make it a bit more readable/better structured? Meth Right’s Activist (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that's a good idea.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)