Talk:Anonymous (Group)

Project Chanology
The article contains the sentences "March 15, 2008 in cities all over the world, including Boston, Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Vancouver, Toronto, Berlin, and Dublin. The global turnout was estimated to be "between 7000 and 8000" I recall the number being closer to over 9000. Does anyone know of any references?

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. Contents •1 JoshU2ber/joshchristian100 •2 YouTube Porn Day •3 Tone •4 Titstorm •5 Imprisoned members JoshU2ber/joshchristian100 (For a big explanation of what I'm talking about, look here.) Should we add this to the article when it's all over? Raiespio (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't watch it because the video has been removed from Youtube. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC) (after googling the account names) This needs to be cited from reliable sources. It can't be sourced from personal youtube videos. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC) YouTube Porn Day The following line is incorrect: 'BBC News reported that one victim posted a comment saying: "I'm 12 years old and what is this?" which went on to become an internet meme.'

I watched the BBC news report in question and I can say that the saying "I'm 12 years old and what is this?" was around LONG before youtube porn day. The user who left that comment was almost certainly not a 12 year old child who watched one of the videos but was infact a "chan" user. There is a (short) discussion on the origin of the meme in the discussion page of the corresponding encyclopaedia dramatica article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praetorian65 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You and I both know its true, but the sources we have indicate otherwise. We can't use ED as a source, even though it is generally reliable about the history of memes. As much as I would like to indicate the BBC;s falsehood, I can't unless another news source does. Someone should write a book on memes or something. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC) That's just silly, the second I saw the last sentence ""I'm 12 years old and what is this?"[56] which went on to become an internet meme" I came right here to the discussion page to say something. I laughed when I heard the reporter say it because I knew it was just a channer yanking their chain, that meme has been around for a while. Certainly someone must have a source, or at least we can put in the right info and ask for a citation GravyFish (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC) It is a bit silly, yes, but we must go by the sources (even if we know they're wrong). If you can find a better source (that's not ED) then please do. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC) It was born on the imageboards AFAIK therefore due to the retention of the boards we are unlikely to find a source that mentions it. I will do my best to find a source though, perhaps a board archive. Wait out. Praetorian65 (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Interestingly, ED seems to agree that the meme started with Youtube Porn Day, "Simply put, this little pearl of wisdom came out of the BBC's report on the EPIC 4chan raid on YouTube when torrents of p3rn rained down on the unsuspecting masses." (ED:I'm 12 years old and what is this -- I would post the link but Wikipedia is censoring it). Also, 4chaarchive's first reference to "12 years old and what is this" is May 29,2009 (http://www.google.com/search?q=%2212+years+old+and+what+is+this%22+site%3A4chanarchive.org%2F). Korin43 (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Tone Could someone please edit the tone of this article? It reads more like an advertisment than a description.I propose this instead of what's there

The term anonymous, when associated with website graffiti/hacking[3] or server overload using bots1 is normally adaapted by users who frequent messsage/image board which allow users to post anonymously. These boards include 4chan, Futaba and Ebaums world.[4]

I think the rest of text in the introduction is unecessary and can be included in the first heading.

Origin as a Concept and Meme.

I haven't done this change myself because I am unlikely to ever be classed as a fegaular user as I don't edit this site often enough! Thank you

194.66.229.8 (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)R Selavy

Titstorm Should Operation Titstorm be listed under Hacktivism here or on a page for Project Freeweb? Anon was more involved than Freeweb, but Freeweb organized it. [ dotKuro ] [ talk ] [ contribs ] 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, what do independent reliable secondary sources have to say about it? Cirt (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Imprisoned members Removed this, as UNDUE WEIGHT about non-notable WP:BLPS. If included in the article at all, it should be within the relevant sections for which the individuals were involved in initiatives by the group, in paragraph/prose format, not list format with its own separate subsection. Cirt (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Only I'd rather say "relevant sections or articles". In the latter case "See also" would work. Mukadderat (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Nod. If notable, perhaps. Cirt (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Notabilty goes without saying everywhere in wikipedia. Mukadderat (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Oh I thought you were referring to individual possible articles that do not yet exist. -- Cirt (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.233.162 (talk)

Anonymous isn't gonna kill Facebook
They said it here: http://www.twitter.com/#!/anonops/status/101152229087657984 71.136.41.143 (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)