Template talk:Anonymous and the Internet

Permanent Protection

Is there any reason that this page is permanently protected? I'm reading WP:PPINDEF and it says that the criteria for permanent protection are:

• Pages that are very visible, such as the Main Page or File:Wiki.png.
• Pages that should not be modified for copyright or legal reasons, such as the general disclaimer or the local copy of the site copyright license.
• Pages that are very frequently transcluded, such as {{tl}} or {{ambox}}, to prevent vandalism or denial of service attacks. This includes images or templates used in other highly visible or frequently transcluded pages. See Wikipedia:High-risk templates for more information.

I don't see this page matching any of the above criteria. Now, that's not to say that should be completely unprotected, but, perhaps, a semi-protect or delete protect may be sufficient here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quanticle (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 December 2009

The reason is that this template is about Anonymous, ED, 4chan etc. and those topics are very controversial on Wikipedia. (Policy plays no part here.) Christopher Connor (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No Cussing Club

I would like to add No Cussing Club to the Anonymous template, as Anonymous targeted the group. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Streisand effect

Why is the Anonymous and the Internet template placed in this article? No text in the article discusses Anonymous as being a part of the 450,000 hits to the image as a result of Streisand's suit, if in fact, they were. This should be cited in the article, or the article should be removed from the template and the template from the article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Project Chanology is a great example of the Streisand effect. The Project began when the Church of Scientology tried to remove (censor) a video interview of Tom Cruise from YouTube. Project Chanology is already mentioned in the Streisand effect article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion about weather to keep the image File:Barbrahouse1.jpg in this article. If Chanology was involved in an organized effort to flood hits to Pictopia.com, this is significantly different than a random 450,000 people going to see the image. Depending on the impact of Anonymous, it may change the Fair Use Rationale and the possibility of keeping this image.

If Anonymous was only involved in the Cruise video incident, should this article really be included on the template? Were they at all involved in organizing hits to see the image of Streisand's house? --Moni3 (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the Streisand effect article? The article is about the effect (theory) itself; the article isn't just about the event that led to the creation and naming of that theory. The effect is much more than that one single event. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. According to Mike Masnick, who first named the phenomenon, [1] And so, once that happened, once she sued him, suddenly that photo got a tremendous amount of interest. The Web site that was hosting it got bombarded with hits, and then a bunch of other sites picked it up, and new sources - The Associated Press - printed the photo as well, getting that photo that she'd hoped to get removed much, much, much more attention. This is a random phenomenon where people react without being organized against the suppression of information. But when Chanology enters, it's no longer a random number of people who are reacting without organization. It's a group of people who come together in order to react against the suppression of information and are directed to do so in a specific location for a specific purpose. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps the article should be removed from the template. Nevertheless, we should wait until others express their opinions; I'm not an authority on the subject. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for more input, hoping others join the discussion. If no one adds anything here after a day or so, I'll remove it. Thank you for your participation. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Add Lurkmore.ru. Tyfox (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous and the Internet -- in that order?

I am puzzled by this template, which seems to link a bunch of articles related to trolls, griefing, etc. but to award a very special prominence to one particular group "Anonymous." I think that the template, if we want to use something to guide people to Wikipedia's thoughts on trolling, should be amended to look less like a Wikipedia promotion of Anonymous. Not a fan of Scientology myself, but a big fan of Wikipedia and its policies. betsythedevine (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)