Talk:Whatisanonymous
From Operation Translation
STYLE
Hi all.
I've noticed that Ike has written some of the content in the "first person". I don't plan to write in the first person. Just thought I'd mention that in case others have been wondering about it. I guess Ike can decide either to add his/her own comments or to change the pages already written to be consistent. Plups
All the current content can always be edited to fit a more consistant site-wide style. - gregg
SECURITY
Just wondering what is in place or could be in place to stop a creative OSA operative from coming to this wiki and deleting content. Plups
The system is backed up to a remote server. It is also a wiki so things can be reverted back to normal. And when people do make edits like that we can block their ip ranges from editing. - gregg
ATTACHMENTS
My preference is to link to source documents (eg HCOPL's) wherever possible, rather than a transcript. I attempted to upload a document and got a message saying that wasn't permitted. How would you like this to be handled?
What type of document? We should allow most of the types we would want to link to, to be uploaded here. I think we upload them here, link to them that way. Then when its time to move content to the site we actually put the files up there and link to them properly. - gregg
It's a gif. I got it from another website, but figured it's poor etiquette to steal bandwith, so we'd better host it too. The internal error I'm getting says "The upload directory (public) is not writable by the webserver." - Plups
Fixed - gregg
FORMATTING
Sorry: another dumb question. Am I right in thinking that it's best not to put in any wiki formatting - as it'll just need to be removed and redone to add the text to the website? Plups
If anything we can write a little filter that changes wiki formating over to regular formating for the website. So no worries. You could do it either way. - gregg
Merging pages on the sidebar
the site as it currently stands, pushes people in at the deep end of anonymous by flooding them with links and text. i understand this site is meant to be a stepping stone, not the ocean (like clambake and lermanet)
a rough count of the total sidebar links indicates over 100 seperate links on there alone. this is just bit much isnt it? some pages should either be omitted or merged with others. four different news pages alone is ridiculous
my propositions,:
- home page
- news
- one news page. all items would go into one blog-format page, with different types of items indicated by the background colour or the icon of the box they are shown in. (site updates could be on a grey background, scientology and anonymous protests should be merged as they usually have something to do with eachother, and i dont quite understand the point of the 'news coverage' page. is it to show news coverage of anon, scientology, or the site itself? either way it could easily be merged with another section, and all on one page.
- anonymous
- the introduction page should ideally be buffed up a little- as it might be the first thing a newbie sees, it should be easy to read, seperated by line breaks, and a bit shorter, because i believe this page also deserves an address to anyone who may still be in scientology and is curious (there are many). but on the whole, i love this section already, its a great idea
- the pages who we are, why we wear masks should be merged. ike, im just of the opinion, as anonymous is by its nature a collective lead by noone with so many ambiguities and uncertainties, it is impossible to be as precise as you try to be in your detailed history of anonymous and its rise. not only that, you might be instantly alienating some people looking for information by drowning them in text. you need to shorten out your paragraphs, and include less of what your personal definition is of anonymous-- when you say
"Initially several individual anonymous let their immaturity overcome their reason, and they perpetrated Denial of Service attacks on Scientology's websites"
what you should be saying is
"Initially several anonymous perpetrated Denial of Service attacks on Scientology's websites"
although we can't avoid bias, i reckon it'd stupid to judge anonymous' early actions in hindsight and try to distance ourselves from it. we did it. we changed. we're better. we didn't think it was immature at the time, we thought we were doing the right thing. also, include a lil bit of history on why the guy fawkes mask from v for vendetta holds a special place within our hearts.
- our goals, dedicated to free speech and religious freedom should be merged as well. theres no need to write so much for each section, and they're all very relevant to eachother.
- accusations needs a bit of a revamp. if i have the time i'll rewrite it myself. the claim that the individuals responsible for hacking scientology websites 'have been held responsible for their actions and are facing the consequences' is simply untrue. i think if we're going to move on as a collective we have to first accept that what we did was all we knew how to do at the time, and after WBM's intervention via a youtube video, we had changed direction. we seem to be stuck in a state of semi denial-we admit it happened, but we speak with the grace of hindsight that it was somehow a despicable thing to do. many other accusations that are often levelled in anti-anon propaganda need to be addressed as well, such as a section on the 'anonymous hate crimes' dvd, and fox news' report on anonymous. someone might even want to make a page dedicated to a point-by-point rebuttal of the video, with references for each point.
ill write more when i can. tl;dr, shorten the length of most of the pages. include facts, not opinions, all backed up by references (will take time). dont try to be precise where there is ambiguity (who did the DDOS attacks, who flooded the epilepsy boards). aim for a wikipedia-style standard of writing. using wikipedia quotes for unbiased descriptions of anonymous in the "what is anonymous" section would be good. -masturbulation
