Talk:Vandalism on online epilepsy forum triggers convulsions

Scientology?
What exactly does this article have to do with Scientology? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Anonymous blames it on Scientology. It's right in there. Misou - (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anonymous is not reported to be responsible for this attack and I have yet to find a source that states it was done by the group 'Anonymous.' DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I recall seeing suggestions on blogs that this is a "false flag" op by the church. Whether there is is a reliable source for this I don't know. Adambro - (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fairy Tales, but sure they usually blame somebody else. Wired News reported it VERY clearly. So did several other magazines, even in Germany. Google News helps a lot, if you try. Otherwise it was on the *chans as well. Misou - (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note: *chans are not reliable sources. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 18:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * REALLY??? Misou - (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then find a source to back up your claims that it was the group Anonymous. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * READ the sources. What's so difficult about this? Misou - (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * the sources do not say that anonymous conducted the attacks, merely that anon has been blamed. This is not something that the new anon (post-10th feb) would do. There is no physical evidence that anonymous did these attacks. I could blaim soviet russia, but there is also no evidence that they commited the attacks. People used to blame the jews, now they blame anonymous. We need to focus on not scapegoating the current target of opportunity.Rekov - (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
I have concerns that this article has been written with a bias towards a Scientologist point of view. And before anyone jumps on me for "hating scientologists" and blah blah blah, the paragraph I contest is this:

"Wired News additionally reports that there is "circumstantial evidence" linking the perpetrators of the attack to the loose-knit anti-Scientology collective, Anonymous. Following critical reports about the attack members of the group tried to blame the attack on the Church of Scientology."

The "tried to blame" part indicates that the first evidence is correct, and the blaming is not. If we are going to report this "part" of the story we have to be neutral, no matter what our sources read.

Note: Please do NOT remove the NPOV tag until this is sorted out. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Anonymous is described as a "loose-knit anti-Scientology collective" - which has absolutely no bearing on this article. Suggest it is changed to "internet group Anonymous" or similar to remain unbiased. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 18:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a quote from the source. You obviously did not care to read it. Please, let's get off this prejudice mode. Misou - (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care if it's a quote from the source - it is *not neutral*, and so should not be included as article text. If it was included as part of a quote then fair enough, but inside article text and descriptive paragraphs it is out of place. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 19:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous? Not in WIRED
They never say it WAS anonymous but make a hint that it was. From WIRED: "Circumstantial evidence suggests the attack was the work of members of Anonymous, an informal collective of griefers best known for their recent war on the Church of Scientology. The first flurry of posts on the epilepsy forum referenced the site EBaumsWorld, which is much hated by Anonymous. And forum members claim they found a message board thread -- since deleted -- planning the attack at 7chan.org, a group stronghold."

So until ther is PROOF and not circumstantial evidence, which according to wired was removed/deleted, then we have no ground to make any such accusation. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Circumstantial evidence suggests the attack was the work of members of Anonymous". Ok, obviously you don't care about reading source, but I do. Here:

DailyTech "When the attack started, posts referenced several groups, including Anonymous. Anonymous is the name given to a group of people who have taken issue with the Church of Scientology. The media has called them hackers and criminals, some call them genius. The point is they are exactly what the name suggests, anyone, everyone, Anonymous. The IHM too are Anonymous, but not the same as those who are fighting the CoS."

The Inquirer (and The The Tech Herald) "Currently the blame has been put on a group called Anonymous whoich recently took on the Church of Scientology. The reason for the attack appears to be because the site referenced EBaumsWorld, which is much hated by Anonymous."

PC PRO "Posts on the forum claiming to be from the hacker group Anonymous have claimed responsibility, but the true culprits of the attack are not yet known."

I could go on and on, switch to German and French and it would still be the same (I learned from all this when reading an Austrian paper!). Misou - (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They provide no evidence other than saying deleted posts and channels say so. That IMHO is not good enough for me. I will not allow any article to accuse anyone or any group of anything unless there is PROOF to the story. In this case there is none. If you want to accuse Anonymous or anyone else of an attack then prove it. Deleted posts and channels accusations and conspiracies are not reliable. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not good enough for you, huh? But good enough for reliable sources to mention. But not good enough for you. Well, if we follow your logic then Anonymous does nothing for Anonymous does not exist and has no members and no post or action anywhere or at any time could be said to be Anonymous. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. These are as much the actions of Anonymous as any protest outside a Church. If you have the stomach to follow their planning then you can go to not420chan.com. WARNING - turn off browser image loading (graphic images) and hit Cntl-A to see text. If you do not think this bears the hallmark of Anonymous then you do not know much about Anonymous. Because none of us are as cruel as all of us. --JustaHulk - (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only mention of Anonymous is here: "Wired News additionally reports that there is "circumstantial evidence" linking the perpetrators of the attack to the loose-knit anti-Scientology collective, Anonymous. Following critical reports about the attack members of the group tried to blame the attack on the Church of Scientology." And this is fully sourced. DragonFire1024, you are violating your own rules. That's no news, I just need to read the Scientology articles to know that. But that's no reason to let it slide. Misou - (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not going to get into an argument with you. There is no evidence other than a single (one) source saying it was anonymous. Other sources are quoting wired, as you state above "The only mention of Anonymous" was Wired. This is tecnically . DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to argue. "Read the sources", what else should I say? Wired reports that there is circumstantial evidence, at least four other papers, including a professional news agency (OÖNachrichten, Austria; Krone, Austria; 20minuten, Switzerland; Nachrichten.at, Austria) say that the owner of the forum says it was Anonymous. And then you got the DailyTech and The Tech Herald quoting IHM with the same thing. Report what's there and not what you wish should be there. Misou - (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempted rewrite
Anonymous hackers attack epilepsy victims in online forums/Rewrite --Skenmy(t•c•w) 19:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Text no different. Misou - (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop
Let's ALL stop the editwarring here. I'm surprised we all haven't been blocked. This needs sorting out before it is published, so stop changing the tags. I'm writing a comment right now - hold on for a second... --Skenmy(t•c•w) 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. The related news section doesn't belong on this article - while the article mentions Anonymous, it doesn't mean we need to link to articles that they are involved in that have little or nothing to do with the content of the article. We also need to be careful as to how we attribute quotes and whatnot - the article is it's current state conforms to all style guidelines while retaining the same information as the original article. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 20:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Ramadge source
Minus the fact that this source also relies heavily on the basically one source that is then repeated by others (Wired), this is probably the best source to model from, as far as the way the information is presented in a NPOV manner. Cirt - (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources
These additional sources were added to the article with the intention of providing verification of some of the material but since they don't add any new information and only serve to make it harder to determine whether all the material is sourced, I am moving them here. Adambro - (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)



Publishing
It is my intention to publish this article. I am satisfied that there are multiple independent sources as required. I am also satisfied that it is written in a balanced way which includes the suggestions that "Anonymous" was behind this whilst noting that this has been denied by some who have instead suggested that the Church of Scientology was actually behind it as part of a false flag operation. I do not feel that either party is given undue weight. I have renamed this article by removing "Anonymous" from its title because it was unclear as to what this meant and it could be seen to imply that the group "Anonymous" were definetly responsible when that isn't clear. Adambro - (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks a little bit better, I'm not opposed to its being published in its current state. Cirt - (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hackers?
I'd just like to point out that, correctly used, a "hacker" is not a person who engages in computer mischief. Hackers are the people who use computers constructively, such as web developers and the engineers of complex sites. When a person uses this knowledge maliciously, they are then referred to as a "cracker." I just wanted to make the clarification. - 208.100.241.184 01:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Source? Cirt - (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge that is not accurate. There are many forms and there are subtleties in the way that the term is differently by different people, but to define it as people who use computers constructively is an outlandish claim. See also Hacker. You might as well say that it is a golfer or a tennis player. --SVTCobra 01:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an old point - "hackers" vs. "crackers"; black hat hackers vs. white hat hackers. In actual fact there was little hacking of any sort involved here but the media says "hacker" for any sort of computer mischief. --JustaHulk - (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)