![]() | A fact from Operation AntiSec appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 July 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Add links from Talk:Antisec Movement regarding Twitter and hack-on-hack violence [:-P) ? 99.181.134.19 ( talk) 05:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Does Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center need a wp article, or is it an unnecessary Red.? 99.181.151.89 ( talk) 19:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it seems likely that LulzSec and Anonymous took inspiration from the old Antisec movement in naming this operation, but to draw a definite link between the two is original research. Is there a reliable source that can draw this link or are we just making guesses? If this paragraph remains uncited, I don't see how we can justify keeping it around on the off chance that it is true. かんぱい! Scapler ( talk) 18:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Awaiting discussion of user who finds them unreliable: the International Business Times has been cited by the New York Times here and here. It has also been cited by CNN Money, CNN, and NPR. It claims an international presence of reporters and a very large fact-checking and editorial staff. This seems to point toward reliability. WP:RS says that use by multiple reliable sources that take what the original source says as fact points toward reliability. かんぱい! Scapler ( talk) 15:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Antisec released the name, adress, social security number and phone number of 7000 police officers http://wikisend.com/download/615862/mosheriffs-accounts.txt 204.197.186.194 ( talk) 07:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
That's childish, unless if you can find specific citations that everything in List 1 was attributed to "Anonymous" and nothing in List 2 was.
Looks like a possible one to add to the list (an ASCII image of "#antisec" was used): " Hackers take over Boston Police website" Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
do not be mistaken it is me who needs the info, im a current member of Antisec but i need to know who the original people who ran it were~Jacob Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Foxtrot ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The section on loctang just added smells like self-promotion bullshit, there are no legitimate references or citations anywhere found with a Google search, looks like bullshit. SoftwareThing ( talk) 15:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 6 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Pmarino428 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Pmarino428 ( talk) 16:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Operation AntiSec appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 July 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Add links from Talk:Antisec Movement regarding Twitter and hack-on-hack violence [:-P) ? 99.181.134.19 ( talk) 05:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Does Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center need a wp article, or is it an unnecessary Red.? 99.181.151.89 ( talk) 19:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it seems likely that LulzSec and Anonymous took inspiration from the old Antisec movement in naming this operation, but to draw a definite link between the two is original research. Is there a reliable source that can draw this link or are we just making guesses? If this paragraph remains uncited, I don't see how we can justify keeping it around on the off chance that it is true. かんぱい! Scapler ( talk) 18:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Awaiting discussion of user who finds them unreliable: the International Business Times has been cited by the New York Times here and here. It has also been cited by CNN Money, CNN, and NPR. It claims an international presence of reporters and a very large fact-checking and editorial staff. This seems to point toward reliability. WP:RS says that use by multiple reliable sources that take what the original source says as fact points toward reliability. かんぱい! Scapler ( talk) 15:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Antisec released the name, adress, social security number and phone number of 7000 police officers http://wikisend.com/download/615862/mosheriffs-accounts.txt 204.197.186.194 ( talk) 07:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
That's childish, unless if you can find specific citations that everything in List 1 was attributed to "Anonymous" and nothing in List 2 was.
Looks like a possible one to add to the list (an ASCII image of "#antisec" was used): " Hackers take over Boston Police website" Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
do not be mistaken it is me who needs the info, im a current member of Antisec but i need to know who the original people who ran it were~Jacob Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Foxtrot ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The section on loctang just added smells like self-promotion bullshit, there are no legitimate references or citations anywhere found with a Google search, looks like bullshit. SoftwareThing ( talk) 15:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 6 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Pmarino428 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Pmarino428 ( talk) 16:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)