Recent events have been weighing on my mind. In the past I've tended to write off Anonymous as childish and petty, but I also knew that they were on to something really important. Let's say that amongst the trolling, I saw a noble goal - "Anonymous: The Good Parts" - that aimed to push the boundary of what online collectives could accomplish.<p>I think this month Anonymous has proven something important - I tentatively believe that "Anonymous: The Good Parts", has come of age. They have proven they have the muscle to make the world take notice, and at least superficially, that they can decide to do something useful with that attention. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/pro-wikileaks-digital-activists-change-course/67847/ (No small task if it was truly a collective decision.)<p>Regardless of how you feel about Anonymous, you've got to respect that they've pushed the world to realize a lesson - that an online leaderless collective with low latency can have instant access to the media's ear.<p>In a way, this lesson is the same as it ever was - another picket line. But it also seems things are on a new scale. I've been feeling that it is important for the hacker community to help the world understand this type of instant collaborative political voice that is both exciting and unnerving - how it can troll and manipulate but how it can also be earnest. And most importantly, how it is startlingly powerful.<p>After that overblown introduction - I propose a dubious experiment. If you think this experiment sucks, then start a new one, but my question is this: how hard is it for a leaderless collective to form an agreed upon collaborative statement that is eloquent, powerful, and useful. Is this just reiterating Wikipedia, or does it demonstrate something new?<p>Can we demonstrate that an online collective can literally author a collaborative statement fit for media attention?<p>http://piratepad.net/LW793ZNN6Z
(any motion to take this to git?)