WikiLeaks, Anonymous, and the Exercise of Individuality: Protesting in the Cloud



When WikiLeaks released the Collateral Murder video in spring 2010, featuring a US army helicopter shooting Iraqi civilians, cyberactivism was not a hot topic in the mainstream media. However, thanks to the ability to leverage the potential of the Internet to influence political debate, WikiLeaks quickly imposed itself as a headline-grabbing organization. The mass media fell in love with WikiLeaks, not least because of its enigmatic nature, its organizational model based on individuality, and the juicy revelations about its frontman Julian Assange. In the wake of WikiLeaks’ major releases that year, the amorphous online network known as Anonymous also came under the spotlight, notably for its pro-WikiLeaks cyberattacks. In February 2011, a CNN journalist wrote, “Perhaps the most controversial incarnation of the WikiLeaks model comes from Anonymous” (CNN, 2011).


Collective Action Social Movement Collective Identity Affinity Group Social Movement Organization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barlow, J. P. (1996). “A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace”. Scholar
  2. Barnett, J. (2010). “WikiLeaks and a Failure of Transparency”, Nieman Journalism Lab, 29 July. Scholar
  3. Bennett, W. L. (2003). “Communicating global activism: strengths and vulnerabilities of networked politics”, Information, Communication & Society, 6(2 ), pp. 143–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, L. W. and A. Segerberg (2012). “The logic of connective action” , Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), pp. 739–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, W. L. and Segerberg, A. (2011). “Digital media and the personalization of collective action: social technology and the organization of protests against the global economic crisis”, Information, Communication & Society, 14, pp. 770–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castells, M. (1996). The Rise or the Network Society. Cambridge, MA and Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  7. CNN World (2011). “Anonymous vows to take leaking to the next level”, 23 February. Available online: (retrieved May 16, 2012)Google Scholar
  8. Coleman, G. (2010). “What It’s Like to Participate in Anonymous’ Actions”, The Atlantic, 10 December, Scholar
  9. Critical Art Ensemble (1993). The Electronic Disturbance. New York: AutonomediaGoogle Scholar
  10. Critical Art Ensemble (1996). Electronic Civil Disobidience. New York: AutonomediaGoogle Scholar
  11. Delio, M. (2004). “Hacktivism and How It Got Here”, Wired, 14 July, Scholar
  12. della Porta, D. and Tarrow, S. (2005). Transnational Protest and Global Activism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & LittlefieldGoogle Scholar
  13. Edwards, B. and McCarthy, J. D. (2004). “Resources and Social Movement Mobilization”, in Snow, D. A., S. A. Soule and H. Kriesi, (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 116–152Google Scholar
  14. Finnegan, W. (2003). “Affinity Group and the Movement Against Corporate Globalization”, in Goodwin, Jeffrey and James M. Jasper, eds., The Social Movements Reader. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 210–218Google Scholar
  15. Gastil, J. (1993). Democracy in small groups. Participation, Decision Making & Communication. Philadelphia, PA, and Gabriola Island, BC: New Society PublishersGoogle Scholar
  16. Garcia, D. and G. Lovink (1997). “The ABC of Tactical Media”. Scholar
  17. Gorenstein Massa, F. (2010). “Out of Bounds: The Anonymous Online Community’s Transition to Collective Action”. Unpublished manuscript, Boston CollegeGoogle Scholar
  18. Hardt, M. and A. Negri (2011). “The Fight for ‘Real Democracy’ at the Heart of Occupy Wall Street”, Foreign Affairs, 11 October: the-fight-for-real-democracy-at-the-heart-of-occupy-wall-streetGoogle Scholar
  19. Langlois, A. and F. Dubois, (eds.) (2005). Autonomous Media: Activating Resistance & Dissent. Montréal: Cumulus PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Levy, S. (1984). Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. New York: Dell/ DoubledayGoogle Scholar
  21. Lichterman, P. (1996). The Search for Political Community. American Activists Reinventing Commitment. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kriesi, H. (2004). “Political Context and Opportunity”, in D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule and H. Kriesi, (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 67–90Google Scholar
  23. Kriesi, H., Koopmans, R.WillemDuyvendak, J. and Giugni, M. M. (1995). “Social Movements Types and Policy Domains”, in Kriesi H., R. Koopmans, W. Duyvendak, J. W. Duyvendak and M.M. Giugni, (eds), New Social Movements in Western Europe. a Comparative Analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, pp. 82–110Google Scholar
  24. Jordan, T. (1999). Cyberpower: The Culture and Politics of Cyberspace and the Internet. London: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jordan, T. (2002). Activism! Direct Action, Hacktivism and the Future of Society. London: Reaktion BooksGoogle Scholar
  26. Jordan, T. and Taylor, P. A. (2004). Hacktivism and Cyberwars: Rebels with a Cause? London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  27. McCharty, J. D. and Zald, M. N. (1977). “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory”, American Journal of Sociology, 82, pp. 1212–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McDonald, K. (2002). “From Solidarity to Fluidarity: Social Movements Beyond ‘Collective Identity’ — the Case of Globalization Conflicts”, Social Movement Studies, 1, pp. 109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McDonald, K. (2004). “One as Another: From Social Movement to Experience Movement”, Current Sociology, 52(4), pp. 575–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McDonald, K. (2006). Global Movements: Action and Culture. Malden, MA: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  31. Milan, S. (2012). “When Politics and Activism Speak the Same Language: Stewardship in Cyberspace According to Cyberactivists”. Cyberdialogues Paper Series, Toronto: Canada Center for Global Security StudiesGoogle Scholar
  32. Milan, S. (2013). Wiring Social Movements: Building Autonomous Communication Infrastructure Through Emancipatory Practices (provisional title). Forthcoming, Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  33. Negri, T. and Hardt, M. (2004). Moltitudine: Guerra e democrazia nel nuovo ordine imperiale. Bologna: RizzoliGoogle Scholar
  34. Polletta, F. and Jasper, J. (2001). “Collective Identity and Social Movements”, Annual Review of Sociology, 27, pp. 283–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Snow D.A. and McAdam, D. (2000). “Identity Work Processes in the Context of Social Movements: Clarifying the Identity/Movement Nexus”, in Striker, S., Owens T. J. and White, R., (eds), Self Identity and Social Movements, Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, pp. 41–67Google Scholar
  36. Sterling, B. (1992). “Introduction”. The Hacker Crackdown. New York: Bantam House. Scholar
  37. Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  38. Tarrow, S. (2011). “Why Occupy Wall Street is Not the Tea Party of the Left. The United States’ Long History of Protest”, Foreign Affairs, 11 October, Scholar
  39. Tilly, C. (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  40. Tilly, C. and L. Wood (2009). Social Movements, 1768–2008, 2nd edition. New York: Paradigm PublishersGoogle Scholar
  41. Vegh, S. (2003). Classifying Forms of Onf Cyberprotests against the World Bank”, in Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers, (eds), Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice, New York: Routledge, pp. 72–73Google Scholar
  42. Wong, W. and Brown, P. A. (2012). “Nobody from Everywhere: IR and the Politics of Wikileaks and Anonymous”. Paper for the BSIA conference, University of Waterloo, 17 AprilGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Stefania Milan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations