Anonymous and Wikileaks aren’t exactly the same group: the former is Anonymous, the latter merely anonymous. But they do overlap their interests and targets. Alternet looks at the five biggest Wikileaks stories of this year (largely ignored by the MSM), and of particular note is the story of how Canada and Russia aren't fighting global warming because of the new oil and gas resources that arctic melt will make available to them. Al Jazeera interviews members of Anonymous, focussing on their role in fomenting the Arab uprisings, and there's a link to a recent Anonymous manifesto in response to NATO’s targeting them.

On Monday afternoon, the Capitol Police in Madison, Wisconsin refused to enforce an order to clear the Capitol building of hundreds of peaceful protesters who have been occupying the site to protest Governor Scott Walker’s plan to eliminate the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviews State Rep. Kelda Helen Roys (D), who spent Sunday night in the Capitol building with other protesters. Roys describes what happened at four o’clock on Monday afternoon when the government gave the order to clear the protesters from the building:

A few weeks ago I posted a missive strongly opposing anonymous comments on news websites, blogs, etc. I attempted to argue that ending online anonymity would encourage civility and constructive dialogue and put a halt to inflammatory messages and trolling.

I made the grave error of engaging in a bit too much hyperbole and I called anonymous or pseudonymous posters "cowards." My point, reducing loathsome online behaviour, was lost.

But many of you made some excellent points about how anonymity protects freedom of expression, allows you to make bold statements without fearing personal repercussions.

As someone who attaches his name to his writing, I hold a certain amount of scorn for people who post under pseudonyms or anonymously to news sites.

I understand that there are occasions when some commenters have something valuable to add to a discussion and if they use real names they could face censure, discipline at work or social repercussions. But I presume that these situations are few.

Rather, anonymity gives many commenters the freedom to be sarcastic, glib, hateful, and oftentimes, downright stupid. I highly doubt that those who scribble some of the more lecherous comments I've read would have the stones to say those same things to the person or organization who is the target of said foul comments.