>Gabriella Coleman, an anthropologist who studies Anonymous and teaches at McGill University in Montreal, said she was taken aback that members of Anonymous would be so quick to release unverified information, and would speak so openly about their methods in online chat channels.
>“My jaw was dropping,” Ms. Coleman said, reading members’ communications. “I was surprised because what I was seeing was suggestive but not definitive. Anonymous tends to care about its image quite a bit, and if they were wrong, it would be really bad.”
I've worked in the information security industry for a while, and this is the exact kind of behavior expected all of us have seen and expected from Anonymous since they first gained public spotlight in 2008 (mostly with "Project Chanology"). Anyone who's spent any time in any IRC channel claiming to be tied to Anonymous, or anyone who's seen one of the related ~5000 Twitter feeds knows full well they are the definition of hasty, impulsive, disorganized, unsubtle, and incompetent in general. Which is exactly what you'd expect from a "group" (really a label) of miscellaneous teenagers. It's always humorous to see media outlets sometimes try to glorify them.
There have been some occasional exceptions with some of the spinoff groups, but generally speaking this is very much not unusual. They have been like that from day 1.
I question exactly how well this individual has apparently studied Anonymous.