In the Notable Contributions section, under the Visa payments heading, I'm not sure it the last two sentences belong there. I'm unfamilar with this case, but it seems as though Josef Frtizl is unrelated to Visa and the Wikileaks controversy....no?
Added a note about the writing in the Treatment section of Anonymous
"Regardless of one's viewpoint, the main concern is who is Anonymous to determine a suitable punishment for an individuals actions (or lack there of)? How far is too far?"
This writing holds an explicit bias. It has a strong point however it seems to suggest that the group has done too much as opposed as too little. Some readers may believe that Anonymous has not done enough. When discussing ethical implications, it is best to balance viewpoints in an objective manner. Readers decide whether or not they think that anonymous is performing appropriate actions, it should not be us and we should not sway those opinions.