Talk:Streisand effect/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Comments

pretty sure this should be called the DeCSS effect... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.225.88 (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

For references or sources: 1) Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Streisand+Effect 2) Photo Of Streisand Home Becomes An Internet Hit: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030601/1910207.shtml -- Wesha 04:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak examples

From the coiner's own words (emphasis mine):

This was a classic Streisand Effect case, where almost no one remembered or cared about the specific comments she was upset about -- but which have since received a lot more attention.

The examples listed in the article do not match this description. Lots of people cared about the Windows source leak, lots of people cared about Napster, etc. before they were given additional publicity through mainstream press. Just because publicity gives "more" attention to something does not make it a case of Streisand Effect (in fact, that is just the definition of "publicity"). For that reason, most of the examples on this page are inaccurate since the article's creator/maintainer is not going by the sourced definition. VanishingUser 02:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all the examples whose sources did not mention specifically Streisand in this edit. To claim that these are all examples of the Streisand effect is ridiculous and original research. I also removed the external links as a result of the article being cleaned up, they had become duplicates of those in the references section. --70.48.241.26 23:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It would have helped if you introduced yourself so we can have a reasonable discussion. I stand unmoved that the entries you removed fit the definition. Revert. -- Wesha 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR doesn't really invite discussion about it. I'd love to hear your arguments as to why that policy doesn't apply here, however, since you appear to be reluctant to reply to anonymous users' arguments. Aranth 00:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike posts examples of the Striesand effect at least twice a week on his blog, [www.Techdirt.com/blog.php]. since this is the origin of the term, as coined by him, an use he makes of the term must be correct, adn hence suitable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.102.188 (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

HD-DVD example

The example is notable, cited, and doesn't contain any illegal material. I can't imagine why it should be removed. --Eyrian 13:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• It has not been removed, just moved up the list. -- Wesha 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As of 5/7/07 Google indexes 1,720,000 pages with the number in question. Jamesgor13579 19:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

photo of art

There was this case about a photo of a piece of artwork in a public park that was demanded to be removed from a website a couple years ago. The work was a metallic like "blob" (bean shaped?) and you could walk under it. Usually when works of art are placed in public places and made upon request of a government agency, the rights are transferred to the government or something, but the artist had not allowed this in this case and was actively "protecting" his piece of art. People started making all kinds of photo's (some recognizable, some not) of it and publishing it all over the internet, on flickr and stuff. Does anyone remember what that case was exactly? I can't for the life of me find anything about it anymore. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This? http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p15s01-usju.html and http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html? --RipRapRob 14:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was the one. Thanks SOOO much. I've been trying to find this again for ages. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Cloud Gate --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

cui bono

It seems quite possible that some alleged occurrences of the Streisand effect are actually quite intentional - that one person could misrepresent another for their own personal gain. This idea seems to generally be known as cui bono. A good example may be Alexander Litvinenko. His death seems to reflect badly upon Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation, however, as some news sources (for example, [1]) observe, it's also possible that someone tried to frame the Russian federation - to misrepresent them - in an attempt to discredit them.

Consider the The Pirate Bay instance mentioned in the article. Although I think it's unlikely, it's possible The Pirate Bay intentionally set itself up to be raided in an intentional attempt to stir things up and to illicit sympathy in others TerraFrost 05:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is quite possible to benefit from something without thinking it up, planning it, and then orchestrating the execution. In fact, it's very possible to benefit from something you never imagined and even fought while it was happening. Thinking otherwise is quite naïve. --216.220.11.84 03:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

AOL search queries

AOL didn't try to censor this information, or force its removal from other sites through legal means. Removing it from their site hardly counts as an attempt to suppress the information and thus I don't think this incident belongs here. gssq 05:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable cases

If a reference in the "Notable cases" section doesn't contain the phrase "Streisand effect", then the incident doesn't belong in the "Notable cases" section. Editors are *assuming* those are examples of the Streisand effect but such speculation counts as original research.

Disagree. The "effect" is demonstrated by news reportage of the takedown demand and the hubbub around it. It's a phenomenon that exists even if the tag has not yet been applied. This seems like a good home for that class of cases/examples, but if not here, please suggest an alternate spot. Wseltzer 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Right now, the only non-blog URL in the References section that contains the phrase "Streisand effect" with a list of incidents is the Forbes article.

I think the "Notable cases" section is going to accumulate more and more original research as time goes by because editors will try and come up with their own examples. I suggest the entire "Notable cases" section be replaced with only the examples from the Forbes[2] slideshow, so far the only reliable source:

• AACS vs. Digg
• Barbara Streisand vs. Kenneth Adelman
• Cisco Systems vs. Michael Lynn
• Daniela Cicarelli vs. YouTube
• Diebold Election Systems vs. Free Culture Swarthmore
• EMI vs. The Grey Album
• Eric E. Schmidt vs. CNET
• Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand vs. YouTube
• The Pirate Bay vs. the Government of Sweden

What do you think? --Pixelface 04:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, looking at that list makes me believe the author of that article actually plucked Wikipedia. :D -- Wesha 18:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I just looked at the May 9 version of the page, and then there are only 3 common cases between the forbes and the wikipedia article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Refs

• Why isn't the Globe and Mail article [3] referenced, which says "The Digg-DVD donnybrook is the latest example of what's come to be called the “Streisand Effect,” in which efforts to squelch a bit of online information lead to that information being much more widely disseminated than it otherwise would have been." The phenomenon of trying to suppress something resulting in the unintended consequence of heightened publicity did not originate with the internet or with Streisand's attempt to suppress an aerial photograph, but recent discussion of the phenomenon, especially on the internet, has used this term as more specific than "unintended consequences" or the coldwar term "blowback." Nixon's efforts to prevent major newspapers, via injunctions, from publishing the Pentagon Papers, is a previous instance of the same phenomenon, but the term Streisand effect has never been associated with it. The Pentagon Papers were dry scholarly studies, but the President's getting injunctions against the New York Times and the Washington Post to prevent publication put them at the beginning of the evening news for some time. I believe there was a similar matter about publishing plans for building an atomic bomb, with prior restraint attempted against major US papers. Wordspy [4] may or may not be judged a reliable source by Wikipedians, but it cites a reliable newspaper as coining the phrase rather than the blogger the article credits: ' "The "Streisand effect" is what happens when someone tries to suppress something and the opposite occurs. The act of suppressing it raises the profile, making it much more well known than it ever would have been.—David Canton, "Attempt to suppress can backfire," London Free Press, November 5, 2005' The London Free Press (a Canadian paper) wants $15 or so for a copy of an old article, but perhaps a reader near there could verify it at their local library which may have a copy, or through an online search service which has newspaper content. If true it should be included, and along with Forbes and Globe and Mail should go a long way toward establishing notability of the usage and the concept. Edison 06:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

I am moving this unsourced claim to the talk page pending a citation for it's inclusion, and removing the OR tag.

• DeCSS—This code was posted online in 1999 which, similar to the later HD-DVD controversy, allowed users to circumvent a DVD copy protection scheme. A series of DMCA lawsuit threats led to increasingly sophisticated and varied presentations of the code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 11:24, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

• • This is documented, if nowhere else, in Illegal Prime, where the code was presented as a prime number. It doesn't get much more sophisticated than that. 168.7.255.141 (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Lots more examples off the top of my head, needing citations/etc, from Mathx 15:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• CyberSitter keyword list - internet nanny software that blocked legitimate websites (some say pro-abortion and other sites for political reasons). The keyword list/algorithm was encryped, trademarked or copyrighted and heavily guarded, til someone cracked it, then the lawsuits started flying. Copies were made.

• DilbertHole comic strip of detourned Dilbert comics, spread widely when United Artists threatened to sue the author of Leisuretown online comic for including the drawings in his work (I don't think he made the drawings, just popularized them).

• AP threatening to sue for unauthorized posting on the internet of the eternally classic photo of the Fed Agent in full assault gear pointing a (semi-?)auto weapon at Elian Gonzales and the man holding him. The photo got spread everywhere pretty quickly.

Lol

It is like yelling "Stop teasing me!" at school lunch. Sunshine ҈ 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alisher Usmanov

Should this case be added? (Starting September 2007, Uzbek Billionaire sics his lawyers on an allegedly libelous blogger, and the blogosphere quickly replicates the offending information.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.167.59 (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Valid references for examples

Please don't add examples without reliable sources that describe the events as "Streisand Efeect". Without them it is but your opinion, your interpretaion of the event, possibly false, i.e., it is original research inadmissible in wikipedia. `'Míkka 01:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

the examples vs. the missing Forbes article

Not to be totally against it, but all of a sudden we have 0 examples, where about a month or 4 ago, I thought we had this Forbes article that validated at least 6 of the examples... What happened to that reference ??????? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Here's the ref: [5]. It does merit adding back some examples. nadav (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed The Pirate Bay mention was removed, but it was mentioned in the Forbes article (or maybe it was just in the slideshow...). I think the Examples section could have at least 9 examples, as I said in the Notable cases section up above. --Pixelface 18:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Streisand effect/Timeline

Is Talk:Streisand effect/Timeline really necessary or can be deleted? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why it should be deleted. It was really helpful to determine who coined the term Streisand effect. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said in the 2nd AFD, I created the timeline after the 1st AFD resulted in a keep. I wanted to find sources on the term in an effort to improve the article, since the article was going to stick around. The timeline contains a history of the events leading up to the coining of the term, as well as the spread of the term. All 157 dates in the timeline have citations. Now, much of the timeline is sourced to CaliforniaCoastline.org which is Kenneth Adelman's website. The timeline is not meant to be a linkfarm. It's meant to chart the spread of the neologism, which is now apparently some blogger's claim to fame. One of the points of the timeline was that the Wikipedia article was created before any media coverage of the term, and probably led to the spread of the term itself. --Pixelface (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How many millions?

Some sources (among which the cited San Jose Mercury News article) say that the photographer was sued for $10 millions, others (as this article, but not from the beginning) say $50M. So, what is the right amount? --Antifumo (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution

I can't change this because the article is semi-protected and I haven't been a user long enough, so I'm hoping someone else can: footnote #13 points to a piece I wrote for the Globe and Mail, but gives my name as Martin Ingram instead of Mathew Ingram. -- Mathewingram (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made this correction for you. op12 20:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

More examples that keep getting lost

Andy Greenberg of Forbes mentions three prominent incidents as examples of the Streisand effect:

• An attempt at blocking a HD-DVD key from being published on Digg—“The online uproar came in response to a series of cease-and-desist letters [...] demanding that the code be removed from several high-profile Web sites. Rather than wiping out the code, [...] the letters led to its proliferation on Web sites, in chat rooms, inside cleverly doctored digital photographs and on user-submitted news sites. [...] The ironic thing is, because they tried to quiet it down, it’s the most famous number on the Internet.” “[...] at this writing, about 283,000 pages contain the number [...] There’s a song. Several domain names including variations of the number have been reserved.” Google currently reports over 700,000 sites contain the number

• Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, was portrayed with feet superimposed over his head in a video posted by a YouTube user named "Padidda". “The Thai government charged the site with lèse majesté, insulting the monarch, and [...] banned the site altogether. YouTube users around the world responded by posting a series of Bhumibol-bashing clips, some even more offensive than the originals [...] Each clip has been viewed tens of thousands of times”

• Video clips portraying paparazzi footage of Brazilian television personality Daniela Cicarelli having sex with her boyfriend on a beach in Spain were uploaded to YouTube. Court injunctions, which culminated in the blocking of YouTube in Brazil, proved unsuccessful in preventing the spread of the video, and only raised the ire of fans.

• Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, was portrayed with feet superimposed over his head in a video posted by a YouTube user named "Padidda". “The Thai government charged the site with lèse majesté, insulting the monarch, and […] banned the site altogether. YouTube users around the world responded by posting a series of Bhumibol-bashing clips, some even more offensive than the originals […] Each clip has been viewed tens of thousands of times”

• When an archive of emails from electronic voting company Diebold leaked, Diebold sent copyright threats to the web hosts. Posters, including Swarthmore College students responded by re-posting the emails in a show of "electronic civil disobedience." Two of the Swarthmore students and ISP Online Policy Group sued Diebold and won a US$125,000 settlement for copyright misuse.

• After internal emails from MediaDefender were leaked onto the Internet , MediaDefender sent malformed DMCA takedown notices to two torrent websites, which did not have any effect except spreading the news about the leak further and continuing to keep it in the Internet media.

• In an apparent attempt to suppress or avoid the Streisand effect, A legal firm representing marketing company DirectBuy copyrighted a cease and desist letter to a critical websiteand threatened legal actions against copyright infringement should the document be revealed publicly. The letter was promptly posted by its recipient, and numerous legal defenses against copyright infringment action have been proposed and posted by various parties. In effect, the attempt to supress the Striesand Effect has produced exactly the opposite of the result presumably desired by the assertion of copyright.

• iPhone skins for smartphones—“Ironically, Apple’s attempts to have the files removed from the web have only given the skins greater publicity, and they have already begun spreading to other websites.”

• Dr Ben Goldacre published a 45 minute except of Jeni Barnett's LBC radio show containing Anti Vaccination Rhetoric which he disagreed with. The furore regarding LBC's nastygram has caused a netstorm, bringing it to a far wider readership.

http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/legal-chill-from-lbc-973-over-jeni-barnetts-mmr-scaremongering/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.108.140.6 (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Netcruft

Isn't there a better name for this phenomenon? It has surely happened before 2003. The story of Herostratus has been used as well, but it's not all that similar. Anything else? I don't have a problem on Wikipedia containing this article, but I think all new references should be referring to something more classic instead. --Ticram (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is defined as an internet phenomenon, so stories prior to the internet can not be the Streissand effect, no? The interconnectivity and freedom of the net is what makes this qualitatively different than print media censorship battles. Unfortunately, this seems to be the only RS name - i would prefer the "Streissand censorship effect", or "Streissand internet effect", in which the second noun is acting as an adjective, cos i followed the link with no idea of what i would find Yobmod (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Creative?

Surely the backlash over creative would be notable enough to make this :/ 66.190.62.144 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, but if you've got a source that specifically discusses its relevance here, feel free to add it. --McGeddon (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Most Famous Number

"The ironic thing is, because they tried to quiet it down, it’s the most famous number on the Internet."

Regardless of whether you have a "source" for this, it's complete bullcrap. The most famous number on the internet is 42, it has super-meme status due to The Hitch-hiker's Guide To The Galaxy. I suggest (Read:DEMAND) this sentence is removed. I'd never even heard of this number before I read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.216.57 (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Demand all you want, it is a direct quote from a reliable source and it will stay despite your personal opinion that the statement is "bullcrap". -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So long as "famous number" is in quotes and clearly just someone's opinion, that's fine. Both that section and the Bhumibol Adulyadej one could use a rewrite, though, as they're both pulling quotes from sources without any context. We shouldn't be using quotemarked cut-and-paste sentences as a cheap alternative to writing a clearer paragraph of original prose. --McGeddon (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now rewritten these. --McGeddon (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

MBTA v. Anderson

The See Also section currently lists MBTA v. Anderson. This better belongs in the list of examples; the other three items in the list are synonyms for Streisand effect. If no one objects, I'll change it in a few days. --Vrmlguy (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Potential example Craig Murray / Alisher Usmanov

I removed the example about Craig Murray's blog being shut down by Alisher Usmanov . The only source given to substantiate the claim was the blog itself. There may be reliable sources out there to support the claim, if anyone is interested, but in my opinion, the article does not seem to be in need of "examples". -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sears edit war

There's been a lot of back-and-forth editing about a Sears website vulnerability today, but nothing beyond a few Reddit posts to support the fact that Sears tried to censor it, and that the censorship itself was the primary cause of its popularity (rather than it being a funny exploit in itself). Any better sources for this? --McGeddon (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Source found [6](direct admin quote]. "As a matter of fact, yes. I was ordered to take it down. Pretty awesome of them.". Objections on the account of sourcing are no longer valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.136.19 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't support the claim that exploit only became popular because Sears tried to take it down, though. It's only the Streisand effect if it's the actual takedown request that makes it popular. Without that it's just a funny, popular exploit that Sears tried to censor.

(An admin's personal claim that someone told him to do something isn't really reliable source, either way. Or is "spez" one of the creators of Reddit?) --McGeddon (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Spez is one of the creators of reddit. On top of that, the last revision stated that the revert was because "reddit is currently trying to commit a malicious DDOS attack on the Sears website." I've seen nothing along those lines taking place, but true or not, it's not a valid reason to revert something. MachineFist (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I will not participate in a full blown edit war, but I don't see this alleged DDOS as a valid reason to remove this section with zero explanation. Please explain the logic behind this. (Edited this to fix a typo) MachineFist (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Until enough time passes in order to allow a more objective and reasonable look at the relevancy of this Sears thing in the Streisand Effect page, Reddit's edits should be taken as pointless gloating. Current talk on their blog (reddit.com) mentions hacking the Sears website and DDOSing it which is harmful and pointless behaviour.Gustave Pennington

Really we just need enough time to pass to see how far this blows up, and whether it attracts any press coverage (beyond the Fox News article of "exploit exists", which doesn't mention censorship or Reddit).

At the moment it still appears to be at the level of "Sears try to censor something on Reddit, Reddit users talk about it more as a result", which would happen on any forum or website. Yes, it's definitely the Streisand Effect in action, but if nobody outside of Reddit writes about it, we aren't going to have sufficient sources to properly document it here. --McGeddon (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100 with McGeddon, however I was able to add a source from a Consumerist article. MachineFist (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Snopes.com now has an article up on the incident here. Note however that the only reference they use is the Foxnews bit. ponyo (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

They also make no mention of Sears' requested takedown, the Streisand effect, or anything like it. They only point to Reddit for an "explanation" of the exploit. --McGeddon (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Lauren example

To me the newest example, the one about Ralph Lauren and Photoshop Disasters seems like plain advertisement for the mentioned sites. It's too recent to be counted as valuable or even finished... Remove?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdascheller (talk • contribs) 22:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck entry suggestion

If it passes AFD, I suggest Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy. At least one source in that article explicitly mentions the Streisand effect. --Geniac (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Killer Wikipedia Article

I note that the recently banned Wiki article "Virgin Killer" is now the most popular Wiki article, with about 10,000 page requests per hour: Wikipedia:Popular_pages. Are we just waiting for an external news article? This is probably one of the best examples of the Streisand Effect so far. 130.130.37.12 (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes; we've already had and deleted some WP:OR "it is arguable" and WP:SYN analysis of traffic stats. One sentence in a news source would be enough. --McGeddon (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

...and it looks like the Register has mentioned the traffic in an update to its coverage. I've added it back in. --McGeddon (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the register a reliable news source... --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And neither source indicates that what has happened is an example of "the Streisand Effect" - for Wikipedia editors to do so would appear to be original research. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not as such, before it was mentioned else where there was logic in the removal, now its a case of a duck test --Nate1481 13:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We use El Reg as a source in plenty of other places. Heck, it was about the first non-wiki news source to cover the IWF thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a damn sight more reliable than most of the tabloids. 202.76.179.8 (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the Internet Watch Foundation is backing down, considering how long the image has been around. They posted a statement from their site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.103.141 (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In real life

Is there a term for this phenomenon as it applies in real life (as opposed to the internet)? Reading this article made me think of the part in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix where Professor Umbridge bans The Quibbler from Hogwarts; and Hermione is ecstatic, saying that this will ensure that everyone in the school reads it. Sure enough, soon everyone has read the exclusive article about Harry Potter. Of course, this isn't "real life", but it's not the internet, either; and this sort of thing must happen in real life. Is there a separate name and/or article for it? If not, I'd be interested in helping to write one. NoriMori (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Or indeed the episode of Father Ted titled The Passion of St Tibulus. For my reasoning, see the synopsis, all except the first paragraph. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

LeBron Dunk

Nike's attempt to confiscate a video of Jordan Crawford's dunk on LeBron James in 2009 may be an example of a reverse psychology (intentional) Streisand effect to generate publicity during the slow newsworthy off season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyBell (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And what better way to demonstrate the Streisand Effect...

...than to plaster the picture on Wikipedia! :D @harej 03:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Many ways since it isn't free. It has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 28#File:Barbrahouse1.jpg. Comments welcome. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Broken Links

What's the procedure for noting broken links? I checked one or two of the references & found the linked pages non-existent but don't know what to do about it. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There are several tags which may be used inline. See the documentation of each for a fuller description of circumstances; also suggestions of other tags which may be more suitable.

• {{dead link}} - where the URL does not exist at all
• {{failed verification}} - where the URL exists, but does not back up the statement which it us used to reference
• {{registration required}} - where the user must log in to the external site in order to view the page

In the circumstances where a URL has become a redirect to the site's home page, I'm never sure whether to use {{dead link}} or {{failed verification}}.

They all need to be placed in a position which will show up close to the displayed external link; so don't do this

A fact.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.example.com/ |title=example }}</ref>{{dead link|date=February 2010}}

which will show as

A fact.

do this instead:

A fact.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.example.com/ |title=example }}{{dead link|date=February 2010}}</ref>

which will show as

A fact.

-Redrose64 (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comins v. Vanvoorhis

Potential example of Streisand Effect to keep an eye on and possibly add to article [[7]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.14.2 (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Law of Unintended Consequences

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Garion96 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

---

It has been proposed that this article be merged into Law of Unintended Consequences.

• Oppose This topic is more than notable by itself, containing many external citations. Including it into the article on 'Law of Unintended Consequences' would force a serious undue trimming of information in this article, and also unbalance the Law of Unintended Consequences article and make it overlong. The Streisand Effect is a specific type of unintended consequence, there are many other types of unintended consequences. This suggestion is akin to suggesting that the article on Poodles be merged into the article on dogs. LK (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The topic is sufficently notable to merit an article, distinct as a very specific kind of UC. --Joe Decker (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Too long to be a section; trimming doesn't seem to be applicable. Also agree with all the above. -- Wesha (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Sources are sufficient to support this being more than just a couple of sentences in a broader article. --McGeddon (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose For the reasons cited above. 12.8.194.30 (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - A colloquial example of such, yes, but this has received enough coverage to justify an article in its own right. Tarc (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Satanic Verses

I've heard many comments that the Islamic attempt to "censor" this book by terrorist means (making death threats or otherwise to force will upon another by terrifying them of the consequences if they don't bend to the terrorist's will) actually resulted in far greater sales at least in the western world. Perhaps this could be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.35.228 (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an interesting example, but having heard comments is of course not sufficient. I found a source and put it in the article, sticking as close to the text as possible. DVdm (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Mohamed cartoons?

Didn't the overreaction from certain muslim groups result in even more people seeing, reproducing and even creating new variations on those? --TiagoTiago (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See if you can find a (few) source(s) and add it. DVdm (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Draw Mohammed Day. I think this is as good as any a place to start :) - Gunnanmon (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Mary Whitehouse

The Streisand Effect is much older than the 1990s. In the UK, it was the Mary Whitehouse effect as far back as the 1970s. If MW said a TV programme should be banned from transmission, you could guarantee a really good viewing figure! Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

undo vandalism by 109.178.199.96

Could someone please undo vandalism by 109.178.199.96? He removed a fair amount of text on 02:52, 29 June 2010 and called them "Bullshit", then rolled back the anti-vandal bot. I could do this but i am not sure how because now when i click "undo" it says to do it manually because people made 3 minor edits in the mean time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.73.10 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Find Suzy Lamplugh

The police believe that Bristol barrister's wife: Annabel Dixie holds the key to the whereabouts of Suzy's body. Mrs Dixie was involved in a sexual relationship with the suspected serial killer: John Cannan at the time of Suzy's murder. Mrs Dixie has however resolutely refused to assist; in all probability on the advice of her husband Ian Dixie, based no doubt on the embarrassment that giving evidence against Cannan would cause them in their personal lives. One cannot help but notice the double standards at work here: Ian Dixie of Guildhall Chambers prosecutes cases for the Avon & Somerset Police, with a total disregard for the embarrassment to the personal lives of those he prosecutes, by the questions that he puts to those people. These two people should do their public duty and tell the police what they know and give the Lamplugh family the closure that they so richly deserve after a quarter of a century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.232.237 (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Find Suzy Lamplugh

The police believe that Bristol barrister's wife: Annabel Dixie holds the key to the whereabouts of Suzy's body. Mrs Dixie was involved in a sexual relationship with the suspected serial killer: John Cannan at the time of Suzy's murder. Mrs Dixie has however resolutely refused to assist; in all probability on the advice of her husband Ian Dixie, based no doubt on the embarrassment that giving evidence against Cannan would cause them in their personal lives. One cannot help but notice the double standards at work here: Ian Dixie of Guildhall Chambers prosecutes cases for the Avon & Somerset Police, with a total disregard for the embarrassment to the personal lives of those he prosecutes, by the questions that he puts to those people. These two people should do their public duty and tell the police what they know and give the Lamplugh family the closure that they so richly deserve after a quarter of a century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterJM1945 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the many examples in the farm

I removed the example with the King of Thailand and youtube. (In April 2007, Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, was portrayed as a monkey in a video posted on YouTube. The Thai government banned the site for lèse majesté, and other YouTube users responded by posting other clips bashing Bhumibol, leading to tens of thousands of views.) Tens of thousands of views at youtube sounded like a really unimpressing number. Of course, this is from the original Forbes article, so it's technically refed. I still think it seems tabloid, more than a very good example. But I don't have any strong feelings if anyone wants it here. Greswik (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's not the Streisand effect because the action was not directed against hiding certain information, banning photos etc. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks supression attempts.

As noted: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-dns-everydns

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/12/03/french-minister-declares-war-on-wikileaks.html

etc, etc, etc, the US government were daft enough to try pressuring US companies to take wikileaks offline. This has resulted in short outages, but has also resulted in wikileaks 'dead-mans-handle' file (INSURANCE.AES256,WIKILEAKS.SECRET.DOCUMENT.2010.08.06) being distributed more widely. It has also resulted in a quickly growing number of mirrors of both the cablegate data, and wikileaks website itself: http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-wikiing.htm

I'm not sure if this is yet sufficiently mainstream to warrant an entry on this page, however, it is fast becoming viral among the geek/techy/hacker community. I'll leave the choice as to whether to add this to the page to a more proficient wikipedia editor. Kirrus (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not one of those sources notes this case as a prime example of the Streisand effect. This is recentisme that the article does not require. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Youtubers fighting DMCA censorship

Think this would be a good example to add? Sometimes people try to silence those they disagree with on youtube, be it for political or religious reasons, whatever. As a result, those who agree with the video that was removed all mirror it, and soon the video is found on youtube hundreds of times.--Mithcoriel (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Earliest example: Xenu?

I've added the earliest example I know of: the Church of Scientology's attempts to suppress the Fishman affidavit, which really spread the story of Xenu in the world. Note that I've included a reference to the original Usenet version (the affidavit's first time on the Net) and do a "see also" to Xenu for the rest of the story, where it's referenced in painful detail. Is that sufficient? If not, the refs are over at the Xenu link - David Gerard 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Someone removed your example without providing a discussion. I'd tempted to restore it, but I'm not interested in starting an edit war over something I currently have only a passing interest in -- despite the fact that it is a well-known example of a heavy-handed response making an unfavorable situation worse. (Someone at the CoS must not have gotten their ethics in.;-) -- llywrch (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of earlier examples. Just look for a movie which cause a lot of controversy during its time. Example: Life of Brian. Canadafreakazoid (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

BoingBoing a reliable source?

User Electricat (talk · contribs) had added an entry, sourced by BoingBoing.com. Having had a look at the source, I removed it per wp:RS. My revert was undone because "Boing Boing is already listed as a legitimate example....can't be right and wrong at the same time." There is a big difference though: the other example is about something that happened at BoinBoing (with references), and it has huffingtonpost.com and abcnews.go.com as sources. The new entry simply has BoingBoing as a source, and i.m.o. this does qualify as a wp:RS. Ok with everyone if we remove the new entry? DVdm (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't whether bOINGbOING is reliable, but the site is the core of this iteration of the Streisand Effect, as a law firm sent an entirely specious demand letter to them to remove a post because separate and unrelated comments on it contained the words 'academic', 'advantage', and 'scam'. This makes bOINGbOING encyclopedic as it was at the center of the issue and a valid reference to it. Removal would not be proper in this case, if you ask me. Cortana (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, BoingBoing might be encyclopedic—see the old, existing entry about it—, but in this new entry it is the single source, so I think it really matters whether it is reliable or not. Its encyclopedicity does not imply its reliability. DVdm (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So you are basically asking: Is BoingBoing (specifically Cory Doctorow, the blogger who posted the story) a reliable source when reporting on the site's legal correspondence? The test is fairly simple; the posting included a link to a PDF of the letter they received from the law firm. Confirm that the law firm exists and you have as much confirmation as anyone not directly involved is going to get. Onundr (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The pdf of the letter has nothing to do with this and we don't have to confirm that the law firm exists. The added entry says that "Academic Advantage Scam" became a suggested search term on several major Internet search engines. This is the opinion of some blogger on some website, and as far I know, bloggers don't count as reliable sources. I guess we can remove this entry. DVdm (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The entry should probably be edited, not removed. Google has the completion 'scam' as #4 on its list for 'academic advantage' (as of 16:47 today) and Yahoo has it as #6 (as of 16:48). The next three search engines by U.S.A. market share (bing, ask and ask_AOL) do not complete past 'academic advantage'. However, since Google and Yahoo command over 90% of the search 'market', the 'effect' still exists. Editing the entry to say something like "Academic Advantage Scam" became a suggested search term on the top two Internet search engines. Onundr (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Boingboing cannot be its own source. We need third-party sources. Thems the rules. freshacconci talktalk 17:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be against wp:V, since it could be true now, but it is not sourced, and it will not be true, let alone verifiable, say, next year. Meanwhile I notice that the entry was (i.m.o.) properly removed by user Garion96 (talk · contribs). DVdm (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

How does http://chillingeffects.org/N/53671 look then? Or http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110117/03455412700/no-just-because-site-contains-academic-advantage-scam-same-page-it-is-not-defamation-against-academic-advantage.shtml (though this one does not refer to the Streisand Effect itself, which the chillingeffects.org entry does). techdirt has been used as reference material in this article before, while chillingeffects.org has not. Onundr (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see chillingeffects saying that the effect is indeed playing. It just explains what the effect is in the context of the letter. Saying here that the effect is active would be wp:SYNTHESIS. It also explains what a SLAPP suit is, but that does not mean that this incident provoked one. DVdm (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at their style. Any synthesis is on their part; their question/answer format is the site's form of analysis and reporting. I believe this really is the third-party link that people are insisting on, and that the supporting organizations make it a reliable source. Onundr (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a look at their style. At best they suggest that this could be an instance of the effect—just suggest that it could be. Even then, our interpretation of their style would be sysnthesis. And what would make them a reliable source in the first place? Anyone—even you—can set up some website seeing internet effects all over the place. I'm not convinced. DVdm (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Examples

• I think categorizing this as a B-class article is very, very generous. The intro is good. The Examples section is overly long, arbitrary, and many of the cases is WP:OR or worse, is original research that is incorrect. So here's my attempt to be bold and fix it. I'll play nice by copying the examples here as I remove them. Finally, note that this is an encyclopedia. If I go to the article on Blackmail, I don't expect to find every case of blackmail that's made the newspapers in the history of the world. It's unclear what, if any, editorial criteria are being used to select these examples. The way it should work is experts in the field (sociology?) write a nice treatise on this effect and they pick what they feel are the salient examples, and Wikipedia, as the tertiary source, says So-and-So in their work "Whatever" identifies XYZ as one of the most significant examples...

In any case, going in order:

• [removed from the Scientology bullet]...Similarly, the church attempted to remove a series of Operating Thetan (OT) document leaks from Wikileaks. Wikileaks responded by vowing to "release several thousand additional pages of Scientology material" the following week.
  • (a) We don't cite Wikinews (do we?); (b) This seems like a different phenomenon. The Streisand effect was not the photographer intentionally releasing more photos to discourage Streisand's petition.
• In September 2009, multi-national oil company Trafigura obtained a super-injuction against The Guardian newspaper, preventing them from reporting on an internal Trafigura investigation into the 2006 Côte d'Ivoire toxic waste dump scandal, and also from reporting on even the existence of the injunction. Labour MP Paul Farrelly referred to the superinjunction in a parliamentary question, and on October 12 2009, the Guardian reported that they had been gagged from reporting parliament, in violation of the 1688 Bill of Rights. Blogger Guido Fawkes correctly identified the blocked question as referring to the the Trafigura waste dump scandal, after which The Spectator suggested the same. Not long after, Trafigura began trending on Twitter, helped along by Stephen Fry retweeting the story to his followers. Twitter users soon tracked down all details of the case, and by October 16th, the super-injuction had been lifted and the report published.
  • As I read it, there was an injunction. Now, there isn't. I don't see anywhere that attests there was significantly more coverage because of the initial injunction. In fact, the opposite is true. Clearly the Guardian was interested in this story before the gag existed.

• On October 15, 2010, Adam Josephs of the Toronto Police Services filed a 1.2 million dollar lawsuit against Google for alleged defamation in the form of satire cartoons and 25 individual user comment on YouTube, which Google owns. The cartoon 'Officer Bubbles' was widely circulated inside the G20 activist crowd but otherwise had little public exposure. Following the filing of this lawsuit, news outlets world-wide picked up the story, most with the term "Officer Bubbles" in the headline instead of Josephs' real name. This mainstream exposure has in turn made the cartoon even more popular, with re-posts and mirrors going up within hours of the announcement. In Canada the "Streisand effect" can now be referred to as "The Bubble Effect"
• In January 2011, Cathy Cruz Marrero inadvertently fell into a fountain at a Pennsylvania Mall because she was texting on her cell phone while walking. A video of the incident appeared on Youtube and soon went viral, getting over 1 Million hits. Even though the video's quality was so bad that she couldn't possibly have been identified from it, she decided to sue the mall for damages, thus revealing her identity to the public. -- In this case and the above example, I'm not so sure the examples
• On October 5, 2010, Xuxa, a famous Brazilian presenter for kids and also an actress, sued Google over an action tried in Rio de Janeiro. The action claimed that Google should suppress all results including the actress, and the Portuguese word equivalent to "pedophilia". She won the action and the judge issued that Google would have a fine in the value of R$ 20,000 for each "positive result" (links). The reason behind this process is because she had roles in the past on movies including a 12 years old child, also she has some nude pictures widely over the internet. As a result she got her name published in major portals in the Brazilian media, publishing the keywords "Xuxa pedófila". Google claims not being capable to remove the references.
  • Yes, one of the risks of suing for defamation is that the case may become more publicized. This is hardly unforeseeable. Do we really need three examples (all of which are from the first five minutes or so of these persons' fifteen minutes of fame) to make this point?
• The ones I'm leaving in aren't much better. At least there are a few that actually use the phrase "Streisand effect" in the article. The Wikileaks U.S. diplomatic cable example that I left in is no better than the one I removed. The Streisand effect is about a minor story that becomes a major story. The Wikileaks U.S. cables story was a major story before the DoS attacks / ISP blocking described in the article. But I'll leave it in because for whatever reason, the Vancouver Sun uses the term "Streisand effect" in its headline. - 209.6.138.129 (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Every example should have a citation that refers to the Streisand effect, otherwise we're engaging in original research by deciding on our own what qualifies.   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed several entries whose sources didn't mention the "Streisand effect". I'm fine with restoring any of those if we can find sources that mention the effect.   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

My edit was reverted. According to which sources are the restored entries examples of the "Streisand effect"?   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This was mentioned some time back, it's a case of a Duck Test, the term "Streisand effect" describes the effect of where an attempt to censor something have the reverse effect and make is more visible. Any instance of this is an example of the what is described by the term, so is potentially usable even if the coverage doesn't use the term. The alternative is to re-name the article "Censorship Backfires" or equivalent but as I just made that up as a description it's probably not as useful as a title. --Nate^t/_c 09:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If the article was titled "Censorship Backfires", and if we found sources which used that term to describe events, then we could include those. However this article is called "Streisand effect" and so all of our sources for examples need to say they exemplify that effect.

WP:DUCK is not a content policy. It says so explicitly. The relevant policy here is WP:NOR:

• Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

Assertions that an event is an example of the Streisand effect need to be sourced. If we decide that on our own then we're engaging in synthesis.   Will Beback  talk  10:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis on the level of 1+1=2. If the sources don't state "an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely" EVEN if that is was has obviously happened, see the discussion on the Internet Watch Foundation example in the archives that's synthesis. Demanding the words "Streisand effect" have been used externally seems daft, as if means that you restrict examples based on the word count and audience the journalist is writing to. How does it improve the encyclopaedia to say that source must use the same terminology? There are enough examples now and any boarder-line/low profile or poorly sourced ones should be removed, but not just because the term isn't ubiquitous. --Nate^t/_c 11:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is far more nuanced than simple arithmetic. It's perfectly logical to restrict an article on the "Streisand effect" to sources about that topic. I'm not sure how "word count" factors in. The article needs only a few examples to convey the concept. We don't need to include those which rely on original research/synthesis.   Will Beback  talk  11:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That was a(n over) simplification, a better comparison would be asking is it sensible to exclude a cat described as varied brown with a black striped patten in an article on tabbies where the writer had never heard the term "Tabby"? The word count thing was a simple allusion to that if they need to cut a bit removing the term "Streisand effect" might be it. I agree we don't need all the current examples, but I disagree that use of the term should be the final deciding factor, if there it is a clear example of the effect as described.--Nate^t/_c 11:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just been checking the Proquest newspaper archive. There are numerous news articles which have talked about this concept, including papers in Mexico and Indonesia. Even an advice columnist asked what to do about nude pictures being distributed by an ex-boyfriend has referenced the effect. If we want to set a target of a particular number of examples I'm sure we can fill that list with events that have been genuinely described as exhibiting the "Streisand effect" by reliable sources, and not just based on the decisions of a few anonymous Wikipedia editors.   Will Beback  talk  11:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying ones the reference the name aren't good examples, only that just because the words "Streisand effect" haven't been used to describe it that if it is and unambiguous example it should not be excluded. The IWF example wasn't referenced to a source with the words in until after it had been added with several reliable sources describing what had happened in detail. If you go down the route your on, then you stifle any use of editorial judgement - i.e. to decided that what your looking at describes the same thing, but in different words. As were all editors trying to build an encyclopaedia you could assume that people won't just add daft examples for fun.--Nate^t/_c 08:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that ambiguous bits like the Scientology one with extra releases should go and any OR like "In Canada the "Streisand effect" can now be referred to as "The Bubble Effect"" should not be included in the example (the phrase "bubble effect" is made up), but the example of officer bubble is valid: Low coverage, attempt to stop, result increased coverage. --Nate^t/_c 08:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

["officer bubbles" "streisand effect"] gets tons of hits, and I bet there's a reliable source there somewhere.[8]   Will Beback  talk  08:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Very probably, but would you agree that removing a good example until some on has got round to finding the one reliable source in all those results, so reducing the pool of people that will look casual editor who just copy edits and sources the odd thing. --Nate^t/_c 17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Good example according to whom? Wikipedia editors? That's original research. We could leave all kinds of things in Wikipedia articles that we think are worthwhile with the hope that someday someone will find a source, but doing so would result in a less-reliable reference resource, not a better one. We cleaned up the list of examples at a similar article, White elephant. I don't see why we shouldn't do likewise here by limiting the list to examples which have actually been described by reliable sources as exhibiting this effect.   Will Beback  talk  18:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sony PS3 keys

Anyone want to put something about Sony's attempts at removing the PS3 signing keys from the Internet to the examples section? 85.210.95.162 (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.125.226 (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

These decisions shouldn't be based on our own judgments, but on reliable sources who cite this effect in reference to the specific incidents.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Examples being removed

The article is about the concept not about the word. For example the most edited article last month was 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests which uses a descriptive title. Not one single reference uses the term "2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests", not one. Yet, we all know what examples to use in the article. It is not WP:OR or WP:SYN when editors use examples that don't have the exact phrase in the references. If it were, we could not use references that refer to The Great War from 1914 to 1938 that we now call World War I. World War I is a retronym. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We've been discussing this above, under #Cleaning up the Examples. How do you reckon that the article topic is not the same as the article title? Obviously World War I is a synonym for The Great War. What synonymous phrases are sources using for "Streisand effect"?

More importantly, who is deciding that the examples included qualify as exemplifying the effect? If it's just Wikipedia editors using the duck test then that's original research.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the effect whereby the attempted suppression of information makes people more interested in the information. Any case in which reliable sources describe an attempted suppression of information making it more popular is acceptable as an example. The fact that it is titled "Streisand effect" is basically irrelevant; suppose we had called it "paradoxical effect of censorship," would the standards and practices of the article suddenly change because of the new title? Don't be silly. 99.250.12.151 (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There would be no article called "paradoxical effect of censorship" unless there are sources using that exact phrase to describe a phenomenon. We can't just make things up. They have to be sourced. In this particular case we can only use examples that are covered in reliable sources that use the term Streisand Effect. Otherwise it's original research and/or synthesis. freshacconci talktalk 17:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I've tagged the article as such. If people want to maintain their own private little lists of incidents which happen to fit the model then they can do it on their own computers: such lists of barely-related trivia have no place here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

...the tag was removed under the rationale that it belonged in the examples section. Why Glrx (talk · contribs) couldn't do that himself I know not, but never mind. On my next pass I'll be removing any entries which merely fit the model and haven't been implicitly labelled with the term "Streisand effect" by reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't move the tag because I don't believe the tag is appropriate. I think examples should be removed because the article should not descend into being an exhaustive list of examples. We can be selective and keep the examples that are prominent. I am not a stickler that the source must explicitly mention SE. If the source describes attempts to suppress and explains that the attempt at suppression spawned wider publication, then a WP editor could use SE without synthesizing. We paraphrase all the time. Glrx (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, not possible. It is definitely not the case that the SE is the first time in history that someone has attracted more attention to something in an attempt to cover it up (and there are even cases that actually matter to people). This article is specifically on the subject of things known by the term "Streisand effect". Otherwise we'd need to rename it, which would lead to it being even more hopelessly overreaching, and that's a vicious circle. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. A surprising number of the examples actually did have appropriate references, so this has worked out for the best. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking those. It seems to me that the list on this article just needs to be long enough to give some typical or especially famous examples, but should not include every minor scandal that someone clumsily tries to hide. Five or ten examples seems like plenty. Perhaps a logical way of limiting the size is to require better or more than average citations. Or maybe leave off the list entirely. The namesake is a clear enough example and for the rest we could just say, "the term has been applied to many similar efforts." Otherwise this could be like one of those honeypot articles, such as "list of ethnic slurs", that attract bad editing.   Will Beback  talk  11:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'd initially imagined that the list would have been trimmed quite a bit more by the time I looked at the sources. The remaining examples are mostly fairly major things (regime change in Tunisia, the Ryan Giggs superinjunction, Anonymous, Wikileaks)): the only ones that are a bit questionable are Virgin Killer (mostly of note to us lot, rather than the wider world) and the police officer one. If you think it needs trimmed a bit more, those are the ones I'd remove. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Boiron case (July 2011):

This becomes a typically emblematic of the Streisand effect: http://kyriacou.ch/2011/08/new-from-boiron-streisand-c200/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.28.120.103 (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Here the (still not complete) website list about the "Boiron affair" Streisand effect: http://www.blogzero.it/2011/08/12/boiron-vs-blog-elenco-siti-supporter/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samriva (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Should this article be deleted?

Is the 'Streisand effect' distinguishable from the non-internet phenomenon that mnifests itself in an interest in anything that is forbidden and tends to generate paparazzi behavior and tabloid-type consumption? Does the Streisand effect not play itself out in traditional media?

I think there are two pre-existing ideas here. Idea #1 is that internet media is impossible to control. Any authoritative effort to suppress certain media tends to fail as the media/information propagates and is republished so quickly and widely that suppression is largely impracticable. Idea #2 is that people pruriently gravitate to things that others try to conceal from them--thus, the attempt to ban a movie, album or book often makes the book, album, or movie much more popular and widely consumed than it would ever otherwise be. Are there not a hundred examples of unremarkable movies that were given huge publicity because of moral or similar controversies about their content? Hence the adage, "Bad publicity is better than no publicity." When the item remains available for consumption despite the efforts to suppress it, the "Streisand effect" results, as interest rises and is nevertheless readily sated. Obviously, when the suppression is successful and the item is made unavailable for consumption, the "Streisand effect" does not happen. This is where idea #1 plugs in again, as the internet existence tends to make media rather less suppressible than it once was--but we know that about the internet already, didn't we.

All this brings us to my original point, is the "Streisand effect" distinguishable from other well known phenomenon or is it just a word that describes a facet of censorship in the internet age? If this article deserves to exist it should be clearer what it is talking about and its position as to whether it is internet specific or not should be made clear.

I'm not actually going to move for the deletion of this article. Needless to say that would just make it popular.

Thought: Is Deletionpedia an expression of the 'Streisand effect.' Would it not be therefore, poetic to have it deleted and moved to Deletionpedia where someone might read it? Let's delete it and find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.252.64.112 (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That would definitely count as original research. 76.203.230.68 (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Gilmore Effect

This 2000 Spanish article speaks about this topic 3 years before Streisand effect was coined, and it is named informally "Gilmore Effect". Worth a paragraph in a history section? Regards. emijrp (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the es:WP has an article on SE, calls it SE, does not mention Gilmore effect, and quotes Gilmore in the lede. Glrx (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011 Catholic Church attempt to suppress Benetton ad campaign

Could this be included in examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.100.168 (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Hanxu9 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are sources claiming that the suppress efforts provoked a kind of streissand effect, it can be included. emijrp (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It comes down to whether we're including everything ever referred to as exhibiting the "Streisand effect", or whether we're including just the most significant instances as examples to illustrate what the term means. From what I've seen, the term is being routinely applied to every effort to reduce or eliminate coverage of something and that the article would be swamped if we add everything. One possibility would be to split off the list of examples into a standalone list, in which case every sourced entry could be added without concerns about overwhelming the basic article. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Drawing Muhammad

I think the Muslim protests against the depiction of their prophet would be a great example of the Streisand effect. There is even an international "Draw Muhammad day" now, simply because they made such a big deal out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.110.12 (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

New Effect? What=

This Streisand effect is simply the timeless observation that people want to have or know that which is forbidden to them.

Heck, the Biblical fable of the temptation of Eve by the serpent to eat the forbidden fruit is an example!

How ignorant do you have to be to feel the need to mix up Barbara Streisand into it? 192.139.122.42 (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully the term "Streisand Effect" will fade with time. Barbra has social phobia, and as someone who has it myself, I can't imagine the trauma she must have gone through when the picture of her house was shown all over the world. It's truly a sad reflection on the way a lot of people are to have found fun in that (probably akin to the way people find it fun to bully others in the schoolyard). Hanxu9 (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You might be unfamiliar with the issues in the original case. Have you read the article? The photo was taken, along with thousands of others, as part of a survey of the California coastline. No one paid any particular attention to it, or identified it as Streisand's, until she filed her lawsuit. By trying to interfere with a legitimate survey conducted for the public benefit, some view Streisand as being the "bully". The term refers to the ironic fact that trying to suppress something sometimes brings more attention to it.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the name of...

...when something like the Streisand effect is used wilfully, ie in this case, to direct attention to oneself's house or to oneself, to get more attention? A kind of publicity stunt? --Ayacop (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That's simply not the Streisand effect. If you are just being a jerk to get attention, that's just everyday trolling. If you are seeking to silence discussion and that leads to many people becoming aware of it against your will, that's the Streisand effect. 75.108.70.64 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

George Soros and Barbra Streisand funding Justice Through Music

Having indulged in several interesting ties between Soros and Streisand with Kimberlin and the fact that Soros have his ties with Obama, it would appear that several lawsuits by Kimberlin againts blogger and the media it should be brought to light about the political impact all these ties have, it like a big vicouse circle that will never end. This should also include there ties with the Velvet Revolution in which Kimberlin also started. Intruder 12:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intruder1670 (talk • contribs)

Labatt-Magnotta example

Can someone take a look at this and comment on it? It's an example of the Streisand effect, but it is constantly removed from the article without any discussion. Here's the version which was last reverted.

In June 2012, Canadian brewing company Labatt demanded the Montreal Gazette remove a photo of alleged murderer Luka Magnotta from its website. Labatt claimed the photo, which showed Magnotta casually holding a bottle of Labatt Blue, to be "highly denigrating". The newspaper responded by stating it would not censor its photos unless legally required to do so, and stated that its editorial decisions were not governed by "commercial considerations". By attempting to protect its brand through censoring the newspaper, Labatt suffered a public relations backlash in the press and social media. According to a professor of marketing at Queen's University, a connection between Magnotta and the brewer would not have entered the public consciousness if it were not for the "mini-firestorm" created by Labatt. The Labatt-Magnotta blunder has been identified as an example of the Streisand effect.

refs

This seems like a good example of the effect. We've got a scholar describing how the brand brought about its own heart-ache, and proof that the episode has been likened to the Streisand effect. Note that the Globe and Mail piece is not a news-story but commentary on how fast a scandal can spread within social media. The Marketing piece is from a magazine which specialises in the Canadian marketing industry. We can add this piece by Die Welt which shows that the episode has been likened to the effect in national media outwith Canada: [9]. Here's another relevant piece in the Globe and Mail, written by the co-founder of a public relations agency: [10]—I actually only noticed this piece on Google through the remarks on it written on behalf of a certain Canadian law firm published here: [11].

For an article like this—about an online-phenomenon of unintended consequences—I think these are pretty good sources. We've got refs showing that the example was likened to the Streisand effect by national media in two different countries. We've also got commentary from a marketing specialist at a University, and from people in the PR and legal professions. Not too many examples in this article have these kind of credentials.

An editor has removed the entry twice, reasoning that the episode is a "recent example" and "more like news". It's clearly a recent story, but that isn't grounds for automatic removal. The refs given here aren't mere news-reports—they're thoughtful commentaries on the episode and the whole phenomenon, written by people in the relevant fields. Also, look at the dates of the five previous examples:

• "On 14 June 2012 the Argyll and Bute Council in ..."
• "In May 2012, a Southican artist ..."
• "In May 2012, Joe Karam, the long time ..."
• "In May 2012, the UK's High Court ordered 5 ..."
• "In February 2012, lawyer Glenn Greenwald reported ..."

So recent examples are okay after all. Now look at the next couple examples, but also compare the dates of the example and the dates of the refs:

• "In May 2011, Premier League footballer ..." 20 May 2011, 20 May 2011, 20 May 2011.
• "In December 2010, the website WikiLeaks ..." 5 December 2010.
• "In September 2009, multi-national oil company ..." 12 October 2009, 13 October 2009, [deadlink], 16 Oct 2009.
• "On 5 December 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation ... " 19 March 2009, 8 December 2008, 7 December 2008, 8 December 2008, 9 December 2008, 26 December 2008, 9 December 2008.

Every example in this article is referenced from recent coverage. The following rationales for removal used in regard to this example don't hold any water at all: "recent example", "more like news", and "more of a news story and the sourcing does not mention the Streisand effect". That's why outside opinions are needed.

Compare this example, and the refs listed here, to any others in this article. I can't see how a reasonable editor would continually revert it's addition. Funnily enough, the thing that brought my attention to this example was the edit summary of a revert of an IP who added the example—the edit summary was "Rv unexplained, undiscussed change". Talk about Streisand effect.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. Article should not attempt to list every possible occurrence of the SE. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to include this example. One of the sources doesn't call it SE (a commenter does). Another source labels it SE, but that has newspapers sticking together. In any event, this does not seem to be a disaster for Labatt's; lots of people (good and bad) drink beer. Labatt's didn't participate in any bad act. Hunoz, it may even be good advertising for Labatt's -- they are certainly getting their name mentioned, and that is what advertising is all about. Yes, more people may know about the picture, but it is not the disaster the Streisand triggered. Glrx (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument for an article which consists of almost nothing but notable examples. I think other editors may identify such an argument as an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT—especially if one notes that you've had no problem adding unsourced content of you own into this article.

As editors, our analysis of a certain example is not relevant (see WP:OR)—what is relevant are the analyses presented in reliable sources. For this article, that would be commentary from people in the marketing, PR, and legal fields who have identified an event with the Streisand effect. This is exactly what we have with the Labatt example.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)

I see no reason why the SE article should include every incident that has ever been tagged with a SE label. If we add three examples per month, then there will be a huge bloat.

Clearly, I do not like the Labatt's episode as an example of the SE. That opinion has been supported with some reasoning. A talk page is not article space, so WP:OR is not on point.

Yes, I previously included an example of the British Chiropractic Association#Libel case against Simon Singh. I did not include sources, but I did link to the WP article (which includes references to third-rate rags such as Nature (journal)). The BCA libel case has been labeled as SE, and it had a devastating effect on the BCA and chiropractors in general. My BCA example was removed by an editor who trimmed the number of SE examples down from 16 to 8. I haven't contested that reduction because I generally agree with the notion of a smaller list. If we are comparing examples, I think BCA is a much better example than Labatt's.

The Labatt's incident also seems to be manufactured. Labatt's sent a letter to the Montreal Gazette. I doubt Labatt's made it an open letter. How, exactly, did that letter become public? What public action (such as a lawsuit) did Labatt's do? Did MG just publish it to make a point that others should not take issue with people who buy ink by the barrel? We have someone saying it was a stupid thing to do in an obscure trade journal. So what? MG wanted to inflate the issue and has been successful to some extent.

Right now, Labatt's a passing news story. If three months from now there are reports that the episode has been disastrous for Labatt's, then it might be appropriate to include it in this article (but I'd still have some trouble with MG taking advantage of the situation). Until those reports, then this is just a hiccup.

If it is any consolation, I'm unhappy with several of the existing examples. Who cares about David Bain? He has no reputation to protect, so wider publicity is irrelevant.

Glrx (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We're going in circles. Your personal analyses of events have no bearing whatsoever. It's the professionals we are supposed to follow. While we are allowed to judge our sources, and pick the good ones from the bad, we can't just disregard certain findings because we think we know better. It's not right to single-out this one example and ignore the rest. It's not right to move the goal posts. Like I said in the dispute resolution, an article like this is susceptible to being whitewashed if editors are allowed to remove things because they don't like them. Every example on this page can be removed with OTHERSTUFF and NOTNEWS. It's a slippery slope. Bear in mind, every party in this example is notable - the brewer, the suspected-killer, the newspaper. It's not a localised event. It's received international coverage. This is as legit an example as there could be. No source says otherwise.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Also oppose inclusion. This was a passing news story, with no real sign of a lawsuit, only a threat. There is a BBC article with some of the more notable examples here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The lawsuit and threat aren't relevant. The example's identification with the Streisand effect is what's relevant. See my comment above about OR. A webpage dated 15 June doesn't prove much when we've got one dated 12 June covering the Labatt example: [12]. The Labatt example is thus no more of a 'passing news story' than any other example in this article. It seems like some editors are using selected criteria against the Labatt example, but refuse to use the same criteria against any others. That's not right.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here that since Glrx and ianmacm have refused to respond, I've asked for outside input at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Streisand_effect. I noted there that the latest example, about the 9-year old girl, is actually about a week more recent than the Labatt-example.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)