Talk:Streisand effect/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Suggestion for deletion?

Editors at the bottom of this talk page are discussing the unencyclopaedic nature of the article and the quality of the references used as citations. I'm inclined to wonder if this might be a potential article for deletion, to be honest; its main claim to notability seems to be a self-referential tendency for people to use the article itself as evidence of the term being used and quoting it when other celebrities or corporates exhibit similar behaviour - I'm not convinced it's a real term used by real people in the wild. Star-one (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see I'm not the first person to wonder about this...Star-one (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved section to bottom of page to keep date chron. order.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Real term used in real life, I'd suggest "speedy keep" if you AfD'd it. Example -- http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/23/and-whose-fault-was-that-or-ignore-the-streisand-effect-at-your-your-clients-peril/ I see it maybe once a week about something or another, usually someone writing a foolishly threatening letter. http://www.popehat.com/2012/07/08/how-to-write-a-takedown-request-without-running-afoul-of-the-streisand-effect/ and http://www.popehat.com/2012/07/22/jack-daniels-shell-demonstrate-the-better-alternative-to-legal-threats/ I'm not putting any of those in as examples; they're just demonstration that others are actually using the term. htom (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to look at the talk page of Political gaffe and the articles Nail house and Spite house. They have similar issues with content.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this article really need the 5 million examples?

It's an unencyclopedic article to begin with, about some silly thing from 5 years ago. My question, however, is this: since when did Wikipedia become a clearinghouse for a bunch of inanity like the examples section of this article? Someone really needs to just start a Streisand Effect blog rather than waste Wikipedia's bandwidth on it. Hanxu9 (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have to disagree that the article is unencyclopedic, because the phrase "Streisand effect" is now well established.[1] However, there is a tendency towards cruft in the examples, and there should be stricter rules for adding new ones.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has thirteen, not 5 million examples. Still, three examples would probably suffice. I recommend tightening this section to three examples and having each example written more concisely.842U (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this article is necessarily "unencylopedic", but the reasons for having it could be debated. For starters, the term is already defined at Urban Dictionary anyways, so we probably could get away without having it. However, UD is really more of a humor blog site than a serious website anyways, so defining the term here would put a more serious tone on it.

I do agree that the number of examples in the article is a bit extreme. The only examples that even should be include are ones that meet primarily two criteria. First, mention of it needs to be in a source publication that meets WP:RS guidelines -- if someone blogs about it on a random website, it doesn't count. Secondly, the term "Streisand Effect" should be mentioned in the source EXPLICITLY. If it's not, then it would appear to violate Wikipedia WP:NPOV guidelines, since the article would be suggesting that the incident in question is an example of the Streisand Effect. WTF? (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that most of the examples given don't actually offer any stats to show that the subject became significantly better known. Is that something that should also be looked for in examples? 217.42.20.252 (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

How about [2] ? -- Wesha (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That requirement is very low and the article would soon fill with needless cruft. A lot of sources mention this. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In keeping with the AfD discussion and comments here I shall go through the examples listed and remove the ones of which the source does not explicitly use the term 'Streisand Effect'. Star-one (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see that you are in charge of wikipedia now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyright Troll (talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Careful, now. You've already been blocked once for bad behavior. If you antagonize other editors with snarky remarks, it'll probably happen again. Also, as you've been asked before: please sign your Talk page posts with four tilde characters ("~~~~") — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 05:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this really a subset of Tar-Baby

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby
A situation in which, the more one struggles, the more entwined one gets in the problem? That seems to be analogous to the Streisand Effect but in the modern times (on the internet) and propogated through electronic communications that can easily dessminate information. Unintended consequences, yes. Tar-baby as well, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.194.141.28 (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but anyone who uses the term tar baby gets branded as a racist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit War

There appears to be a war about a new section. We don't just keep putting it an and out like a yo-yo, even if there are different(?) editors. Once reverted once and certainly after twice - It should be discussed here, and a consensus obtained. Page protected for two weeks to allow a full discussion.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I also note rather too many WP:SPA suddenly appearing and "undoing vandalism" - I would suggest that users do not try to game the system with SPAs  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The ongoing Justin Zatkoff incident is as valid as any of the other examples on this page. He is actively trying to scrub the internet of any evidence of his lying to police about being attacked by gay liberal thugs. --Dr Cherry (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

-I cannot seem to find any valid sources that state a false police report was filed or that Justin Zatkoff claimed to be attacked by gay liberal thugs. Further, it does not seem as though this incident would qualify for this particular Streisand Effect wikipedia page. Perhaps you could provide us a copy of the police report or a quote from Justin Zatkoff that states this.

-This has not had a "Streisand Effect."

Here is the Michigan Daily article http://www.michigandaily.com/content/alleged-political-hate-crime-not-what-it-seemed [3] --Dr Cherry (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This article illustrates why the Streisand Effect applies. Zatkoff is activley trying to scrub this incident of lying from the internet. http://markmaynard.com/2012/11/my-site-was-taken-down-in-web-washing-attempt-by-false-hate-crime-victim-justin-zatkoff/ [4] --Dr Cherry (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

-The "Michigan Daily" article specifically states that Zatkoff did not know what happened. Where do you get that he claimed it was gay liberal thugs and lied to the police?

-A few additional blogposts being published does not qualify for the Streisand Effect. It typically applies to famous individuals or, in the least, individuals who gain widespread recognition based on the Streisand Effect. Do you have anymore recent news articles to help prove your point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billomega321 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sadly No Covered it. [5] But perhaps instead of being include on this page it needs it's own page. --Dr Cherry (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The webwashing actions are covered here http://peterslarson.com/2012/11/10/local-liberal-blogger-allegedly-threatened-with-legal-action-for-posting-pictures-of-drunken-college-republicans/ [6] --Dr Cherry (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not about suppressing the truth™. As I said in the edit summary, it is a long winded attempt at WP:SYNTH. There is also a consensus that any new examples need tight sourcing to prevent this sort of thing from happening.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been following the Zatkoff incident, as it's semi-local to me. At this point, I don't think it has adequate sourcing (from reliable sources, not blogs) nor do I think it's sufficiently noteworthy to serve as an illustration of the Streisand effect. After all, that's the point here -- not to list every conceivable example, but list the few most noteworthy or most typical cases to further readers' understanding of the effect. cmadler (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. Story does not seem that interesting, and it does not seem to fit the SE fact pattern. Trying to bury an old but well-known story isn't the same as trying to suppress a little-known fact. Glrx (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  Beyond that, we absolutely should not be using our own judgment to classify something as an example of the Streisand Effect. Nor do we care what bloggers think on the matter. If reliable sources describe a story as being such, then we should consider adding it, assuming we don't already have several good examples already. Resolute 03:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone please linkify "famous Swedish murder case" to Christine Schürrer#Murders and arrest --82.69.159.205 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

This effect is a key plot point in this book. Do you think it should be mentioned? Difficultly north (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This would need a reliable secondary source, otherwise it would be original research.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Can it qualify?

I just read a little of that removed material. Are there RS that state that recent events have caused a molehill to mountain effect with access to online data? Do any state that the government actions and resulting events have caused a deluge of more free access data on the net?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "examples" sections is that everyone wants to add more and more and more. Given the size of the examples section here relative to overall article size, I think the better question is "why should we add it?" Does it represent a better example than what already exists? Is the current list of examples too large already? How much of the desire to add it is agenda driven? Resolute 01:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on what was added, however, I would say that no, I don't think this qualifies. Accusing someone of violating a TOS by distributing material they do not have the right to do so is not a valid example of an attempt at suppressing information resulting directly in it being being seen by more people than if nothing had been done. The material was always available. It seems this is something closer to the MPAA/RIAA's anti-piracy campaigns rather than anything related to the Streisand Effect. Resolute 01:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

I agree. We don't need every example. In the future there may be discussion on refining the list.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Grey Tuesday

I feel like Grey Tuesday deserves a mention here. When EMI tried to eliminate DJ Danger Mouse's Grey Album, which combines tracks from The Beatle's White Album with Jay-Z's The Black Album. The cease-and-desist letter prompted hundreds of websites to host the album for download. (http://www.greytuesday.org/_) 11:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrixRabbi (talk • contribs)

Jacob Zuma Penis Painting

I understand that there are a lot of examples already but I think it is worth considering the President of South Africa's recent attempt to supress a photo of himself with his genitals exposed which only served to make the painting a not only a South African but an international cause celebre? Just my two cents. Ntshebe (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you would need a citation for that, but I don't think it would be worthwhile to pursue adding it anyway because of noncompliance with WP:WORLDVIEW. WTF? (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Internet

The definition claims that the effect is "usually facilitated by the Internet". I would dispute that. Most of the examples given did not rely on the internet. The effect does not depend on the internet. So I would recommend removing reference to the internet in this context.203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express

The Suburban Express example does not seem very notable, and is a routine Internet spat where people have cried "Streisand effect". Would there be a consensus to remove this, as there are enough examples already?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's notable precisely because it does not seem very notable, this is not an example of the Streisand Effect happening to famous people but an example of it happening to small businesses in small towns, the internet facilitating the spread of this news beyond Champaign-Urbana (and even beyond the state of Illinois) and attracting the attention of Boing Boing, Ars Technica and Popehat. This example shows that the Streisand Effect can happen to anyone, not just to well-known people and organizations. AlmostGrad (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an element of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#JOURNALISM here. The incident has not received significant mainstream media coverage, and it looks like an attempt to use Wikipedia to draw attention to it. There are also way too many citations for this entry, a small handful would be sufficient.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, lets face it. This is only a story because the guy behind it was stupid enough to go after a Reddit mod. But that's fine. I personally won't challenge the argument that this is a good example of the Streisand Effect. That is not the key argument in my mind, however. The question is, do we need yet another example of SE when the examples list is already four times longer than the article itself? This example may be better than others, but care really should be taken to avoid allowing this to become a laundry list of everything anyone calls an example. Also, using 18 citations to justify one statement is ridiculous. Since many of the stories link to each other, you can prune about 90% of that and get by with just two cites or so. Resolute 13:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will prune the references list to 2-3. I still think it is a good/illustrative example, differing from the other examples because most of the other examples deal with famous people or organizations, but this is an example of a small-town company having to change their years-old tyrannical policies and having to rethink their business policies because of widespread media attention, thus showing that the Streisand Effect can take place at all scales. I do have a COI with Suburban Express from the UIUC subreddit (also I am new to editing Wikipedia), so I welcome suggestions for making the tone neutral. AlmostGrad (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the list of examples can be divided into categories to prevent it from ending up being a laundry list of Streisand Effect examples. I am not sure how to divide up the examples - maybe by category of the victim of Streisand Effect (Celebrities, Government, Organizations, Corporations, etc.)? AlmostGrad (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Categorizing it would only encourage more examples, I think. And I do agree on the value of Suburban Express. Being an avid reader of Popehat, I am familiar with the case. So with that in mind, I think the paragraph you added misses the mark a little. The point of SE is that an attempt to suppress something (in this case, negative feedback) causes that thing to become far more widely known/covered/viewed than if nothing happened. And in this case, ignorance of social media and reddit certainly caused that negative criticism to explode rapidly, causing it to be seen and shared by a great many people who never would have seen it otherwise. So I would suggest focusing on that, and leaving the owner's socking to the article on Suburban Express, which can cover the overall incident in greater detail. Resolute 16:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the headings made it clearer, but I will defer to your judgment. Many people might not be interested in reading a whole paragraph - they might only read the headings, and then want to read only the examples they find interesting in greater detail. When I skimmed the section at first, I had to go through the whole list to decide which I wanted to read in greater detail. I agree my headings were sloppy but someone else could have made those more concise and clearer.

Also, this is discussed in detail on Suburban Express[7]' page, how do I link that entry here? Or is that not appropriate?

Finally, why are you concerned that the examples list is growing? Are these only supposed to be illustrative examples, and not a list of notable examples? I would imagine more examples will come up later, since this phenomenon is primarily internet-based and maybe has just started (~10 years). There are many ever-growing lists on Wikipedia, for example, cities have a list of notable people, universities have a list of notable alumni, etc. AlmostGrad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Remove Suburban Express. The example is not needed. Furthermore, the whole story arc isn't SE. Initially, Suburban wasn't trying to suppress Reddit; it was trying to do some covert advertising and insult its critics. Suburban wanted people to read Reddit. The plan failed when Suburban plan was discovered, and then there was pushback. The moderator, in response to Suburban's actions, removed the insults and posted information about Suburban. Suburban's suppression efforts only started after its plan backfired; its heavy-handed containment efforts then aggravated the problem further. Although some aspects align with the SE scenario, the trigger was the earlier covert advertising. The admin's response was standing up to Suburban; the admin intended to publish something bad about Suburban; with noting it litigious behavior, the admin could reasonably expect to be sued. A fight was expected and possibly welcomed. Moreover, the example is confused; if we go back to the 125 lawsuits, then maybe that is a SE story, but that's not how the story is told. It's a nice tale of the bad guy loses, but it's not a photographer takes thousands of pictures of anonymous coastline and gets sued by famous resident over a trivial image. The article's current examples include ordinary people (not just famous people): there's a little girl beating her school administrators. Glrx (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

When I edit the examples section, the instructions say "Please do not add examples unless accompanied by sources which actually refer to the Streisand effect by name and which give solid evidence that the attempt to censor increased the publicity of the item in question."

I believe the Suburban Express example meets both criteria - I have cited a couple of sources which explicitly call it an example of the Streisand Effect, and the attempt to censor reddit posts made this issue explode and get published in nationally-read publications; no one would have otherwise known about the activities of a little-known (outside Champaign-Urbana/Chicago), small-town bus company. AlmostGrad (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Remove Suburban Express. It's obvious from Almostgrad's incessant "talk" at the suburban express article and his numerous posts on reddit.com/r/uiuc that he is completely obsessed with suburban express, to the point that he thinks it's an amazing example of the streisand effect, when clearly it is not. plus, the attention the matter got was apparently local and fleeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.215.214.245 (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Remove Suburban Express. This is a no-brainer.70.225.161.158 (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Suburban Express. It generated a great deal of interest and repeated updates on a number of major technology news/discussion websites (in addition to bloggers mentioned): just about anyone in the tech field/hobby even out here on the West Coast became aware of the ongoing situation, and as the article notes, the company ended up reversing a large number of lawsuits as a result of the scrutiny. My honest thought in reading through it was that the Suburban Express example was one of the better ones (more than one other is far more deserving of removal) -- and that it reflects poorly on Wikipedia when one editor seemingly calls in their on-site buddies to back them in a discussion. —Xyzzy☥the☥Avatar 06:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Remove. Not notable, and we are not trying to be exhaustive anyway. --Dmol (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Categorizing Examples Section

Rather than using the examples section for illustrative purposes, I think it could be renamed "Notable Examples" - then the question of "Do we need yet another example?" won't arise. As long as a new example meets the requirements ("Please do not add examples unless accompanied by sources which actually refer to the Streisand effect by name and which give solid evidence that the attempt to censor increased the publicity of the item in question."), it could be added to the list.

To facilitate readability, I propose dividing the current examples into categories according to the entity affected by the Streisand Effect:

1. Government: Tunisia, WikiLeaks, Argyll and Bute, Defense Distributed, DCRI
2. Corporations: AACS, Trafigura, Suburban Express
3. Non-profit Organizations: Internet Watch Foundation
4. Religious Organizations: Catholic archdiocese, Church of Scientology
5. Celebrities: Ryan Giggs

AlmostGrad (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming Examples section; Examples convey enough information; if an example is not notable (i.e., WP:UNDUE), then it doesn't belong in a WP article. Oppose implication that meeting some minimal notability criteria entitles addition to list of examples; many notable SE examples have already been trimmed from this list (e.g., British Chiropractic); many sources use too broad notion of SE or see SE everywhere. Oppose categorizations; I don't expect the article to have a long list of examples, so any extensive categorization would have one or two examples; the given categories also confuse the aggressor (e.g., Tunisia) and aggressee (e.g., Wikileaks); what should the category be -- Billy Joel or Catholic Church?

I appreciate your effort at improving the article, but I don't think it is the way to go. Glrx (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Glrx. While I also appreciate the effort, the examples section is already bloated, and I expect adding such categories would only encourage the addition of more. Resolute 14:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Let's try to resist the urge to divide everything on wikipedia up into individual categories, especially stuff that doesn't need categorizing in the first place. WTF? (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support if these categories were written as WP:PROSE. The current arbitrarily-ordered list has no clear way to navigate; if I start reading it and am not that interested in Billy Joel or AACS keys, there is no obvious point to skip ahead to, I just have to jump randomly. --McGeddon (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hot Coffee mod for GTA

Another notable example is the hot coffee mod for GTA which unlocked adult content in the game and wasn't downloaded much until efforts to censor it hit the press. 116.90.140.22 (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Do you know of a reliably published source that called it an example of the Streisand Effect so that it is verifiable and not just the opinion of us as Wikipedia editors? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiLeaks

I'm removing the WikiLeaks example because people didn't mirror WikiLeaks becomes someone tried to suppress it - people mirrored it because it was going down, and because they had interesting material.

There was no attempt at suppressing the material - which is the hallmark of this effect. Without that it's simply not an example. Ariel. (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I could not bring up the reference, but a denial of service attack is an attempt at suppression. Glrx (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Only if it's by an official (or at least directly involved) entity. Ariel. (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

sez who? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"Sez" the article on the subject: "whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information" - wikileaks was not any of that. No one tried to do any of that - people were just attacking a high profile server, which happens *constantly* on the internet. Ariel. (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

except that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and we have what appears to be a reliable source calling the incident an attempt at censorship by denial of service and the result being an example of the Streisand effect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me that was a joke, because otherwise the stupidity level of this thread is too much for me now I remember why I stopped contributing to wikipedia. A reliable source? Really? How can it be reliable if it's wrong? It gives exactly zero evidence of censorship, and appears to use the words "Streisand effect" just to hop on the bandwagon and look cool. The other example you yourself removed is more Streisand effect than this wikileaks one (although before the age of the internet it wasn't called that, it was called the banned book effect [or other similar phrases] - which is why I didn't contest your removal). Ariel. (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

its "wrong" because it doesnt follow your interpretation of Wikipedia's definition????? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Mirror sites are keeping WikiLeaks up and running despite the loss of its original wikileaks.org address, shut down by an American provider: Welcome to the Barbra Streisand Effect. ... By 1630 GMT several hundred WikiLeaks mirror sites were listed at one online directory (http://bluetouff.com/2010/12/03/acceder-a-wikileaks/). For as industry specialists explained, the strong libertarian sensibility shared by large parts of the online community means that any hint of censorship provokes an instant riposte designed to produce the opposite effect. "As soon as a case of censorship blows up on the Web, a community forms spontaneously and everyone replicates everywhere," explained Gregory Fabre, a systems engineer and co-founder of the terra-eco.net site. With information copied on to servers that could be anywhere in the world, trying to stop the information getting out is like trying to plug a leaking sieve. ...What is happening with WikiLeaks has already happened dozens of times," he added. "What they want to censor is thus duplicated," he said, producing precisely the opposite effect intended by the censor.

— http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/view/20101205-307140/How-the-Barbra-Streisand-Effect-keeps-WikiLeaks-online

kind of interesting trivia, but not really useful, is that the site listed in the article as acting as the directory of the mirrored sites bluetouff.com flagged itself with the hashtag #StreisandEffect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing new examples of this happening in popular culture?

What about citing an official statement from a CEO of a company talking ABOUT the Streisand Effect is improper or inappropriate? I'm just curious 173.8.158.225 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be verifiable as having been published in a reliable source as well as be a encyclopedic, representative example, not just a random piece of "Lookey Lookey, I seen it here" trivia. Primary source documents are not going to be helpful. You will want some type third party commentary/analysis by an expert in the field. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Journal article retraction

This story must get in: http://retractionwatch.com/2013/12/04/retraction-prompts-letter-of-explanation-by-co-author-and-a-legal-threat-against-retraction-watch/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.230.30 (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research?

Examples where the given sources do not explicitly reference the Streisand effect would be considered original research would they not? -- John Reaves 23:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Generally the article is a magnet for current (and sometimes dubious) examples of SE. Consequently, an example should have several sources that refer to it as a SE. Even then, some sources will see SE where some WP editors disagree. WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS applies.

The consensus also seems to be we don't want an exhaustive list of SEs but rather some good illustrations. Generally, I think that means some weak and innocent entity does some reasonable act (posts some coastline pictures), some powerful entity overreacts and tries to unreasonably suppress the act (Streisand files a lawsuit), and the community reaction makes the suppression effort backfire (everybody learns where Streisand lives). It should have an element of stupidity to it; if Streisand had just kept quiet, then nobody would have noticed.

Glrx (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Streisand Estate.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Streisand Estate.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 18, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-01-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The home of Barbra Streisand, an American singer and actress, in Malibu, California. In 2003 her attempts to suppress this photograph, taken for the California Coastal Records Project, led to the unintended consequence of publicizing the photograph much more widely; before Streisand filed her lawsuit, the image had been downloaded only six times (twice by Streisand's lawyers), whereas in the month after the lawsuit afterwards more than 420,000 people visited the site. The term "Streisand effect" evolved from the controversy and has been used to describe subsequent cases of the phenomenon.Photograph: Kenneth and Gabrielle Adelman

Greek Streisand Effect

I think there is another example of the Streisand Effect with the Theodore Katsanevas, incident. (Sampson, Tim. "Greek politician who sued Wikipedia editor clearly never heard of the Streisand Effect". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 19 February 2014.)

Also the Wikimedia Foundation supports the actions of the wikipedia user. (Paulson, Michelle. "Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia user subject to defamation lawsuit in Greece". Retrieved 14 February 2014.)

I don't think that the reason for removal of the entry with the reason: "trying to censor an article on one language version of Wikipedia led to copies being created on other language Wikipedias" seems a bit self indulgent! Also a lot of articles now have seen this issue. So why it is not a Streisand effect. Few people knew about that, and when legal action went for the removal of this content suddenly there is hype about it! --Hargikas (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It clearly is an example of the Streisand effect, but it's not necessarily a good one. The section is already flagged for having examples which "may be poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate" - if it listed every time that someone ever said "this reminds me of the Streisand Effect" to a journalist, this would quickly dilute the stronger examples about superinjunctions and corporate coverups and make the article unreadable. --McGeddon (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, this example has the following merits (1) it dilutes US-centrism of this page by being foreign case (b) has significant media coverage (c) involves a notable politician (d) involves non-en-wikipedia (not as self-indulgence, but demonstrating an emerging infopower) (e) in does not simply "reminds me Streisand effect": it is as a clean-cut SE as can be. That said, I do agree that addition of new examples must be based on consensus here. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Remove for now. Although this is better than most of the examples that are proposed, I don't like it because the source has people trying to interest journalists and others to amplify the SE. The WP also raises a WP:COI issue. Inclusion is also premature because we don't know the result of the effect: the plaintiff hasn't backed down. Glrx (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for examples

Now and then concerns pop up as to whether include this or that case into the list of examples. Clearly, there are plenty of them, and for illustration purposes we don't need that many. How about the following rule of thumb:

• An example is worth considering for inclusion here if the event was notable enough for inclusion into the "victim's" wikipedia article.

An extra benefit is that in this case we can do with 1-2 sentences per case (plus a wikilink to details), and this article will not be overbloated with text of examples. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't like the notion of entitlement. The example list should be short. It should be a good illustration of the effect. It should have sources that describe it as SE. I also like to see a mismatch: big, bad, powerful entity flexes muscle to silence little, good, meek victim over some trivial detail has the incident blow up in his face. It also helps if there's what-was-he-thinking aspect to the suppression. Glrx (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How does it contradict my suggestion? Please notice my cautious wording: worth considering for inclusion. I.e. there is no entitlement; we still have to decide here, it talk page. My suggestion merely to weed off trivia. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Whether a story is mentioned in a second article depends entirely on the nature and depth of that article (if it even exists!), it's not a matter of being "notable enough". Really we should just be trying to write a good article with a clear prose section about different types of Streisand effect and their impacts, not "You Won't Believe These Ten Streisand Effect Examples!" --McGeddon (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because WP:TRIVIA applies here. There are already more than enough examples and the article does not need to list every occasion where somebody has cried "Streisand effect".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian example

The Hungarian example with Linda Király does not seem to be very notable, and the one of the cites is a blog in Hungarian which does not contain the word "Streisand". This looks like a routine misuse of copyright complaints rather than an example of the Streisand effect. It is similar to what happened when KTVU attempted to remove the Asiana Airlines blunder.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm beginner in editing Wikipedia articles and I forgot to check this talk page before re-adding my new example. Ok, I should look for a reference where "Streisand effect" expression is explicitly used. I read more than one Hungarian articles where this expression was used. By the way, is it required to refer to external articles in the same language as Wikipedia's article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.229.168 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Group Project

I am a member of Hanyang university in Korea, and my classmate and I are going to make this article in Korean better. We will start with this English article first checking the references and make sure Korean version has the correct and necessary information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Db9023 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Mediabridge / Medialink controversy

When I search wikipedia for Mediabridge this article is the top result with the text "In May 2014, the company Mediabridge Products, LLC threatened a lawsuit against an Amazon. com reviewer. representing Mediabridge Products, ...".But the information is missing in the article, is there a way to pull the last article that had this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.44.222 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 May 2014‎

when you are looking at any page, you can click the "history tab" and you will see something like [9]. on the left hand side, the link with the time and date will show what the article looked like at that time.

in the text box at the top is " Revision history search" ,if you click that link you get a search engine http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?lang=en&article=Streisand_effect where you can enter the desired text you are looking for. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This is another example which has dubious sourcing, and the article is not an exhaustive list.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. We don't need to add every instance where a company threatened a customer over online feedback. It becomes redundant and tedious. In some cases, replacing an existing example with a more recent example or one with superior sourcing would be a good idea, but I don't think this is it. Resolute 18:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

UKIP example

Per previous discussion and WP:RECENTISM, it is not helpful to add new examples every time someone shouts "Streisand effect". The article is not intended to be an exhaustive list, and this is not hugely noteworthy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, although some of the examples in the list could be viewed as much less notable, and it is better sourced than an equally good amount of them --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is a particularly good example of the Streisand effect, on the basis that UKIP having loopy policies isn't some unknown thing that has only now come to light because of the censorship attempt. Also, none of the sources mention the effect unless you count the Huffpo quoting a conversation from Twitter where the original tweeter talks about his experience and uses the term himself. – Steel 18:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. If I wanted to replace an older, perhaps less precise example with a new one, I would probably be looking at this incident. Resolute 00:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point, and in the context of UKIP, it is more likely that they would sell the police service to private companies than use it to control the people, so probably not the revelation of a secret police --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Rules for adding examples

Obviously there are thousands of the StEf cases. Obviously they are referenced, by the very virtue of the StEf. Obviously it is meaningless to collect them here. Obviously well-meaning editors will try to add more an more of them. Therefore I suggest to lay ground rules about adding examples.

I looked for appropriate guidelines in wikipedia and found an essay WP:EXAMPLES. I was surprised to see it underdeveloped, while I am sure this issue bugs plenty of articles. Therefore I suggest to have an quick discussion here and move to Wikipedia talk:Example cruft and convert it into a formal guideline.

For starters, in addition to major wikipedia policies, the fundamental rule: the purpose of examples is to enhance the understanding of the topic covered in the article.

Therefore:

• The major focus of an example should be the Wikipedia Article Subject (<WAS>) (per WP:COATRACK)
• The example must receive a significant coverage. Unless trivial, the sources must explicitly say that it is an example of <WAS>.
• Unless other reasons exist, each added example must cover a different aspect of the <WAS>
• Example text must be succinct and to the point of <WAS>
• Long example lists actually hinder the understanding by drowning the essence of the subject in marginally relevant minute detail. Therefore the example list must be periodically trimmed. When giving a preference of one example over another, the following factors must be considered:
  • Impact on knowledge and society. Coverage in a scholarly articles or a book trumps newspapers.
  • Historical importance (per WP:NOTNEWS) Last week headlines are of unknown historical importance.
  • If a case has a direct wikipedia article or a decent section, it is most probably good

Other suggestions? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I would have started expanding Wikipedia:Example cruft right away, but since I am not native English speaker, I decided to have a "test drive" here. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I would ask editors to realise that the list is not meant to be exhaustive. (It would be endless). This is one of those cases were less is more. All we need is a few representative cases to illustrate what SE is. --Dmol (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

while those are mighty fine criteria, we cannot set them up as "Rules that must be followed". We can however craft some information for potential editors that pops up when you go to edit; like they did here. A notice something like:

---

STOP! Before you add another example:

• Has the incident been widely covered in reliably published sources that explicitly describe it as an example of "The Streisand Effect"?
• Does the incident have its own article (or form a major section in another article)?
• Does the example illuminate aspects of "The Streisand Effect" that are not already covered by the existing content?
• Can the incident be presented in a succinct manner?

If you cannot answer "Yes" to all of these questions, please do not insert the example because it probably does not belong here and will likely be quickly removed.

---

I dont think it will help to go into much more detail than that. But I think that kind of covers the major points, right? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This could be added as a HTML note, but my experience is that people ignore them. The existing policies of WP:DUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:TRIVIA explain why most of the recently added examples fail these guidelines. I would also like to see a consensus on which of the current examples in the article could be pruned, as there are too many.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

of the several that centrally involve wikipedia, we probably only need one at most. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Add to the list of characteristics reducing value: Indefinite marketing-speak language such as that something has "gone viral". While it is significant to note, for example, that a video drew 1 million viewers, or that it is the "most viewed page on the French Wikipedia", significance is not strongly supported by statements (also in existing article examples) that: "there was a large spike" or that "the blog became more popular than it was before". Examples should support significant, relevant change. Leptus Froggi (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

John Banks Earwax incident

I think this should be included as an example of the Streisand Effect. On the above lists of points as to whether to add it as an example, the only point on which it fails is no sources have specifically labelled it the streisand effect. But that doesn't mean that it isn't, and I would largely suggest it hasn't been mentioned because the NZ media generally aren't savvy with this sort of thing.

I think it adds an interesting element in the case, because the judge was specifically concerned about how it made John Banks appear as a target for ridicule, but in doing so they greatly increased the coverage that the particular footage received in the media, thus the judge's action invites ridicule on him. This is an interesting case because in others it is the individual themselves that invite the increased coverage, whereas here it was the judge trying to act in the best interest of Banks that instead made things worse for him. This has been an extremely high profile case in general in NZ, and this particular incident received at least 2 days of media coverage, as well as the subsequent effect on TV3 not being able to cover any more of the trial and it's outcome.

Here's the example I had added to the page:

• In May 2014, during John Bank's criminal trial for knowingly transmitting a false electoral return, local television station TV3 filmed John Banks apparently picking earwax from his ear and eating it. The judge in the case summoned TV3 and banned them from filming any more of the trial, the verdict, or playing any previously recorded material. This ruling was widely reported and greatly raised the profile of the 'earwax incident', which the judge had described as intending to invite ridicule and derision of John Banks, thus drawing significant media attention to the event and inviting more ridicule and derision of him.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.165.78 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

no sources have specifically labelled it the streisand effect. Without meeting that criteria, you are completely out of luck. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, as the article has had problems with WP:EXAMPLEFARM for some time. This is not a particularly clear example, as the sourcing does not refer to the Streisand effect.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding beyoncé to this list

I think, since this list contains a bunch of notable examples, and the opening section mentions that this is mostly an internet-related effect, that Beyoncé's photo should be mentioned here too. Usually memes die out pretty quickly after they get older, but this photo is still being referred to any time anybody tries to cover up something. I think, even though this photo had very little effect on the 'outernet', it has a significant enough effect on the internet. I've seen people refer to the Beyoncé picture more often in these kinds of situations than to the Streisand effect. Any opinions?Joeytje50 (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: This incident has been linked to the Streisand effect quite a lot too: [10] [11] etc.Joeytje50 (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

French restaurant review

This is another example which is not notable. It is a routine spat over an online review which is blown up out of proportion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've deleted it again. Maproom (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Right to be forgotten

The EU "right to be forgotten" seems to be creating a whole new category of Streisand Effect incidents. -- Resuna (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Have any sources? Tutelary (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González has its own article. It has been pointed out that this court ruling is a good recipe for creating the Streisand effect.[12] There is now a website listing known cases where removal has occurred.[13] However, given the already bloated list of examples in this article, it is more on topic to leave this to the article about the court ruling.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps add an appropriate reference to it and let the main article (Right to be forgotten) cover examples? -- Resuna (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It should at least be mentioned, even if the details are elsewhere; that is a glaring omission given the level of media coverage. K7L (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

See also link? Resolute 15:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

New York hotel example

This looks like an attempt to establish notability with WP:109PAPERS. Of the citations given, [14][15][16][17] do not mention the Streisand effect by name.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Four of the cited sources (including Techdirt) are listed specifically because they appear on a web search for Streisand Effect and the name of the hotel. The "Page 6" item was the first to break the story, so is notable; this turning up in the Sydney Morning Herald is notable as evidence of international coverage (it also made CNN, TIME magazine and the UK Guardian, which were not mentioned here). 109PAPERS is an essay, not policy, and refers to all media pulling the same story off the same newswire on the same day — which this is not. It also fails to take into account that this article is specifically about reputational management backfiring as more (not less) negative press. If this makes 109 papers, that in itself would be a material fact given the topic. I also see a link to Yelp was removed, despite it's being valid because it is used only to source the establishment's current Yelp rating (1.5) and number of deleted reviews (over 3800 as of yesterday) – material facts as they show that, in attempting to whitewash their online rating, the hotel trashed themselves instead... the whole point of this "Streisand effect". The sources are valid. I could add many more but the point has been made. K7L (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned about weasel wording on that one. "earned the ire of" (why do we care that someone made the New York Post mad?), "scathingly negative", etc. In general, I would opine that the growing trend of dropping language into TOS and EULAs that purport to allow the company to fine people who leave negative reviews does belong here, especially since the end result is virtually always a Streisand Effect. Personally, however, I think the Kleargear example would be a better one than the hotel. Resolute 14:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

They both should be listed. Perhaps this was missed as the list hadn't been updated for anything more recent than 2012? K7L (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Re this edit: every example given in this section could be accompanied by a sentence saying "The attempt to suppress x backfired because the story was covered by CNN, BBC, Guardian... (fill in with WP:109PAPERS until the desired effect is achieved). This adds nothing to a reader's understanding.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We can't list everything. Not only would it be impractical, it would violate a couple editing policies. So when met with more than one example of the same thing - such as attempting to suppress speech via TOS - We should either be using only one example, or preferably using a story that discusses the concept in general if it exists. Resolute 17:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. I don't like the hotel example, but it has some good points. Fundamentally, I think it is a small story and does not have that much interest. Owner, frustrated by possibly unwarranted reviews, does something stupid to get only positive reviews. It doesn't have the same human interest as a school trying to silence a young student. Hotel owners do not have a lot of muscle to quash the opposition. Glrx (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"The Interview" vs. North Korea should be included here.

I can't think of a more dramatic example of the Streisand Effect. It should be included here.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=active&tbm=nws&q=%22the+interview%22&spell=1

Not unless reliable sources make the connection. Also, the effect refers primarily to online disputes, not disputes in other areas.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nor is the list meant to be exhaustive and ever-growing. Let's keep it to a few good examples, where the SE is mentioned in reliable wide-spread sources. --Dmol (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I would argue it isn't even a Streisand Effect, per se, since it is a third party actor causing all of this rather than an individual or company's efforts to suppress information related to itself that is causing the wider release. Resolute 21:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, it is the verifiable material published in reliable sources that will answer this question, not our opinions and analysis. So the actors pushing the GOP meme may be third-party, or they may not be; currently some sources are arguing the latter, and others are saying the case is not airtight. But our view matters little. What do sources say? As of half a day ago, I found no connection in reliable source media between "Streisand effect" and "The Interview". Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Restarting this discussion

Based on several recent edits, and at least two reverts, on this article, and based on new source information since it was discussed on 20 Dec 2014, I'm reopening this discussion. I believe the following to be true, and I believe that each of the following edits was made in good faith:

• I note that IP editor 24.15.31.244 added info on the movie The Interview to the examples section, along with a couple of (less-than-complete) citations. (I have not checked those sources.)
• User:Dmol reverted, saying "revert good faith edit. This has nothing to do with the S/E"
• IP editor added such info again
• User:McGeddon reverted, saying "Reverted 2 edits by 24.15.31.244 (talk): Per talk. (TW)"

The only trouble is that, I believe, that the Talk (last updated, by me, and with the idea that we need to wait for reliably sourced information, on 20 Dec) is now, as of 23 Dec, out of date.

There is (now) a sourced claim about the Streisand effect and this movie now in the article on The Interview (2014 film). Thus, I believe that the previous Talk page apparent consensus is no longer applicable, and the IP editor, or others, could actually probably succeed in adding that movie as as example in this article, though possibly needing to ensure any source used has a specific clear identification to the Streisand effect.

I've not read all those sources just now. But I think the dialogue ought to restart. And that possibly the IP editor—who may possibly be a new editor—was reverted incorrectly in light of this new information.

I will place an invite on each parties Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the reversions were still correct. BRD and all that. But still two problems remain. First, this does not need to be an exhaustive list, so even if this were an example, what makes it necessary to add this example? And if added, should we consider removing a different example to maintain page balance? But more importantly, the only cite in the article on the movie indicates one person's opinion that the result of the hacks might lead to a SE. That is hardly concrete enough for me to support adding this right now. Resolute 23:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

1) I have invited the three parties involved in the recent good faith edits and reverts: Dmol, McGeddon, and the IP editor.

2) @Resolute: Your point is taken, and that may be a consensus we ultimately arrive at. However, what is clear to this point is that 1) the IP editor was attempting to make constructive edits, and 2) the two rationales provided to that editor, which appeared correct at the time, may not be. In other words, as to the first revert, it does have something to do with the S/E. As to the second revert, the Talk page consensus of 20 Dec is clearly, now, out of date. So let's let this discussion proceed, and not jump to any rapid conclusions. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:IINFO we dont need trivia cluttering up the article either. The content was disputed, there is valid rationale presented above for its removal, the matter now rests on making a case and generating a consensus that inclusion is appropriate (and if so, if other content can be pruned) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The incident is most certainly *not* trivia; it is a notable event with international and diplomatic implications. My only questions before adding it to this list are:

• Did North Korea (DPRK) actually carry out this attack? There are plenty of people who know about computers and have every reason to despise Sony for years of very questionable conduct, from root kit software on music CDs to DRM schemes which undermine the consumer's rights under the doctrine of first sale. Many far from the DPRK not only will be quick to tell you Sony deserved every bit of this, but have the technical ability to do this. The link to "The Interview" (film) was only made by media *after* the leaked data hit the fan.
• If there is a connection, did the DPRK intend to silence discussion about Sony or "The Interview"? That's the usual motivation when a dishonest company uses strategic lawsuits against public participation to mischaracterise valid consumer complaints, environmental concerns or descriptions of misdeeds they did carry out as "libel" or "defamatory". DPRK might have the opposite motivation - they might want to draw attention to the fact that a California film studio is making some very stupid jokes about assassinating DPRK's Dear Leader, or prove to the world that they can strike targets in the contiguous US48. Certainly, any of the claims that this is "terrorism" would fit that hypothesis - terrorists (whether they be Mr. Bush with "shock and awe" or whether they be the Democratic Peoples Republic) want publicity. The Streisand effect is about unwanted publicity of something the perpetrator is attempting to keep out of the spotlight.

Unfortunately, we do have to allow for the possibility that the US is lying to us. Maybe some kid brought down Sony from their parents' basement, for all we know. It's a deserving target. Conversely, the DPRK is just as capable of lying through their teeth as the Americans, or worse. Who to believe? We've already been fooled once with Mr. Bush and Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction"; if we rush to conclusions, we might just get fooled again. K7L (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

One other key distinction: are we talking about DPRK's attempt to bully Sony into not releasing the picture, or are we talking about Sony's attempt to bully the New York Times and other mainstream media into not covering the information revealed by the leaks? Those are two very different animals, and the source cited in The Interview (2014 film) is applying the "Streisand effect" moniker to the latter. K7L (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. So I just did a quick Google search and here is a news article using S/E and The Interview together focusing on the angle of the S/E being that now more people will want to watch the movie. Here's that link: The Streisand Effect and Why We All Now Want to See 'The Interview', 22 December 2014. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. I've added citations to both sources. K7L (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. The example is too muddy for me. Sony expected a public release of the movie; this is not a case of something that would not normally see the light of day suddenly getting more attention than it would have normally. Yes, the movie opened, but it opened much smaller than it would have because there were so few screens. The major theater chains didn't let it open wide, so the suppression attempt was at least partially successful. It opened in different and unusual venues, but that doesn't seem to be prime SE material. Yes, some people are going to see the movie that would not have, but there's also heightened security at the public shows. The example is a mess. Is every case of extortion an example of the Streisand effect? It's also not clear that the perpetrator was trying to quiet about the tactics. Instead of a small tactic blowing up in the perpetrator's face, the plan seems to have been go big from the start. Sony is a big corporation; this episode is not the bludgeoning of a meek little girl. It's a confused situation, and it does not need to be in our list of examples now. Maybe down the road there will be an RS that shows the movie was more successful due to the incident, but we don't know that now. Yes, the incident is currently newsworthy, but that does not mean it is a good example of the SE. Glrx (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• oppose per Glrx above and also we have only one source and that is at the shoddy end of reliability. any entries should be supported with multiple and/or very high quality sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Still oppose inclusion The North Korean government was within its rights to complain about the film, but the claim that it was responsible for the Sony hack remains disputed by computer security experts.[18] This is a big brouhaha but it isn't a classic example of the Streisand effect. The film would have generated a good deal of controversy and media coverage even without the hacking incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The DPRK complaining about the film *is* drawing more attention to it, and drawing audiences to what would otherwise be a B-grade joke of a film. The more they complain, the more some danged fool wants to watch this silly movie. You've also provided no basis for your claim that "the effect refers primarily to online disputes". K7L (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In the original version of the Streisand effect, nobody would have heard of the photos of her house if she had not made a fuss about them. Not every fuss or brouhaha in the media is an example of the Streisand effect.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

For that matter, the only people who would've heard of the Sony film would've heard about it because Sony Pictures paid to advertise it. It's not a particularly notable bit of cinematic history... or at least it wasn't before the US tried to pin the cyberattacks on the DPRK, which did get this reported widely as hard news. K7L (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as a bad example: the film does not appear to have been seen by more people than would have watched it otherwise, as a result of the attempted censorship. --McGeddon (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The measure is that it drew more publicity, not less. That measure has clearly been met. Also, could you please stop templating users with frivolous threats of blocks or bans, as you did here, and please stop removing valid content while the matter is still under discussion on this talk page? I am attempting to proceed in good faith, but falsely accusing others of WP:3RR violations while you yourself are edit warring is not bringing this discussion any closer to an amicable resolution. K7L (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's only a Streisand effect if an attempt to reduce something through censorship ends up increasing that thing instead. A group tried to prevent the film being screened (with some success) and awareness of the film increased (which wasn't necessarily the goal of the censoring group).

From your archiveless talk page I assumed you were a new user who was unaware of 3RR - you reverted this content three times on the 28th. --McGeddon (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

DPRK's concern isn't just that it's screened here... their nightmare is that some folks in the ROK who really don't like the Kim régime will attach DVD or MP4 copies of this propaganda film to hydrogen balloons and send them north. By forcing the on-line release to occur earlier (simultaneous with the theatrical release), this is all over bittorrent and anyone who wants a copy for clandestine distribution has one, even in countries where the official, copyright version has not been released by Sony. That will get those balloons headed north sooner, not later. Not what Dear Leader wanted? K7L (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

[19],

[20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] and [28], to name a few. I could list all WP:109PAPERS if you like, but the possibility of this being sent north has been widely covered and widely commented upon. Good luck trying to put the genie back into the bottle. K7L (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Kirby Delauter

I added the following to "selected examples"

• In January 2015, Councilman Kirby Delauter of Fredrick County, Maryland wrote a Facebook post threatening to sue a reporter for "an unauthorized use of his name" in a local news article. A screenshot of the post went viral, as did a mocking article in the Fredrick News Post entitled "Kirby Delauter, Kirby Delauter, Kirby Delauter." Delauter's name was trending on Twitter, and eventually he apologized.

One editor reverted on the grounds that it wasn't notable; I pointed out that it had made international media. The same editor then reverted it on the grounds that no source linked the incident to the Streisand effect. I found three sources (from the Washington Post, Huffington Post, and a Florida local news station) specifically mentioning the Streisand effect and amended it:

• In January 2015, Councilman Kirby Delauter of Fredrick County, Maryland wrote a Facebook post threatening to sue a reporter for "an unauthorized use of his name" in a local news article. A screenshot of the post went viral, as did a mocking article in the Fredrick News Post entitled "Kirby Delauter, Kirby Delauter, Kirby Delauter." Delauter's name was trending on Twitter, and eventually he apologized. Multiple news outlets identified this as an instance of the Streisand effect.

But another editor reverted me again without giving a reason, and told me to take it to the Talk page. (At the time of the reversion, I had only added the Washington Post source.) If nobody can come up with more convincing reasons why it should be omitted, I will eventually reinsert it.

Manybytes (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

References

• Oppose inclusion. It is not a good example of SE. Idiot councilman tries to step on bigger, smarter, newspaper. The example is not of big guy (Streisand/school district) stepping on lowly good guy (photographer/little girl). The threat was completely empty because it was stupid and unreal. No competent attorney would file such a suit because he would be sanctioned for a frivolous filing and might get anti-SLAPPed. Newspaper published the item for its amusement value. Newspaper clearly doesn't like idiot councilman and has previously taken pot shots at him; newspaper may be clean but the fact pattern is not exactly councilman going after harmless innocent. Yes, the story blew up in the Councilman's face, but it is just not that interesting as an example of SE. The victim was never in any real danger. Glrx (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article say anything about the "big guy"/"little guy" distinction or anything about either party's innocence being relevant to the definition. Do you have a reliable source indicating that it is part of the definition? If so, you should add that. Manybytes (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion This is another case where WP:109PAPERS does not automatically make a good example.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• oppose inclusion nothing illuminating about this example that is not already covered. serves nothing more than an attempt to embarrass a non notable living person. if this is still being brought up regularly a year from now and enters a "canon of textbook SE events", then i am open for reconsideration.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

How would you define "brought up regularly?" Manybytes (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If a year or 5 years from now, you google news "Streisand effect" and you see this event referenced more than once in the past week. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with others. This is just small potatoes. While it is a SE, it is a minor one that will be forgotten in a week and which does not serve as a better example than what is already in the article. Resolute 14:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hit records

I'd never heard of this effect until someone on a forum mentioned it in relation to the recent Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. I think the article would benefit from a section on the success of hit records subsequent to being banned and how even hope of a ban (in the case of 'god save the Queen) has influenced the product. http://www.songpeople.com/songpeople-playlists/top-10-songs-that-were-banned-from-the-airwaves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_banned_by_the_BBC Adagio67 (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Charlie Hebdo was widely known before the event. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Anything that gets banned attracts publicity. The article is not an exhaustive list of cases where this has happened, and the normal ban/publicity cycle is not an example of the Streisand effect.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd made my point clearly but perhaps not. The main article is about prohibition of something making it more interesting/popular/giving it unintended publicity. (my reference to Charlie Hebdo was only tangential. It was in a discussion about the incident, and how the the terrorists action had galvanised support for free speech, someone mentioned the Streisand effect, which brought me here). I would suggest that banned hit records are at least worth a mention as a general example of the phenomena, but the 'selected examples' section is already 70% of the article. Also, whilst I had believed the link between a ban and subsequent popularity to be a recognised phenomena in pop music field, i've not been able to find much information on it; probably as it is something that is very difficult to quantify. Adagio67 (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That reliably published sources have not made the assertion that banned records becoming hits exemplify SE would be the first problem - we only include what others have analyzed and commented on WP:V / WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the WP:OR problem, banned films, records etc do not really fall into the category of the Streisand effect. The effect relates to obscure things that most people would never have cared about if there had not been attempts to suppress them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn

With the recent effects of the Zoe Quinn crisis over Twitter, Tumblr, etc. it would probably be very advisable to put it under the Streisand effect examples. It blew very much out of proportion extremely quickly and has many resources ready to be used in future reference and thus proves to be a wonderful example of the Streisand effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagacity159 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Inasmuch as the GamerGate imbroglio kicked off with the Streisand effect, it seems rather silly not to reference it. kencf0618 (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. The example is too confused. The opening by boyfriend wanted widespread publicity. The choice about not publishing that opening originates in several places and may be editorial discretion (an ex-rant; salacious; credible denial that Quinn's alleged lover avoided any conflict of interest) rather than an industry conspiracy to suppress sex-for-reviews; what force was used to suppress publication? The takedown notice is directed at a video as a copyright (perhaps also privacy?) violation; how is a an attempt to suppress a video also an attempt to suppress the entire debate? SE is not a method of circumventing copyright laws. One can discuss a scandal about bad reviews without showing a video. This example does not seem to be an innocent act (publishing coastline pictures or reviewing school meals) that met an unwarranted sledghammer suppression attempt. The example is not clear, and it is not all that interesting. Glrx (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• oppose no indication of any lasting importance or significance or aspects that aren't covered by other examples. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Quite possibly one of the biggest examples of the Streisand Effect in over a decade naturally belongs in this article. It's doubtful the whole consumer revolt would even exist at all if not for attempts early on to suppress discussion of the scandal.EthicsInJournalism (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Streisand Effect defined by usage? Should wp include Charlie Hebdo?

created by a sock in violation of a block or ban -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the "Streisand Effect" a language term organically defined by usage? If so, should wp report the usage of those commentators who have extended the usage of SE to refer to Charlie Hebdo? GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Initial comments by GreenPeasAndPotatoes (aka TGPoH) Request: this RfC using a single-purpose account is my attempt to dig myself out of looking like a troll, which I hope I am not. As an experienced and usually well-regarded WPian, I ask that anyone tempted to delete it first stops to actually read it. Sorry the material is lengthy, but by now it is a complicated problem. Following the first fatal attack on Charlie Hebdo, the next issue sold 100 times more copies than it had sold before, all with a cartoon of Muhammad on the front cover. Various commentators have referred to this as an example of the Streisand Effect, which afaik is the most (the only?) succinct way of referring to the phenomenon wherein attempts to suppress publication result in far greater dissemination of that publication. Although the term "Streisand Effect" is notable, it has never been authoritatively defined: it was first coined by a blogger on his own website; since then, various newspapers and bloggers have expanded their use of the "SE" term to apply to the attempted suppression of letters, photos, wp articles, shirts, whole websites, and now cartoons; they have also expanded their use of the term "SE" to apply to attempted suppressions by lawyers, individuals, security agents, govts, and now gunmen. Afaik there are no scholarly definitions of SE; instead it is defined by its usage by newspapers and bloggers. For this reason all 43 references for wp's SE article might be challenged as being inadequate sources. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effet_Streisand includes the Hebdo example, but attempts to add Hebdo to en.wp's SE were rejected based on some editors' assumptions that various(!) non-authoritative(!) definitions of SE are set in stone and must be forever heeded. My own rejected submission (plus three almost minor changes) was: On 7 January 2015, two Islamist gunmen attacked the Paris headquarters of the magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people. This was the first deadly attack in the aftermath of the magazine publishing cartoons of Muhammad. The following week's edition of Charlie Hebdo sold 7 million copies, 100 times more than had previously been sold; the front cover was a cartoon of Muhammad. Commentators referred to this as being an example of the Streisand Effect. As a moderately experienced WPian, I am reasonably sure that wp's Streisand Effect usefully documents a notable but informally defined organically growing term of language, and should be allowed to continue to do so. I am completely open to being persuaded otherwise, but so far there has been no explanation of the rejection except for "Not an example of the effect" along with assertions that I am a troll. This is despite that before adding my submission I had written a multi-par essay at Talk:Streisand_effect#Charlie_Hebdo as user:TheGreenPenOfHope, and I then added my submission with an edit summary that included "- see Talk#Charlie Hebdo". Sorry my Talk 'essay' was multi-par, but several mistakes had already been made. The reason I have asked for help via RfC and at the Village Pump is because this edit war has been clouded by several factors that rule out the usual channels of appeal: The Streisand Effect had been protected because of another dispute, which I hadn't noticed when I started. I sought anonymity, for the reasons below. Seeking to avoid wp:IPHUMAN problems I created a single-purpose account, but was subsequently falsely accused of sock-puppetry and seeking evasion of scrutiny, and permanently blocked. For ill-judged reasons, I chose an account name (user:TheGreenPenOfHope) that immediately branded me as a troll. Sorry, that name seemed like a good idea at the time. In response to administrator TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom questioning my name, I explained on User talk:TheGreenPenOfHope that I think the existing Hebdo reversions are examples of the sort of heavy-handed editing that I suspect is a major cause of wp's declining numbers of editors. (Btw, I well understand wp:BRD.) I also said that I think "TheRedPenOfDoom" is an oppressive name. (btw, I have never before noticed TPRoD editing the same article as me, and it is a memorable signature.) I briefly alluded to these comments at Talk:Streisand_effect#Charlie_Hebdo, but without enough explanation to avoid looking like a troll. (D'oh!) Plus in conversation with TRPoD I made the tiniest most apologetic Godwin leap and Bang! - as per Godwin's Law, no need to think anymore. "walks like a troll, talks like a troll = is a troll" is probably a necessary reaction from harried and declining numbers of wp editors, although I think there was inadequate care when reviewing my block. Disclosures: I do think it is terribly important to have a terminology that lets us succinctly illustrate how the violent attempted suppression of information can result in its far greater dissemination. But as a publisher myself, I have a vested interested in being able to publish more safely. For personal reasons I don't wish to identify myself re Hebdo, and my main wp account is not completely anonymous, hence my creation of a single-purpose wp account. I have only ever created two single-purpose accounts: TheGreenPenOfHope, and now this GreenPeasAndPotatoes (because TheGreenPenOfHope is permanently blocked, largely because of its similarity to TheRedPenOfDoom). I have never sought to evade scrutiny, nor use one account to anonymously support another account. So, sorry to have taken so much of people's time. I meant well, motivated by wp's welfare and the welfare of all peoples, and I don't mean to be a troll. I wouldn't bother persisting except that this particular topic is far from wp:lame. I am only still persisting because no-one has yet censured me without showing clear indications that they have not actually understood significant issues (which is not surprising, because by now those issues are almost drowned in a sea of words). If it is any consolation, it takes longer to write than to read, and sorting out this mess is a painful punishment. Suggested way forward: I hope this present account 'GreenPeasAndPotatoes' is not blocked - I think it would indicate a vindictively inadequate understanding if that is done. In a couple of days I will re-submit my contribution with the hope that, in the spirit of wp:HUMAN, it is either accepted, or rejected with Discussion as per wp:BRD. GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC) The appropriate place for such a discussion was on the talkpage of User:TheGreenPenOfHope, requesting a username change and acknowledging past sins. Instead a new account was created and the effort to justify TGPOH's name and comments about other editors continued at the old account. Since that amounts to a good hand/bad hand situation, only partly acknowledged, both accounts are blocked. Acroterion (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Threaded discussion [IanMacM posted his comment below before I had posted my initial comments above - sorry that a glitch stopped me from posting them together. So it is my fault that Ian posted his comment without having had a chance to read what I wrote above in this section. Ian, hope I have done the right thing in moving your comment to below mine - I thought the alternative would be too confusing. GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)] Previous consensus is against including Charlie Hebdo, because it was a well known national publication long before the 2015 attacks. To define any incident resulting in publicity as an example of the effect would distort its meaning.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC) To determine the use of a term, secondary sources should be used that document its use. Finding examples and reporting them is original research. TFD (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC) @TFD, then we should delete the entire article, in en.wp and other wikipedias (which I think would be nuts), because afaik there are no secondary sources amongst the 43 existing references. I can only assume that atypical source standards are required for this sort of article. GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC) @IanMacM, to paraphrase a soldier's "Ours not to reason why, only but to do and die", perhaps a WPian's motto is "Ours not to define, only to record". Plus the Hebdo incident isn't just any example of publicity - it had particular features, which is presumably why the referenced sources commenting on Hebdo referred to the Streisand Effect. Salient points of the Hebdo incident include: It is widely presumed that the gunmen attacked Hebdo because they so objected to the cartoons. Commentators have described this as a form of attempted censorship. (This may be presuming too much by strict wp standards, given that the gunmen are now dead and I don't know if they recorded their philosophy, but that widespread assumption is definitely part of the zeitgeist we are reporting on.) 100 fold increase in distribution re the magazine alone, plus via internet around the world. Which is spectacularly the opposite of any censorship that had been hoped for. The SE has only ever been non-authoritatively defined by usage, and wp has already recorded that expanded usage both in the Selected Examples section and the lead section. The current lead section describes SE as "an attempt to ... censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely". Far more people have now seen those cartoons than would have otherwise occurred except for the killings. And WPians could argue the semantics of sin, blasphemy, penalties / revenge / retribution, but many people regard killing someone because you object to what they publish is one of the harshest forms of censorship there is. GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC) References