Talk:Streisand effect/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Charlie Hebdo

Charlie Hebdo printed a cartoon that Muslin extremists wanted UN-published. The killing of innocent people over a cartoon gave more publicity to the cartoon than ever before. The opposite of what the extremist wanted. I submit this for a listing in "Streisand effect".--Mark v1.0 (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No. The magazine was widely known and widely viewed for many decades before the attack. The SE is about something that nobody would have known about until the action was made to try to hide it made it widely public.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The header of "Streisand effect" does not specify how widely published the item is. The meaning of the SE is that the effort to suppress makes the information more widely known.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There is the question of whether the attackers actually wanted publicity. In general, terrorists (the Al Qaeda kind, not the lawyerly kind) do want publicity and this certainly got publicity... so the publicity isn't an unintended consequence per se. K7L (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There needs to be a clearer understanding of what the Streisand effect is. Charlie Hebdo was already well known in France before the attacks, and there is a common misconception that anything which leads to publicity is an example of the effect. The original example of the effect involved photographs that no-one would have cared about if Barbra Streisand had not taken legal action over them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The other issue is that while the shootings dramatically raised the international profile of Charlie Hebdo itself, the world's media has largely not changed its position on the display of depictions of Muhammad, either in general or in the specific case of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons. So it is impossible to say that there was a Streisand Effect at work here. And, in fact, I am not aware of RSes that do say it was such. Resolute 15:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

RE: K7L the terrorist wanted publicity. Wrong, just plain wrong. The terrorist wanted the cartoon that insulted his religion suppressed.

For proof of the opposite of suppression occurred , with the effort to suppress ( the intent of the killing) "Five million copies of the edition were printed, compared with the usual 60,000. " http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/charlie-hebdo-montrealers-line-up-for-post-attack-edition-1.2912489 --Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Terrorists wanted terrorism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I support Mark's original proposal that the Charlie Hebdo shooting should be added to the article, for the following simple reason. The Streisand Effect is an evidently notable, but it is a language term defined by growing and changing usage, rather than defined and set in stone by scholarly articles. Indeed, I haven't been able to find any scholarly articles that defines it, as distinct from uses it, just as newspapers and bloggers use it.

When examining published examples of usage of the SE, we see it's original usage was re something no-one would have bothered with except for the SE, expanded to takedown notices of content that was already getting some viewing, through to security agencies attempting to suppress individual pages on wp, thru to govts trying to suppress entire websites, and now to gunmen trying to suppress cartoons. The actors started with lawyers, then expanded to security agencies, govts, and now gunmen. The relevant targeted media started with individual photos, but has expanded info about a person, whole websites, shirts, and now cartoons.

The original creation of the term "the SE" was by a blogger on his own website, and the most authoritative sources for wp's SE article are newspapers. So if the sources that use the SE when covering the Charlie Hebdo shooting are not considered adequate, then none of the sources for the entire wp SE article are adequate, so by that argument the entire wp SE article should be removed, which I think is clearly nonsensical.

Re the various objections to Mark's original proposal:

• TRPoD(a.k.a. TheRedPenOfDoom) said that "The SE is about something that nobody would have known about until the action was made to try to hide it made it widely public". Yet there are many other already-quoted examples of SE usage in wp's SE article that contradict this.
• K7L suggested that 1) the attackers wanted publicity, and 2) hence SE doesn't apply. Both 1) & 2) are OR, and are irrelevant to the fact that there is published usage of SE re Charlie Hebdo.
• IanMacM offers OR of what the SE is; I suggest the fact that he describes this "misconception" as "common" supports the expanded understanding of what the SE is.
• Resolute suggests that whether or not opinions and actions have been changed is relevant, which I think is off-topic OR. imho, that the exposure of the cartoons has increased by several orders of magnitude explains why commentators on Hebdo have applied SE to it. Bottom line is that published commentators on Hebdo have applied SE to it.
• TRPoD dismissed Mark's (imho) quite reasonable reply with the stunningly terse "Terrorists wanted terrorism." I think this is simplistic to the point of absurdity and pointlessness. It also smacks of OR, given that afaik the gunmen's only public expressions were that they had 'avenged the prophet'. And I know that this is only a talk page, but I think WPians should stick to NPOV 'gunmen' or 'killers', given that one person's terrorist is another peron's freedom fighter / avenger / executioner / etc. afaik, there is ample evidence that many fundamental islamists expressed that the cartoons' publishers were blasphemous and thus deserving of death. However, afaik there is little or no evidence that the gunmen sought to publicise / promote (fundamentalist) Islam, and I don't think WPians should propose arguments based on their unproven assumptions of what the gunmen sought.

Re sources for published usage of SE re Hebdo, there are about 5 in fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effet_Streisand - the sources in fr.wp are about par with other sources in the en.wp article. fwiw, I think French editors deserve a bit of cred when judging whether SE applies to Hebdo. I also noticed a Huffington Post article re SE and Hebdo, and HP meets en.wp sources policy for this sort of thing.

btw, I created a special wp account to get this reverted, because I wanted tight anonymity. (And no, I am not Mark - never heard of him before.) I suspect a reason we have had Mark's contribution reverted for so long is because folk are reluctant to say anything about hebdo. Or perhaps the blood-red colours of TheRedPenOfDoom cause other WPians to abandon all hope of calm and reasoned discussion. Or perhaps WP contributors can no longer be bothered to fight those who slash and burn. RedPen, could you please demonstrate magnanimity and revert Mark's version back in. Or could someone else with more than 10 edits put Mark's version back in, and/or copy a translation from fr.wp along with its citations?

TheGreenPenOfHope 06:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

After thought: The French version is probably has too much detail, and I haven't actually looked at what Mark wrote. But hope we can put in something and then buff it up like WPians. TheGreenPenOfHope 07:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Coatrack problem

Our article should contain enough examples of the phenomenon to make it clear, but at the moment it seems to be turning into a bit of a coat rack. Are all of these examples needed, and particularly do we need a list of them which will inevitably grow to include many instantly forgettable examples? Wouldn't it be better to use a few choice examples in the discussion of the phenomenon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)

No, if the incidents are topical now and forgotten tomorrow, there is no harm in adding them today and removing them sometime after they have been forgotten. We really don't need someone claiming WP:OWNership of the page and systematically reverting every good-faith contribution just as a clandestine way to edit-protect the page. This has happened on too many other topics (usually removing jokes from articles in category:joke cycles) and it's not a useful contribution to Wikipedia. K7L (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between exercising editorial judgement and blindly deleting everything. What I'm suggesting is that material not contributing to the reader's understanding should be removed. Just because some journalist may have invoked the term "Streisand Effect" in writing about a story, doesn't mean it helps us to understand the phenomenon. At its worst, an otherwise forgettable story with BLP implications can cause harm for years by inappropriate memorialisation.

As to any problems of "ownership" that may arise anywhere on Wikipedia, those can be dealt with through normal dispute resolution. --TS 19:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The removal of examples has gone far enough (or too far) already. If you want to remove content, get consensus for the specific removals first, same as any other edit to a controversial page. K7L (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of the issue may also be that as the phrase is moving into wider use, it is simply being used as a more flowery replacement for "unintended consequences" that involve media coverage rather than the more specific parameters of its original coinage and usage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it'd improve the article and cut down on the coatracking to rewrite the example section as prose - a few paragraphs that group and explore the different contexts of the Streisand effect ("celebrities", "government", "corporate" and "members of public"?) using two or three strong examples to illustrate each. The current mostly-chronological bulleted list is ideal for breaking news coatracking, but doesn't seem particularly readable. --McGeddon (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. List format merely encourages "Lookey! Lookey, I seen it here!!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it is an interesting suggestion, but based on my previous quick survey of sources I suspect that if we did this it could be more wp:OR than continuing to do what has already been done so far, i.e. simply recording usage of the term 'SE' by bloggers and newspapers. On my very long to-do list is to either find or develop wp policy that allows the sort of recording of internet phenomena that the existing SE article already does, i.e. usage phenomena with little or no academic / tertiary sources.

Compromise methods of limiting coat rack expansion could be:

• Limit new examples in the coat rack to new types of SE, i.e. examples with new types of media (e.g. photos, individual articles, whole websites, shirts, cartoons), new types of actors (e.g. websites, magazines), and new types of censors (e.g. lawyers, security agencies, gunmen), so that the coat rack records examples of different types of usage. And/or
• Limit new examples to examples where more than, say, a million extra people saw the info because of SE. And/or
• Limit new examples to examples where more there was more than a 100-fold increase in extra people who saw the info because of SE.
• Limit new examples to examples where the SE has already occurred, and the addition would have little addition effect.

(Disclaimer, the Hebdo example that I seek in my rfc meets all 4 of the above criteria.) I can see the need for limiting additions to the coat rack, because otherwise there is a temptation to achieve SE for an example by adding it to the SE article, but it concerns me that most of these limiting methods involve imposing rather arbitrary, dogmatic, and censorious editing, which makes this particular wpian feel uncomfortable. Difficult issue.

@TRPoD, having never had anything to do with blocking before, I am unsure of protocol. Now that I am unblocked, should I un-collapse my rfc, or leave it to you to do this? I am in no hurry to re-open the rfc, because we might be able to resolve the relevant issues simply by continuing this thread.

GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

we are not creating a "list". it is an encyclopedia article. a prose version with strict application of WP:OR will actually ensure that the examples are clear and discussed by third parties and not merely "lookey what i found!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

1. As above, I have yet to closely investigate wp policy on OR re internet phenomena, but I don't understand how what I proposed re hebdo is more OR than existing material in the list. Could you please revisit the hebdo item I proposed and discuss its rejection, particularly explaining why its recording of the expansion of SE usage was disallowed while other recordings of the expansion of SE usage were allowed.
2. Have you found any authoritative sources defining SE for the encyclopedic summary you propose, or do you propose to create your own inferences from the usage sources?

GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and split the "Selected examples" into three simple sections ("In politics", "By businesses" and "By individuals"), which I can't see involves any WP:OR. Next step might be to restructure the paragraphs in order of significance, rather than chronologically (which seems meaningless, as the Streisand effect isn't something that's changed over time). --McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have some problems with the labels. The article labels Scientology as a "business" in WP's voice. I don't like putting a school under the label "politics". Glrx (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried to avoid the need for categories with one example left over, and yes, that wasn't ideal. Maybe an additional "By other organizations" section for Scientology, the school and the Internet Watch Foundation? --McGeddon (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be better. I still have reservations, but I don't have anything significantly better. Glrx (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Streisand effect

The category was deleted following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_12#Category:Streisand_effect, even through there were 7 keep votes and 6 (inc. nominators') delete votes. Ping User:Cirt: should we ask for WP:REFUND or such? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Gov. Pence and Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act - any sources?

Has anyone seen any sources (I guess a newspaper columnist somewhere) mention this about Indiana's (infamous?) 2015 Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by Gov. Pence? Jimw338 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A Sreisand Effect is not "someone did something extremely controversial", so no, there will be no reliable sources that would make the RFRA qualify as an example for this article. Resolute 21:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

#SueMeSaudi and #SaudiArabiaIsISIS

These two hashtags typify the Streisand Effect. It would make a great addition to the wiki. "The hashtag #SueMeSaudi is soaring after a source at the Saudi Arabian justice ministry reportedly said he would sue a Twitter user who compared Saudi Arabia to the terror group 'Islamic State.'" http://www.dw.com/en/suemesaudi-twitter-users-taunt-saudi-arabia/a-18884389 Tim Riches, Mississauga, Ontario (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No, they aren't an example of a Streisand Effect. That is just garden variety censorship. Resolute 21:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

By Individuals

I think the By Individuals section, would perhaps be better transformed into a England and Wales super-injunction section, focussing more on their use, than on specific Giggs event. Though perhaps this is not possible if direct "this is Streisand effect" refs are needed. Specifically as the injunctions prevent media discussion, which drastically limits the options for sources, if BLP sourcing guidelines are to be followed.Lacunae (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

By Businesses - not newspaper?

I added in a section on the recent Techdirt, Above the law and ABAjournal commentary on a subpeona issued by an American law firm against its anonymous former employees. The firm "supercharged" the negative reviews by making negative comments about the negative commentors. I think this is a reasonably notable addition, and I think that removing edits because they are "merely" additive borders on censorship itself. This does not seem to be an example of WP:Notnewspaper to me. I would appreciate comments from the group. (My writing can be tightened up a bit - it always can!) Thank you in advance for your comments. Saltwolf (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I added in a sentence and citation to a legal commentator's statement that this lawsuit may create a "Layfield and Barrett" effect regarding the specific chilling of speech on job review posting boards. I think this is a very notable development and would like to see it stick on the page. Thanks much. Saltwolf (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Elton John and David Furnish

Re this edit: the revert has nothing to do with legal reasons. Neither the National Post nor the Sunday Mail says "this is an example of the Streisand effect" so this is an example of WP:OR, which says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Past consensus on this article is not to introduce new examples unless the source uses the phrase "Streisand effect" by name. As for the identities of the people in the saga of PJS v News Group Newspapers, so far only the National Enquirer has printed the full story and given the names of the people (allegedly) involved in promoting the use of olive oil. All of the other sources are quoting what the NE said. As for the specific link given in the citation with the URL http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/why-the-english-media-could-go-to-jail-for-reporting-on-the-olive-oil-trysts-of-elton-johns-husband , it looks like this has gone for a walk from the National Post website due to some assiduous behaviour somewhere along the line. This isn't as easy to cite as it first looks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete all reference to the "unnamed couple" and their incident. The edit in question just seemed to be about identifying EJ and DF, but as the cited article says, "As British sources have noted, the consensual proclivities of David Furnish are generally of little interest to the mainstream British public." The context is about British superinjunctions (see previous paragraph and first sentence of subject paragraph "A similar situation involving super-injunctions in England and Wales have occurred, involving Jeremy Clarkson"), but the article points out it is not a superinjunction but just an injunction. I don't see this incident as a good example of the SE. EJ & DF were just pursuing their privacy under British law; they were not trying to stomp on some lowly coastal photographer or innocent 8th grader. Glrx (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

TED + Graham Hancock + Rupert Sheldrake

Originally I've made an addition as follows:

____

In January 2013, at TEDx conference in London Whitechapel Graham Hancock gave the talk "The War on Consciousness" and Rupert Sheldrake gave the talk "The Science Delusion". The scientific board released a statement after which the content of the talks were removed from the website. The discussion on the website generated more than 2000 comments, triggered a lot of interest and many unofficial copies were posted online. As of December 2016 the only other "banned TED talk" is Nick Hanauer talk "Rich People Don't Create Jobs".

References

____

These are concrete examples, with references, linking to specific paragraphs of people involved.

Response: "We don't need more examples, sources uncertain, SE not mentioned"

TED is a notable example, YouTube copies are getting more than 100K views each and search phrase "banned TED talk" works as a seal of approval - cannot ask for better recommendation.

What is "SE" in wiki slang? Special Edition?

Stefek99 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"SE" in this case is shorthand for "Streisand Effect". In other words, the person who removed it is arguing the sources themselves don't call it as such. From my own POV, not only do we not need more examples, but even if we did treat it as a SE, it is a poor example of such. Tedx did not remove it from their YouTube channel out of a desire to prevent it from being seen, but because they initially believed the piece was factually inaccurate. Additionally, the fact that Tedx not only posted the video in a blog explaining the removal, with their reasons, posted the rebuttal from Sheldrake and updated their post in response to same makes it patently obvious that their aim was not to censor this video or prevent it from being seen. This is not a Streisand Effect. Merely an action that generated considerable discussion. Resolute 22:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed the example agree completely with Resolute.

My User talk:Glrx/Archive 10#Streisand Effect comments:

SE should not have a comprehensive list of every happening that could be a SE. The article needs just a few, clear, interesting examples to illustrate the effect. If every editor added their favorite example, the article would be bloated.

Discussion on the talk page has settled on a requirement that competent secondary sources call the episode a SE by name. It is not enough for WP editors to look at what happened and conclude it is an example of SE. We want a source to make the determination. See WP:OR.

The SE also has a suppression by threat or force element. Somebody is trying to suppress a work, but the heavy handedness of the suppression backfires. In the example reverted, the publisher decided to retract the stories because they had problems/did not meet required publication standards. That's not suppression; that is recalling an article that should not have been published in the first place. Furthermore, the publisher made the articles available in another area so the retraction could be discussed. That's not Streisand suing a well meaning photographer to get him to take a photo off a website. It's not some schoolboard trying get an 8 year old girl to stop reporting on the quality of the cafeteria's food. It's the publisher deciding to stop publishing a particular work that the publisher no longer considers appropriate.

Glrx (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this doesn't look like a good example, and the sourcing given doesn't say that it is the Streisand effect. The benchmark is reliable secondary sources noting the effect, and even then the article does not need an exhaustive list of every time the phrase "Streisand effect" was used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference 18?

I think it's definitely in the wrong place but I don't have half the mind right now to fix it. Hope I come back later and fix it or someone else does in the meantime. See ya, Pax vobiscum, Emosy (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Image size of Streisand's house

Re this edit: I think that the current version of the image is too large. The reason given is "since it shows a small detail in an overall large field, it should be relatively large". The problem is that due to the way that the picture was taken, Streisand's house is going to be small regardless of the size of the thumbnail. If a person wants to see the image to its best advantage, they should click on the link and view the image directly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

MOS:IMGSIZE says Images in which a small region of detail is important (but cropping to that region is unacceptable) (which is our situation – the whole point is to show the image at issue, as it was, not modified in some way) may need to be larger than normal, but upright=1.8 should usually be the largest value for images floated beside text. The current size is upright=1.7. Obviously the the reader wanting to "see the image to its best advantage... should click on the link and view the image directly", but he oughtn't have to do that just to be able to make out that there's a house in there somewhere.

The old size was 300px, which is nominally equivalent to upright=1.35, so the current 1.7 is only 25% above than that. EEng 18:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The current size of the image risks squeezing the text at some resolutions. It is far larger than an average image on Wikipedia. Anything over 300px is probably too big for compatibility with a range of screen resolutions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

First of all, specifying image sizes in px is deprecated. Beyond that, our goal is not to make all images some average size, but the right size for that image's function in this article. I'll take the guideline's recommendation of 1.8 over your worries. EEng 15:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The "celebrity couple" injunction

Re this edit. The saga being referred to here is PJS v News Group Newspapers. If you want a source with the National Enquirer angle, there is one here. The couple were also named by the media in Scotland, Canada and the Republic of Ireland among others, making it trivially easy for anyone with access to the Internet to find out who they are. Nevertheless, naming them in the UK could cause this to happen. Scottish media lawyers took the view that the injunction did not apply in Scotland unless a similar injunction, known as an interdict, was obtained.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This Phenomenon has been around alot longer than 2005

This phenomenon has been going on alot longer than 2005. This has been going on with Secret Societies etc hundreds of years ago. To say that the term was only coined in 2005 because of Barbara Streisand is ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.113.122.146 (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The growth of the Internet is one of the driving factors behind the modern version of the effect. This makes it highly unwise to attempt to suppress information unless there is a good reason. As John Gilmore said, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."[2]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the phenomenon has existed for most of human history (Herostratus comes to mind), but the term actually was coined in 2005 (the ancient Greeks obviously couldn't have referred to the "Streisand effect" in the previous example, as she hadn't been born yet). The challenge is to make sure that readers are clear that this is a modern term for a well known and long established phenomenon. --Khajidha (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Will The Job Offer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign To Seth Rich Eventually Qualify for The Streisand Effect article?

Irrelevant drivel
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What additional criteria must be met before the exclusion of the Job Offer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign To Seth Rich from the Murder of Seth Rich Wikipedia Article qualifies for inclusion in The Streisand Effect article? From the article, it appears to be when the exclusion results in publicizing the information more widely, and it is documented by a reliable source. StreetSign (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC) I adjusted your link to more standard format; hope you don't mind. —Tamfang (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC) It's unlikely, because the Streisand effect in its true form refers to obscure things that nobody would have cared about otherwise. Hillary Clinton is a well known figure and the Murder of Seth Rich has generated a lot of media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC) This article is not a space for a single purpose account to fight a proxy war over their failed effort to bias a separate article. Not to mention the fact that this is in no way a Streisand Effect. SE is when an attempt made specifically to try and hide something itself causes that thing to be more widely seen than if nothing had been done. Your failure to achieve consensus on proposed additions to a Wikipedia article does not fit that definition. Resolute 13:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC) I appreciate the honest feedback. The definition in the article of "an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet" and is what I think will eventually fit. Maybe weeks, months, or years. StreetSign (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC) You mean, after it has been forgotten? —Tamfang (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Yes. Forgotten by some, but in the case of people who rely significantly on Wikipedia, they would never know it. StreetSign (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radio_station#Controversy_over_French-language_version_of_Wikipedia_article

Benjamin (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, thanks! Benjamin (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Verge example

@Dmol: Do you have any objections to [3]? If so, let's hear them. 78.28.54.200 (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

'See also' links

We currently have a somewhat haphazard list of related subjects under 'see also'. I'm not sure what does and doesn't qualify. Any thoughts?

The The History of Sexuality looks like a very thinly related MOS:SEEALSO, so I didn't argue with the edit that removed it. I agree, though, that the see also section is getting a bit bloated and could be pruned back overall. Although the Streisand effect does not have to involve heavy handed censorship on the Internet, it usually does. Censorship of books, films etc isn't really the same thing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Really?

This article has a LOT of examples of the Streisand effect... But surely the universe has untold thousands and even millions of examples of events that are instances of the Streisand effect. I'd like to suggest that unless a particular event has been REFERRED TO as a "Streisand effect" by the media, that we not list it here as an example of this. Because otherwise there is no limit to what the article can contain, and it seems like there aught to be a limit. A loose noose (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The only reason to have this article is because of the name. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It's already agreed from past discussions that only examples where reliable sourcing includes the words "Streisand effect" can be included, to avoid WP:OR. Even so, there is a risk of including an exhaustive list of examples.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Streisand effect - Polish national-radio-station trying to censorship anti-government song

On 15th of May a song won the oldest and most well know top-hits list in Poland (list of Polish National Radio Channel 3). It was this song - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9LzNtpjhV0

The Radio station tried to censorship this, they took down the news about the song winning this toplist, they also faked the 500 Internal Server Error (by putting a redirect) on the webpage showing the list results. Because of that the news about it spread like fire. No news on international sites yet, but all the polish news sites (except the government controlled ones) are reporting this, f.e. https://gwiazdy.wp.pl/wydawca-kazika-jesli-to-cenzura-to-moze-byc-koniec-trojki-moj-bol-jest-lepszy-niz-twoj-trojka-radio-6511166963935361a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.11.131.204 (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This sort of thing happens all the time. Back in 1985, Margaret Thatcher blew her top over Real Lives: At the edge of the union, a routine BBC documentary about The Troubles, mainly because it had Martin McGuinness in it.[4] She said that broadcasting the documentary would give the IRA the "oxygen of publicity". Of course, banning the documentary simply gave it more publicity than it would otherwise have had. Generally speaking though, the Streisand effect refers to obscure things that nobody would have cared about otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Another example ... with some detailed explanations

a mention on the web

I was reading here about a legal case in the UK that may have had some (ahem) 'unintended consequences' for the plaintiff.

(Actually. what I read was -- as you can probably see from the URL -- a Wayback machine "archived" copy of an article whose 'original' does still exist, out there on the internet at the exact same ["original"] URL ... but whose 'original' I did not know about, until I started typing in field values [such as "url-status"] in the "{{cite web}}" template instance, in the "ref" tag for the footnote.)

(Also, I was reading an English translation -- apparently "robot" generated, and probably courtesy of "Google Translate" -- [iirc the original was in Spanish], but ... I had to include the word "probably" there, ... right before "courtesy of", since the user interface of my ['Google Chrome'] browser has become so automated and convenient, that ... sometimes it is hard to tell what is going on, "behind the scenes" ... e.g., to translate stuff into English for me, ... maybe in an automated way, that might be skating very 'close' to ... translating the content without my knowledge.)

(Also, all of the "quotes" in the footnote are from the English translation; which -- of course -- might or might not have some 'shortcomings'.)

it not only mentions, but it also [sorta] 'explains' ... the effect

As you can see (e.g., from the "quotes" in the footnote), -- which are, I remind you, from an English translation of the original -- the author not only mentions that this case might be a good example of the Streisand effect, but also goes into quite a bit of detail to explain some of the things, which probably should be -- and maybe they already are -- explained in the Wikipedia article about the Streisand effect. (I have not read either of those sources completely enough, to know whether the web post [perhaps] explains 'some' things better than the article.)

Just "FYI".

disclosure (feel free to SKIP this part)

This is probably the reason why I was reading an "archived" copy of a web page whose 'original' still exists ... and has not moved from one URL to another.

The way I found the web post (here) was via a link from a section of https://www.wordnik.com/words/bogus that said [quote]

It appears, however, that the term bogus is more straightforward.

What the British Chiropractic Association - and English Libel Law - should do next

...where the hyperlink pointed to (the "dead link" URL) http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/reputation-of-british-chiropractic.html ... which might "look" -- or 'appear to be' -- "alive", to some robots, but clearly states -- at least when read by a person --

"Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.".

So, I decided to try using the Wayback machine to find an archived version.

I did find an archived version ... and I clicked on at least one link from one of the comments there (a comment dated "17 MAY 2009 21:32" from someone named "Yamato".)

The link (from that comment) that I clicked on was one that pointed to the URL

https://web.archive.org/web/20101206063132/http://yamato1.blogspot.com/2009/05/la-bca-contra-simon-singh-ii.html

which ... (of course!) was a Wayback machine URL, since it was coming from a Wayback machine archived *copy* of some original web page.

Hence, when I started reading that "yamato1" web post (after clicking on a link from a comment) -- the web post was right here -- I was reading a Wayback machine archived *copy* of that web post, even though its 'original' still exists ... and apparently it has not even moved from one URL to another.

Any comments?

References

Thanks, --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Russia's political stunt / The Artemi Panarin incident

You forgot something that happened in the politics section. A famous Russian NHL player, Artemi Panarin, was accused of woman abuse at a bar by his former coach as an intimidation tactic on national media. However, it got the Streisand effect in response and just gave Artemi more attention. Teremoir (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

youtube-dl on GitHub's official repository

I removed the part about the youtube-dl source code being published to GitHub's official repository because it technically wasn't, it was more of a stunt. It abuses how git and specifically GitHub handles viewing the code. The user who did this weighs in on reddit. Yubimusubi (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Spectator example

Re this edit: The BBC and Spectator sources do not mention the effect by name, and the only source that does is a tweet, which would usually fail WP:SPS. As I said in this edit summary, I'm not sure if this is a clear cut example of the effect. There needs to be clearer mainstream sourcing mentioning the effect, rather than an opinion in a tweet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Australian Politics

An attempt recently by the Deputy Premier of NSW to silence a youtuber publishing allegedly verified info about alleged corruption has resulted in a defamation action - followed rapidly by an unusual arrest of the producer on stalking charges (containing allegedly false info on the sworn statement!) by the Fixated Persons unit of the Police Terrorism squad within hours of a videoed meeting and exceptional bail conditions preventing him, in effect from possibly defending the defamation suit. This is exploding in a sensational way with all sorts of legal, right, media repercussions, etc - Google will turn it up :-) It is not finished yet - should end up a classic when the dust settles:-) 193.116.240.151 (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If Streisand is mentioned in any reliable sources covering the incident, then we can use the example in this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Police actions

Does anybody else think an example of a police officer trying to keep citizen-recorded video of his actions from being posted online by playing copyrighted pop music while being filmed (and suggesting that youtube's automated algorithms would remove the video as a result) is distinct enough from other government actions so as to serve as an example? This Washington Post article specifically references the Streisand Effect in reporting the subsequent viral online spread of the video. An officer played a Taylor Swift song to keep his recording off YouTube. Instead it went viral "The tactic used by Shelby is one law enforcement personnel have tried before. But some of the attempts seem to amount to prime cases of the “Streisand Effect,” a term used to describe an attempt to hide or censor information that actually makes it more widespread." 68.189.242.116 (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Typo

"Incentive that has an contrary result". Tried to fix, but it's something called an annotated link, which I've never seen before.-ShorinBJ (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Annotated links fetch the annotation from the target entry's short description. So I went there and fixed it. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Examples before the internet

The examples in the article suggest that it only works with the internet, but there are also many examples before the time of the internet listed at tvtropes.org. Maybe some of them should be included here. --MrBurns (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@MrBurns: tvtropes is not a reliable source we can use according to WP:RSP. For an example to be included in the article, the source should refer to it as "Streisand effect". The term did not even exist before 2003, so anything "before the internet" would not qualify unless a modern reliable source referred to it that way. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup of original research

I see some examples here cited to sources that don't even mention the term "Streisand effect" or even the word "streisand". It seems like a WP:OR violation to include them. Even if the source describes an increase in publicity resulting from a suppression attempt, if the source doesn't refer to it as a "Streisand effect", then neither should Wikipedia by including the example in this article.

If no one objects, I plan to go through the article and eliminate these examples. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I finished the cleanup. Found two issues, one is fixed (added a source). The other is an entry under "Individuals" that failed verification (the last one about Andrew Seidel). The cited article is not archived, so I cannot verify that it mentions the Streisand effect. If anyone has a subscription to The Guardian it can be checked. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

US sanction on China semiconductor industry

Does anybody think this is an example of the Streisand effect? 64.207.220.243 (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not quite sure what this means, but the consensus is that examples must have reliable sources that mention the effect by name, to avoid original research. The best examples of the effect are obscure things that nobody would have cared about unless there had been heavy handed attempts to suppress them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

How did Barbra Streisand find that coast photo?

It ostensibly had only four views prior to being discovered by Streisand, and was one in over thousands on the photographer's site.

How does a celebrity who has nothing to do with geomorphology discover such a photo? Foxwagen2010 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

That's just speculation, there are many possibilities for example that a friend of her told her. --MrBurns (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Change the first sentence

The first sentence should define the effect, and should not read like a blog. Tankpiggy18 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

So rewrite it. "If you want anything done properly around here, you have to do it yourself". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Twitter, @ElonJet, and Journalist Suspensions

In the last 48-odd hours, Twitter has suspended a bunch of people who owner and CEO Elon Musk doesn't like, including an account that uses public information to track the movements of his private jet and journalists who cover Elon Musk and Twitter. This has resulted in ElonJet being covered by the BBC and the journalist suspensions being covered by practically every outlet that covers them. The real question is whether this falls under By businesses or By individuals, on the site, due to it being very transparently Elon having a temper tantrum and using Twitter as an outlet for it. Goclonefilms (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about this to. Strictly speaking it is a business (Twitter) banning accounts based on new policies even though it obviously that Elon Musk as the owner of Twitter and by context is pulling the strings. If rewritten a bit it could be moved to the business section. Zacken (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

If the section was written like this it could be moved to the business section?

Suggested rewrite to latest section about Elon Musk if moved to the business section:

“In December 2022, Twitter banned the Twitter account @elonjet, a bot that reported CEO Elon Musk’s private jet movements based on public domain flight data. This was done due to a policy change at Twitter after Musk had cited concerns about his personal safety. However this led to further media coverage and public attention to Musk’s apparently contradictory comments on allowing free speech across the Twitter platform. Further, Twitter continued to ban journalists referring to the "ElonJet" account or linking to its new location.” Zacken (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The consensus of past discussions is that this needs sources that mention the Streisand effect by name, to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This is true but the citation currently given does in fact mention the Streisand effect in its headline at least. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand the rationale for removing the daily wire reference, however I had included it specifically because it mentioned ‘The Streisand Effect’. My concern is that without that specific reference to the effect, someone will see fit to remove the entire section on Musk. Chausettes (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the daily wire ref that was removed. As you can see, it mentions Streisand effect very clearly: https://www.dailywire.com/news/streisand-effect-elon-musk-bans-account-that-he-said-he-wouldnt-unbans-it-then-bans-it-again%20%7Caccess-date=2022-12-16 Chausettes (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I have replaced it with a Newsweek citation, which doesn't have the outright deprecation attached to Daily Wire, though it does have a 'use with caution' tag. Given that the essence of the article is confirmed by many other sources, I think we can affirm that due dilligence has been followed. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I've also added an article written by Forbes staff (see: WP:FORBES; WP:FORBESCON). While Newsweek is still a shadow of its pre-2013 self, it combined with the Forbes article as well as this being a high-profile, extremely clear-cut case of the effect are enough to warrant its inclusion in the article. The Daily Wire, on the other hand, is an abysmal source deserving of no consideration outside an WP:ABOUTSELF fashion. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Page views confirm relevance

I have added the daily views template (currently last of the coloured blocks at the top of this talk page). Visits have shot up from background noise to 800,000 a day. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

might be related to this bug on Twitter: https://twitter.com/diny87/status/1603661606193201153 Pyb (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Indian Government Censorship of BBC Documentary on Gujarat

I believe that this is an example of the Streisand Effect, I found three different news outlets that specifically mention the Streisand Effect when discussing the government's attempts to censor this documentary but I don't know enough about Indian news outlets to gauge whether these are reliable sources that are citation worthy.

References

Would appreciate other editors thoughts. Raitchison (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing here is not stellar, and I'm not sure if this is noteworthy enough per WP:DUE. There should be some coverage from mainstream news sources, otherwise it is making a tempest in a teapot.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that this issue has been covered in more established media outlets, just (at the time of my original posting) not explicitly referencing the Streisand Effect by name.

In any case since then there has been additional coverage with (IMO) more reliable sourcing that DOES explicitly reference the effect by name, including The Hindu and NPR

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/portentous-overkill-the-hindu-editorial-on-the-blocking-access-to-and-arrests-over-bbc-documentary-on-pm-modi/article66436875.ece

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/26/1151803365/modis-government-blocks-a-documentary-critical-of-the-prime-minister

```` Raitchison (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Eliza Bleu Censorship of Podcasters on Twitter

In January 2023, Eliza Bleu a self-professed "Trafficking Advocate" was asked to clarify her appearance in a Hip hop music video on YouTube and also WorldStarHipHop. The salacious video had been on both sites for over 6 years. Podcaster Brittany Venti (@BrittantVenti) used screen grabs from the consensual video to tweet question Eliza Bleu as it appeared to be uploaded during the period that Bleu claimed she was sex trafficked. Eliza Bleu responded by blocking Brittany Venti and then contacted her friends at Twitter to have Venti's account suspended. Another Podcaster Jeremy Hambly of The Quartering (@TheQuartering) questioned why Venti was blocked and suspended and he was blocked and suspended as well. More Podcasters were also suspended. Bleu then threatened legal action against the podcasters. This caused dozens of other podcasters to question Eliza Bleu's background and it was discovered that she had multiple aliases and many historical anomalies. Evidence shows that Bleu was actually a cam-girl and a groupie of pop group My Chemical Romance. It has also been suggested that photos of Bleu were used for Catfishing men and that this was the Human trafficking that Bleu was referring to. Daniel Cotton, the copyright owner of the hiphop video stated that Bleu was paid for the video and that he owns the rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelpwsmith (talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Several legal podcasters are already referring to this as a classic example of the Streisand Effect. Viva and Barnes, Uncivil Law, Legal Mindset, Rekieta law to name but a few. The story has not hit the Mainstream news as yet, but is likely to in the near future as the video copyright owner has already Tweeted that he owns the rights and that Bleu was paid for the video. There is every likelihood that Bleu could fall foul of the law for wire fraud in that she claimed to be (sex) trafficked and an advocate for trafficking victims, yet she blocks verified victims of sex trafficking and Bleu only claims that her picture was used to catfish men. She did make a claim on some podcasts that she was trafficked for $500 in 2007, but there is a problem with this as there are videos from this period which were found by the podcasters and people who knew her at the time. During this period she was a makeup artist, hairdresser and Groupie of musical group My Chemical Romance. In a videoed call with her mother years later when she was still being trafficked according to her timeline, Bleu admitted that she appeared as a model in hiphop videos. This does not tie in with her claims that she was under duress as she was paid for these videos and not forced to appear in them. If this matter does reach the law courts there is every possibility that Bleu maybe required to admit under deposition that she was a willing participant in the videos and/or that she may or may not have been offered money for sexual services. Nigelpwsmith (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is not an article about Eliza Bleu, who does not appear to be sufficiently noteworthy to warrant her own article. Much of what you've said with respect to her background is both off-topic to this article, and unverfiable due to the lack of reliable sources discussing her. Please do not add any more unsourced and unverifiable information with respect to Bleu on this or any other talk page or article.

With regards to the content of relevance to this article, if reliable sources do pick up on this, and if they use the term Streisand effect in relation to this, we could at that time consider adding it. However we don't add content on the presumption something may/will become noteworthy. At that time, feel free to add a list of sources here so that we can discuss and see if it warrants inclusion. But until that happens, please do not speculate that there might be sources on this in the future. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Should Hogwarts Legacy be listed as an example?

As I understand it, the Streisand effect involves the following:

1. A piece of information is released.
2. As a reaction, an organization(usually business, governmental, or religious) or individual tries to hide the information.
3. Because the information is being hidden, a small amount of people are drawn to it.
4. Those people back up the information and share it, thus drawing more people to it, thus causing more backups to be made and more sharing of the info, etc, etc, causing a cascade effect until there is no plausible way to cover up the information.

I don't think Hogwarts Legacy fits this definition for the following reasons:

1. Talk about a boycott was occurring before the game was released. It was not a reaction which happened after the game was released.
2. (My main argument) A boycott works by spreading information, not hiding it. Ex: "Look at this thing, don't buy this thing". This is the only example of a boycott on the list.. surely if boycotts counted there would have been one mentioned before now?
3. Does a relatively small, loosely connected group of people really count as an organization? Even the person who added the Hogwarts Legacy example seemed unsure about that.
4. Exactly what information were they trying to hide? Drawing from the first 2 paragraphs of the article.. They didn't hide, remove, or censor any information (They were doing the opposite: raising awareness) They didn't issue a cease-and-desist, try to stop the publication, or try to remove the publication after it was published. A couple vloggers and articles mention petitions with over a million signatures, but none of them provide links to them or even a source to back up their claims. I can't find these petitions anywhere.
5. People where drawn to the game, yes. And yes, it had record sales. But was it because a small group on the internet were trying to "hide" it? Or because the game had been advertised everywhere, was based on the best selling book series of all time, was a new format which hadn't been seen in the series yet (Large Open World RPG) that fans really wanted to play, had been in development (and anticipated) for over 2 years, was the first major Harry Potter game released in over a decade, and was quickly nearing it's release date?
6. No information was being hidden, so there was nothing to back up and share.

Obviously we'll never know exactly how much attention the boycott drew, but it was probably a drop in the bucket compared to everything else. I'd argue that the game would have become a bestseller anyway (even if the boycott had never happened) because it's a major publication from a major franchise and it was well crafted.

I'm not trying to say that the controversy shouldn't be on the wiki (or that the boycott had no effect), however it's case for being on this page seems very flimsy at best. Chimeforest (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The main requirement is independent reliable sources that mention the effect by name. Although some sources say that this is an example of the effect, there are probably too many examples in the article at the moment, as discussed in the section above.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 12:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

But what if the source is wrong? A call for a boycott is clearly not the same as the Streisand Effect as it draws attention to the thing being boycotted, it doesn't try to hide it.

Also, the source in the article which references the Streisand Effect(AGrowingPain) appears to be a self-published blog run by a single unnamed person. I believe (according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources) that makes it an unreliable source, yes? Chimeforest (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I've removed it on this basis. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the gigantic list of examples?

What's the point of having a list of ~35 examples? I doubt anyone trying to learn about the effect is going to read through it. The concept can be fully explained with just two or three examples. Do the sources of those examples even mention Streisand effect? If not it would be WP:OR. I suspect this list is mostly compiled by people who wish to ridicule the parties involved in those events. They saw someone they dislike failing to censor something and they came here to append the list. There was no consideration of whether the example add anything to the article. C9mVio9JRy (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this list is like Topsy because it just growed. People have added various examples over time and there are now too many. They could be pruned back and others split off into something like List of Streisand effect examples per WP:TOPIC. Straightforward media controversies are rarely good examples of the effect, despite what some sources may say.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 10:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support a split to a list, per ianmcm. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support Only the three most strongest exampels should be kept. Carpimaps (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support I could see a case for keeping one or two examples from each category that's been listed. <sub>signed,</sub> Willondon (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I see a consensus here; I will be splitting the article to List of Streisand effect examples. Carpimaps <sup>talk to me!</sup> 12:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"Nuance"

To the IP editor who wishes to "clarify" the backstory of the original Streisand affair: you can make these changes if (and only if) you provide a reliable source that says so. Such as a court record, for example. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

And the IP's assertions are contradicted by the decision linked in reference 17[5], partucularly page 36.

This article as a rather lengthy protection log already. Because these unsourced assertions have been added by multiple IP addresses, I have semiprotected the article for 10 days. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Now at ECP for 3 months due to continued similar disruption, apparently by the same person with an account instead of an IP address. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit to remove pic from page

Barbra Streisand explained in her memoir her security concerns and experience with intruders. The image is tagged with her name and provides longitude & latitude co-ordinates of her home. See Streisand_effect#Rebuttal_by_Barbra_Streisand & topic above this. We should not dox a public figure on WP, and she claims her action was to thwart doxing, not suppress the photo. Walton22 (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I can understand the concerns, but it is now a bit late for this as the photo has appeared so often on the internet that even if Wikipedia did remove it, it would still be easily available elsewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 06:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Obviously it would still be available elsewhere, but Wikipedia could do its bit against this doxing (word wasn't available at the time), as it is certainly the most prominent platform. See WP:BLP "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy...the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article" Walton22 (talk) Walton22 (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If the decision is that hosting this image on enwiki is a privacy issue, it should be on MediaWiki:Bad image list. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You might have had a case if you raised this concern 20 years ago, but by now the photograph has not only been widely disseminated, "being widely disseminated" is precisely what it's famous for! What harm, exactly, is supposed to be done by the photograph's persistence into the future that has not already been rendered moot by the past 20 years? – Teratix ₵ 02:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It's never too late to put a principle into practice. That something unjust (invasion of privacy) has been going on for 20 years is no reason to give up on turning it around where it can be. Because it can't be turned around everywhere doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to do it here, the most prominent place.

The photo has the geo-coordinates of the celebrity's home embedded. It is tagged with the celebrity's name. These are enough reasons not to publish it on Wikipedia (and to my mind makes her legal action understandable to a fair-minded person).

The celebrity's personal security concerns are routine and legitimate, and she has said her legal action was to remove her name in the tag after her requests to do so were ignored, not to suppress the photo for the other purposes of publishing if (California coastal erosion) and that non-celebrity photos did not carry name tags on the website.

The fact that the legal action failed in one jurisdiction (she says due to unauthorised further overreach by her lawyer) does not mean we don't examine it independently under Wikipedia's own policies. I argue the photo of the celebrity's home clearly violates WP:BLP on privacy grounds due to its embedded name and geo-coordinate tags. That's it. Walton22 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You didn't actually answer the question. What harm are you claiming is being done by the continued inclusion of the photograph, 20 years later? I'm not asking about whether or not harm was done on its initial publication, that's a moot point. – Teratix ₵ 02:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The WP:BLP violation is under both "privacy" and potential "harm". I would have thought potential "harm" was obvious. Stalkers stalk celebrities. The most deranged would love to stalk the celebrity's home if they could but find it. Continuing the publication continues the potentiality for this harm. The potentiality for harm is ongoing and not nullified (your "rendered moot") because it hasn't been realised in 20 years. Same goes for privacy Walton22 (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I am flagging my request at MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list#File:Streisand_Estate.jpg

Walton22 (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The deal with the photo is, it's been out and about for over 20 years, making it not exactly a secret. Wikipedia's not here to hide info that's legally out there, especially when it's part of a bigger story, not just some celeb's house. The court dismissed her - which means we're not overstepping. Plus, if someone really wants to find her place, they won't need Wikipedia for that. It's about sharing knowledge responsibly, not about giving out private deets. Keeping the photo up on Wikipedia doesn't change the privacy game. --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You're just restating the same arguments without acknowledging the changed context. The privacy rationale might have been a good argument if this were 2003 and someone had just added the image to Streisand's article. In that case, its presence on Wikipedia would greatly increase its notoriety. However, we're having this conversation in 2024 – the horse has bolted and the image is widely known. Under these circumstances, the image's continued presence on Wikipedia does not meaningfully increase the risk of any hypothetical harm and removing it would not meaningfully reduce it. Arguing over this is like going to Talk:2000 United States presidential election and arguing Al Gore should be shown as the winner. – Teratix ₵ 03:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not about the "image". The celebrity claims it never was for her, that it was about the tagged name and geo-coordinates. And that's what it's about here for me. I don't think the passage of time changes that context at all. Walton22 (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My theory is that in 2003 the concept of image "metadata" was not widely understood. The public understood the case as being akin to suppressing a photo in a hard copy magazine. Perhaps Streisand's lawyer didn't even get it in dumbing the case down to image suppression which she claims was not the outcome she wanted. The image's metadata names the celebrity and provides the geo-coordinates. A more sensible 2003 injunction would have been to merely seek to strip the metadata out of the published photo on privacy grounds. But I suggest again (and for the last time) that the embedded metadata is enough to take the image off Wikipedia on BLP privacy grounds. I have made the nominations/requests that this be done, and have nothing more to add here. Walton22 (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

And, the result is speedy keep: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Streisand_Estate.jpg --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I was advised wrongly to nominate for deletion on Commons, incorrect jurisdiction, Commons has its own rules. Will see re the Bad Image request, where I was also advised to go. Always happy with consensus and enjoy the discussion, though I'm talked out now.Walton22 (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I should have made it clearer that Commons has its own distinct policies, but it was the correct place to go to dispute whether Wikimedia projects should host the photograph at all. – Teratix ₵ 08:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Walton22 (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The photo

A few comments.

1. Commons *rarely* removes a photo that is actually deliberately being used intentially in an article with any sort of support on a wikipedia (and this one is apparently being used on at least a dozen different wikipedias)
2. the Bad image list *might* be willing to restrict the photo if it was being used for vandalism, but the lack of shock value makes it highly unlikely to be used that way. and if restricted, would be restricted to use on this page (and possibly Barbara Streisand)
3. *If* the image is only problematic with the underlying metadata, could a version of the file with changed metadata be used instead? That would not change its use in the article from a visual point of view?Naraht (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Naraht (talk)Thank you for engaging with this.

Re your point 3., I also thought of at least proposing the stripping of the geo-coordinate metadata from the photo on WP out of respect for the celebrity's security and privacy, and also her concern about this particular Wikipedia article and her rebuttal to it, all this as expressed in her memoir.

I agree the horse has bolted as far as stripping out her name, especially as it seems the consensus and likely outcome is that the photo remains with the article, which would make it completely moot to remove the name.

But surely WP should not publish what is effectively her address, which she says was the focus of her objection 20 years ago (along with the fact that attaching names was done only for celebrity homes at a site purportedly publishing photos out of concern for coastal erosion only) and that the proposed full suppression of the photo was attorney overreach, as she also says in the memoir? Walton22 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

January 2024 and Barbra Streisand's book

I've been having a look at Barbra Streisand's book My Name is Barbra which was published in November 2023. In Chapter 56, Giving Back, she gives her side of the incident that led to the coining of the phrase "Streisand effect". She says "Contrary to the explanation on Wikipedia, I did not attempt to “suppress” a photograph of my house. My issue was never with the photo . . . it was only about the use of my name attached to the photo... all the homes were identified only by longitude and latitude and not by the owners’ names . . . except for five celebrities, including me. Suddenly there was a photo on the internet with my house, my name, and the exact coordinates where I lived...All I asked was that this man please just treat me like everyone else and remove my name, for security reasons. But he refused... Recently I tried to correct the Wikipedia entry to reflect the actual facts, but we were told that would be impossible. Why? Isn’t the truth enough?" This is interesting, because it shows that Barbra Streisand has taken a personal interest in what this Wikipedia article says. She goes on to say "I felt I was standing up for a principle, but in retrospect, it was a mistake. I also assumed that my lawyer had done exactly as I wished and simply asked to take my name off the photo . . . but the lesson I had to learn again was, Never assume. (It’s also my fault. I should have taken the time to read all the legal documents.)" Most people will have received the impression from news coverage that the dispute was over the publication of image 3850 rather than simply the name tag that the image had, which was "Streisand Estate, Malibu" according the court ruling. According to the book, Streisand believes that the lawyer made a mistake by turning the photo into the issue in the court case rather than simply removing the name tag. This casts new light on the matter, but there is some WP:PRIMARY here. Wikipedia summarizes what secondary reliable sources have said about something, and until now the consensus has been that the dispute was over the publication of image 3850 itself rather than simply its name tag; this is supported by the court ruling. ♦IanMacM♦ <sup>(talk to me)</sup> 10:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

One might imagine that the photo's metadata geo-coordinates are ultimately of more concern to the celebrity now than the name tag. Walton22 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)