![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
pretty sure this should be called the DeCSS effect... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.225.88 ( talk) 18:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
For references or sources: 1) Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Streisand+Effect 2) Photo Of Streisand Home Becomes An Internet Hit: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030601/1910207.shtml -- Wesha 04:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
From the coiner's own words (emphasis mine):
This was a classic Streisand Effect case, where almost no one remembered or cared about the specific comments she was upset about -- but which have since received a lot more attention.
The examples listed in the article do not match this description. Lots of people cared about the Windows source leak, lots of people cared about Napster, etc. before they were given additional publicity through mainstream press. Just because publicity gives "more" attention to something does not make it a case of Streisand Effect (in fact, that is just the definition of "publicity"). For that reason, most of the examples on this page are inaccurate since the article's creator/maintainer is not going by the sourced definition. VanishingUser 02:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The example is notable, cited, and doesn't contain any illegal material. I can't imagine why it should be removed. -- Eyrian 13:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As of 5/7/07 Google indexes 1,720,000 pages with the number in question. Jamesgor13579 19:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
There was this case about a photo of a piece of artwork in a public park that was demanded to be removed from a website a couple years ago. The work was a metallic like "blob" (bean shaped?) and you could walk under it. Usually when works of art are placed in public places and made upon request of a government agency, the rights are transferred to the government or something, but the artist had not allowed this in this case and was actively "protecting" his piece of art. People started making all kinds of photo's (some recognizable, some not) of it and publishing it all over the internet, on flickr and stuff. Does anyone remember what that case was exactly? I can't for the life of me find anything about it anymore. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems quite possible that some alleged occurrences of the Streisand effect are actually quite intentional - that one person could misrepresent another for their own personal gain. This idea seems to generally be known as cui bono. A good example may be Alexander Litvinenko. His death seems to reflect badly upon Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation, however, as some news sources (for example, [1]) observe, it's also possible that someone tried to frame the Russian federation - to misrepresent them - in an attempt to discredit them.
Consider the The Pirate Bay instance mentioned in the article. Although I think it's unlikely, it's possible The Pirate Bay intentionally set itself up to be raided in an intentional attempt to stir things up and to illicit sympathy in others TerraFrost 05:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
AOL didn't try to censor this information, or force its removal from other sites through legal means. Removing it from their site hardly counts as an attempt to suppress the information and thus I don't think this incident belongs here. gssq 05:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If a reference in the "Notable cases" section doesn't contain the phrase "Streisand effect", then the incident doesn't belong in the "Notable cases" section. Editors are *assuming* those are examples of the Streisand effect but such speculation counts as original research.
Disagree. The "effect" is demonstrated by news reportage of the takedown demand and the hubbub around it. It's a phenomenon that exists even if the tag has not yet been applied. This seems like a good home for that class of cases/examples, but if not here, please suggest an alternate spot. Wseltzer 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Right now, the only non-blog URL in the References section that contains the phrase "Streisand effect" with a list of incidents is the Forbes article.
I think the "Notable cases" section is going to accumulate more and more original research as time goes by because editors will try and come up with their own examples. I suggest the entire "Notable cases" section be replaced with only the examples from the Forbes [2] slideshow, so far the only reliable source:
What do you think? -- Pixelface 04:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I am moving this unsourced claim to the talk page pending a citation for it's inclusion, and removing the OR tag.
Lots more examples off the top of my head, needing citations/etc, from Mathx 15:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It is like yelling "Stop teasing me!" at school lunch. Sunshine ҈ 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Should this case be added? (Starting September 2007, Uzbek Billionaire sics his lawyers on an allegedly libelous blogger, and the blogosphere quickly replicates the offending information.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.167.59 ( talk) 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't add examples without reliable sources that describe the events as "Streisand Efeect". Without them it is but your opinion, your interpretaion of the event, possibly false, i.e., it is original research inadmissible in wikipedia. `' Míkka 01:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Not to be totally against it, but all of a sudden we have 0 examples, where about a month or 4 ago, I thought we had this Forbes article that validated at least 6 of the examples... What happened to that reference ??????? -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Is Talk:Streisand effect/Timeline really necessary or can be deleted? -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Some sources (among which the cited San Jose Mercury News article) say that the photographer was sued for $10 millions, others (as this article, but not from the beginning) say $50M. So, what is the right amount? -- Antifumo ( talk) 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't change this because the article is semi-protected and I haven't been a user long enough, so I'm hoping someone else can: footnote #13 points to a piece I wrote for the Globe and Mail, but gives my name as Martin Ingram instead of Mathew Ingram. -- Mathewingram ( talk) 14:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Andy Greenberg of Forbes mentions three prominent incidents as examples of the Streisand effect: [1]
http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/legal-chill-from-lbc-973-over-jeni-barnetts-mmr-scaremongering/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.108.140.6 ( talk) 12:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
Isn't there a better name for this phenomenon? It has surely happened before 2003. The story of Herostratus has been used as well, but it's not all that similar. Anything else? I don't have a problem on Wikipedia containing this article, but I think all new references should be referring to something more classic instead. -- Ticram ( talk) 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Surely the backlash over creative would be notable enough to make this :/ 66.190.62.144 ( talk) 17:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
"The ironic thing is, because they tried to quiet it down, it’s the most famous number on the Internet."
Regardless of whether you have a "source" for this, it's complete bullcrap. The most famous number on the internet is 42, it has super-meme status due to The Hitch-hiker's Guide To The Galaxy. I suggest (Read:DEMAND) this sentence is removed. I'd never even heard of this number before I read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.216.57 ( talk) 11:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The See Also section currently lists MBTA v. Anderson. This better belongs in the list of examples; the other three items in the list are synonyms for Streisand effect. If no one objects, I'll change it in a few days. -- Vrmlguy ( talk) 13:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the example about Craig Murray's blog being shut down by Alisher Usmanov . [1] The only source given to substantiate the claim was the blog itself. There may be reliable sources out there to support the claim, if anyone is interested, but in my opinion, the article does not seem to be in need of "examples". -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
There's been a lot of back-and-forth editing about a Sears website vulnerability today, but nothing beyond a few Reddit posts to support the fact that Sears tried to censor it, and that the censorship itself was the primary cause of its popularity (rather than it being a funny exploit in itself). Any better sources for this? -- McGeddon ( talk) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
To me the newest example, the one about Ralph Lauren and Photoshop Disasters seems like plain advertisement for the mentioned sites. It's too recent to be counted as valuable or even finished... Remove?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdascheller ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
If it passes AFD, I suggest Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy. At least one source in that article explicitly mentions the Streisand effect. -- Geniac ( talk) 00:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I note that the recently banned Wiki article "Virgin Killer" is now the most popular Wiki article, with about 10,000 page requests per hour: Wikipedia:Popular_pages. Are we just waiting for an external news article? This is probably one of the best examples of the Streisand Effect so far. 130.130.37.12 ( talk) 00:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a term for this phenomenon as it applies in real life (as opposed to the internet)? Reading this article made me think of the part in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix where Professor Umbridge bans The Quibbler from Hogwarts; and Hermione is ecstatic, saying that this will ensure that everyone in the school reads it. Sure enough, soon everyone has read the exclusive article about Harry Potter. Of course, this isn't "real life", but it's not the internet, either; and this sort of thing must happen in real life. Is there a separate name and/or article for it? If not, I'd be interested in helping to write one. NoriMori ( talk) 17:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Nike's attempt to confiscate a video of Jordan Crawford's dunk on LeBron James in 2009 may be an example of a reverse psychology (intentional) Streisand effect to generate publicity during the slow newsworthy off season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyBell ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
...than to plaster the picture on Wikipedia! :D @ harej 03:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
What's the procedure for noting broken links? I checked one or two of the references & found the linked pages non-existent but don't know what to do about it. TheresaWilson ( talk) 22:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
dead link}}
- where the URL does not exist at all{{
failed verification}}
- where the URL exists, but does not back up the statement which it us used to reference{{
registration required}}
- where the user must log in to the external site in order to view the page{{
dead link}}
or {{
failed verification}}
.A fact.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.example.com/ |title=example }}</ref>{{dead link|date=February 2010}}
A fact.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.example.com/ |title=example }}{{dead link|date=February 2010}}</ref>
Potential example of Streisand Effect to keep an eye on and possibly add to article [ [7]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.14.2 ( talk) 01:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Garion96 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed that this article be merged into Law of Unintended Consequences.
I've heard many comments that the Islamic attempt to "censor" this book by terrorist means (making death threats or otherwise to force will upon another by terrifying them of the consequences if they don't bend to the terrorist's will) actually resulted in far greater sales at least in the western world. Perhaps this could be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.35.228 ( talk) 00:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Didn't the overreaction from certain muslim groups result in even more people seeing, reproducing and even creating new variations on those? -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 07:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The Streisand Effect is much older than the 1990s. In the UK, it was the Mary Whitehouse effect as far back as the 1970s. If MW said a TV programme should be banned from transmission, you could guarantee a really good viewing figure! Mjroots ( talk) 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please undo vandalism by 109.178.199.96? He removed a fair amount of text on 02:52, 29 June 2010 and called them "Bullshit", then rolled back the anti-vandal bot. I could do this but i am not sure how because now when i click "undo" it says to do it manually because people made 3 minor edits in the mean time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.73.10 ( talk) 22:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The police believe that Bristol barrister's wife: Annabel Dixie holds the key to the whereabouts of Suzy's body. Mrs Dixie was involved in a sexual relationship with the suspected serial killer: John Cannan at the time of Suzy's murder. Mrs Dixie has however resolutely refused to assist; in all probability on the advice of her husband Ian Dixie, based no doubt on the embarrassment that giving evidence against Cannan would cause them in their personal lives. One cannot help but notice the double standards at work here: Ian Dixie of Guildhall Chambers prosecutes cases for the Avon & Somerset Police, with a total disregard for the embarrassment to the personal lives of those he prosecutes, by the questions that he puts to those people. These two people should do their public duty and tell the police what they know and give the Lamplugh family the closure that they so richly deserve after a quarter of a century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.232.237 ( talk) 17:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The police believe that Bristol barrister's wife: Annabel Dixie holds the key to the whereabouts of Suzy's body. Mrs Dixie was involved in a sexual relationship with the suspected serial killer: John Cannan at the time of Suzy's murder. Mrs Dixie has however resolutely refused to assist; in all probability on the advice of her husband Ian Dixie, based no doubt on the embarrassment that giving evidence against Cannan would cause them in their personal lives. One cannot help but notice the double standards at work here: Ian Dixie of Guildhall Chambers prosecutes cases for the Avon & Somerset Police, with a total disregard for the embarrassment to the personal lives of those he prosecutes, by the questions that he puts to those people. These two people should do their public duty and tell the police what they know and give the Lamplugh family the closure that they so richly deserve after a quarter of a century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterJM1945 ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed the example with the King of Thailand and youtube. (In April 2007, Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, was portrayed as a monkey in a video posted on YouTube. The Thai government banned the site for lèse majesté, and other YouTube users responded by posting other clips bashing Bhumibol, leading to tens of thousands of views.) Tens of thousands of views at youtube sounded like a really unimpressing number. Of course, this is from the original Forbes article, so it's technically refed. I still think it seems tabloid, more than a very good example. But I don't have any strong feelings if anyone wants it here. Greswik ( talk) 05:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
As noted: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-dns-everydns
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/12/03/french-minister-declares-war-on-wikileaks.html
etc, etc, etc, the US government were daft enough to try pressuring US companies to take wikileaks offline. This has resulted in short outages, but has also resulted in wikileaks 'dead-mans-handle' file (INSURANCE.AES256,WIKILEAKS.SECRET.DOCUMENT.2010.08.06) being distributed more widely. It has also resulted in a quickly growing number of mirrors of both the cablegate data, and wikileaks website itself:
http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-wikiing.htm
I'm not sure if this is yet sufficiently mainstream to warrant an entry on this page, however, it is fast becoming viral among the geek/techy/hacker community. I'll leave the choice as to whether to add this to the page to a more proficient wikipedia editor. Kirrus ( talk) 19:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Think this would be a good example to add? Sometimes people try to silence those they disagree with on youtube, be it for political or religious reasons, whatever. As a result, those who agree with the video that was removed all mirror it, and soon the video is found on youtube hundreds of times.-- Mithcoriel ( talk) 08:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added the earliest example I know of: the Church of Scientology's attempts to suppress the Fishman affidavit, which really spread the story of Xenu in the world. Note that I've included a reference to the original Usenet version (the affidavit's first time on the Net) and do a "see also" to Xenu for the rest of the story, where it's referenced in painful detail. Is that sufficient? If not, the refs are over at the Xenu link - David Gerard 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
User Electricat ( talk · contribs) had added an entry, sourced by BoingBoing.com. Having had a look at the source, I removed it per wp:RS. My revert was undone because "Boing Boing is already listed as a legitimate example....can't be right and wrong at the same time." There is a big difference though: the other example is about something that happened at BoinBoing (with references), and it has huffingtonpost.com and abcnews.go.com as sources. The new entry simply has BoingBoing as a source, and i.m.o. this does qualify as a wp:RS. Ok with everyone if we remove the new entry? DVdm ( talk) 12:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
In any case, going in order:
Every example should have a citation that refers to the Streisand effect, otherwise we're engaging in original research by deciding on our own what qualifies.
Will Beback
talk
00:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyone want to put something about Sony's attempts at removing the PS3 signing keys from the Internet to the examples section? 85.210.95.162 ( talk) 08:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The article is about the concept not about the word. For example the most edited article last month was 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests which uses a descriptive title. Not one single reference uses the term "2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests", not one. Yet, we all know what examples to use in the article. It is not WP:OR or WP:SYN when editors use examples that don't have the exact phrase in the references. If it were, we could not use references that refer to The Great War from 1914 to 1938 that we now call World War I. World War I is a retronym. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. A surprising number of the examples actually did have appropriate references, so this has worked out for the best. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This becomes a typically emblematic of the Streisand effect: http://kyriacou.ch/2011/08/new-from-boiron-streisand-c200/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.28.120.103 ( talk) 08:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Here the (still not complete) website list about the "Boiron affair" Streisand effect: http://www.blogzero.it/2011/08/12/boiron-vs-blog-elenco-siti-supporter/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samriva ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Is the 'Streisand effect' distinguishable from the non-internet phenomenon that mnifests itself in an interest in anything that is forbidden and tends to generate paparazzi behavior and tabloid-type consumption? Does the Streisand effect not play itself out in traditional media?
I think there are two pre-existing ideas here. Idea #1 is that internet media is impossible to control. Any authoritative effort to suppress certain media tends to fail as the media/information propagates and is republished so quickly and widely that suppression is largely impracticable. Idea #2 is that people pruriently gravitate to things that others try to conceal from them--thus, the attempt to ban a movie, album or book often makes the book, album, or movie much more popular and widely consumed than it would ever otherwise be. Are there not a hundred examples of unremarkable movies that were given huge publicity because of moral or similar controversies about their content? Hence the adage, "Bad publicity is better than no publicity." When the item remains available for consumption despite the efforts to suppress it, the "Streisand effect" results, as interest rises and is nevertheless readily sated. Obviously, when the suppression is successful and the item is made unavailable for consumption, the "Streisand effect" does not happen. This is where idea #1 plugs in again, as the internet existence tends to make media rather less suppressible than it once was--but we know that about the internet already, didn't we.
All this brings us to my original point, is the "Streisand effect" distinguishable from other well known phenomenon or is it just a word that describes a facet of censorship in the internet age? If this article deserves to exist it should be clearer what it is talking about and its position as to whether it is internet specific or not should be made clear.
I'm not actually going to move for the deletion of this article. Needless to say that would just make it popular.
Thought: Is Deletionpedia an expression of the 'Streisand effect.' Would it not be therefore, poetic to have it deleted and moved to Deletionpedia where someone might read it? Let's delete it and find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.252.64.112 ( talk) 06:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This 2000 Spanish article speaks about this topic 3 years before Streisand effect was coined, and it is named informally "Gilmore Effect". Worth a paragraph in a history section? Regards. emijrp ( talk) 13:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Could this be included in examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.100.168 ( talk) 12:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the Muslim protests against the depiction of their prophet would be a great example of the Streisand effect. There is even an international "Draw Muhammad day" now, simply because they made such a big deal out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.110.12 ( talk) 04:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This Streisand effect is simply the timeless observation that people want to have or know that which is forbidden to them.
Heck, the Biblical fable of the temptation of Eve by the serpent to eat the forbidden fruit is an example!
How ignorant do you have to be to feel the need to mix up Barbara Streisand into it? 192.139.122.42 ( talk) 02:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
...when something like the Streisand effect is used wilfully, ie in this case, to direct attention to oneself's house or to oneself, to get more attention? A kind of publicity stunt? -- Ayacop ( talk) 14:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this and comment on it? It's an example of the Streisand effect, but it is constantly removed from the article without any discussion. Here's the version which was last reverted.
In June 2012, Canadian brewing company Labatt demanded the Montreal Gazette remove a photo of alleged murderer Luka Magnotta from its website. Labatt claimed the photo, which showed Magnotta casually holding a bottle of Labatt Blue, to be "highly denigrating". The newspaper responded by stating it would not censor its photos unless legally required to do so, and stated that its editorial decisions were not governed by "commercial considerations". By attempting to protect its brand through censoring the newspaper, Labatt suffered a public relations backlash in the press and social media. According to a professor of marketing at Queen's University, a connection between Magnotta and the brewer would not have entered the public consciousness if it were not for the "mini-firestorm" created by Labatt. [9] The Labatt-Magnotta blunder has been identified as an example of the Streisand effect. [10]
refs
- ^ "Church of Scientology warns Wikileaks over documents". Wikinews. 4 July 2008.
- ^ Guardian's initial report that it had been prevented from reporting on parliamentary proceedings
- ^ Guardian - 1688 Bill of Rights
- ^ Stephen Fry retweets to followers
- ^ . Telegraph reports on Trafigura
- ^ "Officer Bubbles Sues To Find Out Identity Of Anonymous YouTubers". http://www.techdirt.com/. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
{{ cite web}}
: External link in( help)
|publisher=
- ^ http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/bizarre&id=7906487
- ^ "Google diz que não é capaz de apagar páginas sobre Xuxa da web". http://g1.globo.com/. Retrieved 2010-10-14.
{{ cite web}}
: External link in( help)
|publisher=
- ^ Labatt backs away from Magnotta photo debacle, 6 June 2012, retrieved 17 June 2012
- ^ Defending the brand in a social media universe, Globe and Mail, 15 June 2012, retrieved 17 June 2012
This seems like a good example of the effect. We've got a scholar describing how the brand brought about its own heart-ache, and proof that the episode has been likened to the Streisand effect. Note that the Globe and Mail piece is not a news-story but commentary on how fast a scandal can spread within social media. The Marketing piece is from a magazine which specialises in the Canadian marketing industry. We can add this piece by Die Welt which shows that the episode has been likened to the effect in national media outwith Canada: [9]. Here's another relevant piece in the Globe and Mail, written by the co-founder of a public relations agency: [10]—I actually only noticed this piece on Google through the remarks on it written on behalf of a certain Canadian law firm published here: [11].
For an article like this—about an online-phenomenon of unintended consequences—I think these are pretty good sources. We've got refs showing that the example was likened to the Streisand effect by national media in two different countries. We've also got commentary from a marketing specialist at a University, and from people in the PR and legal professions. Not too many examples in this article have these kind of credentials.
An editor has removed the entry twice, reasoning that the episode is a "recent example" and "more like news". It's clearly a recent story, but that isn't grounds for automatic removal. The refs given here aren't mere news-reports—they're thoughtful commentaries on the episode and the whole phenomenon, written by people in the relevant fields. Also, look at the dates of the five previous examples:
So recent examples are okay after all. Now look at the next couple examples, but also compare the dates of the example and the dates of the refs:
Every example in this article is referenced from recent coverage. The following rationales for removal used in regard to this example don't hold any water at all: "recent example", "more like news", and "more of a news story and the sourcing does not mention the Streisand effect". That's why outside opinions are needed.
Compare this example, and the refs listed here, to any others in this article. I can't see how a reasonable editor would continually revert it's addition. Funnily enough, the thing that brought my attention to this example was the edit summary of a revert of an IP who added the example—the edit summary was "Rv unexplained, undiscussed change". Talk about Streisand effect.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 06:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Just noting here that since Glrx and ianmacm have refused to respond, I've asked for outside input at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Streisand_effect. I noted there that the latest example, about the 9-year old girl, is actually about a week more recent than the Labatt-example.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 22:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
pretty sure this should be called the DeCSS effect... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.225.88 ( talk) 18:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
For references or sources: 1) Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Streisand+Effect 2) Photo Of Streisand Home Becomes An Internet Hit: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030601/1910207.shtml -- Wesha 04:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
From the coiner's own words (emphasis mine):
This was a classic Streisand Effect case, where almost no one remembered or cared about the specific comments she was upset about -- but which have since received a lot more attention.
The examples listed in the article do not match this description. Lots of people cared about the Windows source leak, lots of people cared about Napster, etc. before they were given additional publicity through mainstream press. Just because publicity gives "more" attention to something does not make it a case of Streisand Effect (in fact, that is just the definition of "publicity"). For that reason, most of the examples on this page are inaccurate since the article's creator/maintainer is not going by the sourced definition. VanishingUser 02:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The example is notable, cited, and doesn't contain any illegal material. I can't imagine why it should be removed. -- Eyrian 13:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As of 5/7/07 Google indexes 1,720,000 pages with the number in question. Jamesgor13579 19:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
There was this case about a photo of a piece of artwork in a public park that was demanded to be removed from a website a couple years ago. The work was a metallic like "blob" (bean shaped?) and you could walk under it. Usually when works of art are placed in public places and made upon request of a government agency, the rights are transferred to the government or something, but the artist had not allowed this in this case and was actively "protecting" his piece of art. People started making all kinds of photo's (some recognizable, some not) of it and publishing it all over the internet, on flickr and stuff. Does anyone remember what that case was exactly? I can't for the life of me find anything about it anymore. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems quite possible that some alleged occurrences of the Streisand effect are actually quite intentional - that one person could misrepresent another for their own personal gain. This idea seems to generally be known as cui bono. A good example may be Alexander Litvinenko. His death seems to reflect badly upon Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation, however, as some news sources (for example, [1]) observe, it's also possible that someone tried to frame the Russian federation - to misrepresent them - in an attempt to discredit them.
Consider the The Pirate Bay instance mentioned in the article. Although I think it's unlikely, it's possible The Pirate Bay intentionally set itself up to be raided in an intentional attempt to stir things up and to illicit sympathy in others TerraFrost 05:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
AOL didn't try to censor this information, or force its removal from other sites through legal means. Removing it from their site hardly counts as an attempt to suppress the information and thus I don't think this incident belongs here. gssq 05:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If a reference in the "Notable cases" section doesn't contain the phrase "Streisand effect", then the incident doesn't belong in the "Notable cases" section. Editors are *assuming* those are examples of the Streisand effect but such speculation counts as original research.
Disagree. The "effect" is demonstrated by news reportage of the takedown demand and the hubbub around it. It's a phenomenon that exists even if the tag has not yet been applied. This seems like a good home for that class of cases/examples, but if not here, please suggest an alternate spot. Wseltzer 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Right now, the only non-blog URL in the References section that contains the phrase "Streisand effect" with a list of incidents is the Forbes article.
I think the "Notable cases" section is going to accumulate more and more original research as time goes by because editors will try and come up with their own examples. I suggest the entire "Notable cases" section be replaced with only the examples from the Forbes [2] slideshow, so far the only reliable source:
What do you think? -- Pixelface 04:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I am moving this unsourced claim to the talk page pending a citation for it's inclusion, and removing the OR tag.
Lots more examples off the top of my head, needing citations/etc, from Mathx 15:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It is like yelling "Stop teasing me!" at school lunch. Sunshine ҈ 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Should this case be added? (Starting September 2007, Uzbek Billionaire sics his lawyers on an allegedly libelous blogger, and the blogosphere quickly replicates the offending information.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.167.59 ( talk) 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't add examples without reliable sources that describe the events as "Streisand Efeect". Without them it is but your opinion, your interpretaion of the event, possibly false, i.e., it is original research inadmissible in wikipedia. `' Míkka 01:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Not to be totally against it, but all of a sudden we have 0 examples, where about a month or 4 ago, I thought we had this Forbes article that validated at least 6 of the examples... What happened to that reference ??????? -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Is Talk:Streisand effect/Timeline really necessary or can be deleted? -- ReyBrujo ( talk) 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Some sources (among which the cited San Jose Mercury News article) say that the photographer was sued for $10 millions, others (as this article, but not from the beginning) say $50M. So, what is the right amount? -- Antifumo ( talk) 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't change this because the article is semi-protected and I haven't been a user long enough, so I'm hoping someone else can: footnote #13 points to a piece I wrote for the Globe and Mail, but gives my name as Martin Ingram instead of Mathew Ingram. -- Mathewingram ( talk) 14:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Andy Greenberg of Forbes mentions three prominent incidents as examples of the Streisand effect: [1]
http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/legal-chill-from-lbc-973-over-jeni-barnetts-mmr-scaremongering/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.108.140.6 ( talk) 12:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
Isn't there a better name for this phenomenon? It has surely happened before 2003. The story of Herostratus has been used as well, but it's not all that similar. Anything else? I don't have a problem on Wikipedia containing this article, but I think all new references should be referring to something more classic instead. -- Ticram ( talk) 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Surely the backlash over creative would be notable enough to make this :/ 66.190.62.144 ( talk) 17:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
"The ironic thing is, because they tried to quiet it down, it’s the most famous number on the Internet."
Regardless of whether you have a "source" for this, it's complete bullcrap. The most famous number on the internet is 42, it has super-meme status due to The Hitch-hiker's Guide To The Galaxy. I suggest (Read:DEMAND) this sentence is removed. I'd never even heard of this number before I read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.216.57 ( talk) 11:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The See Also section currently lists MBTA v. Anderson. This better belongs in the list of examples; the other three items in the list are synonyms for Streisand effect. If no one objects, I'll change it in a few days. -- Vrmlguy ( talk) 13:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the example about Craig Murray's blog being shut down by Alisher Usmanov . [1] The only source given to substantiate the claim was the blog itself. There may be reliable sources out there to support the claim, if anyone is interested, but in my opinion, the article does not seem to be in need of "examples". -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
There's been a lot of back-and-forth editing about a Sears website vulnerability today, but nothing beyond a few Reddit posts to support the fact that Sears tried to censor it, and that the censorship itself was the primary cause of its popularity (rather than it being a funny exploit in itself). Any better sources for this? -- McGeddon ( talk) 16:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
To me the newest example, the one about Ralph Lauren and Photoshop Disasters seems like plain advertisement for the mentioned sites. It's too recent to be counted as valuable or even finished... Remove?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdascheller ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
If it passes AFD, I suggest Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy. At least one source in that article explicitly mentions the Streisand effect. -- Geniac ( talk) 00:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I note that the recently banned Wiki article "Virgin Killer" is now the most popular Wiki article, with about 10,000 page requests per hour: Wikipedia:Popular_pages. Are we just waiting for an external news article? This is probably one of the best examples of the Streisand Effect so far. 130.130.37.12 ( talk) 00:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a term for this phenomenon as it applies in real life (as opposed to the internet)? Reading this article made me think of the part in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix where Professor Umbridge bans The Quibbler from Hogwarts; and Hermione is ecstatic, saying that this will ensure that everyone in the school reads it. Sure enough, soon everyone has read the exclusive article about Harry Potter. Of course, this isn't "real life", but it's not the internet, either; and this sort of thing must happen in real life. Is there a separate name and/or article for it? If not, I'd be interested in helping to write one. NoriMori ( talk) 17:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Nike's attempt to confiscate a video of Jordan Crawford's dunk on LeBron James in 2009 may be an example of a reverse psychology (intentional) Streisand effect to generate publicity during the slow newsworthy off season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyBell ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
...than to plaster the picture on Wikipedia! :D @ harej 03:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
What's the procedure for noting broken links? I checked one or two of the references & found the linked pages non-existent but don't know what to do about it. TheresaWilson ( talk) 22:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
dead link}}
- where the URL does not exist at all{{
failed verification}}
- where the URL exists, but does not back up the statement which it us used to reference{{
registration required}}
- where the user must log in to the external site in order to view the page{{
dead link}}
or {{
failed verification}}
.A fact.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.example.com/ |title=example }}</ref>{{dead link|date=February 2010}}
A fact.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.example.com/ |title=example }}{{dead link|date=February 2010}}</ref>
Potential example of Streisand Effect to keep an eye on and possibly add to article [ [7]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.14.2 ( talk) 01:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Garion96 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed that this article be merged into Law of Unintended Consequences.
I've heard many comments that the Islamic attempt to "censor" this book by terrorist means (making death threats or otherwise to force will upon another by terrifying them of the consequences if they don't bend to the terrorist's will) actually resulted in far greater sales at least in the western world. Perhaps this could be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.35.228 ( talk) 00:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Didn't the overreaction from certain muslim groups result in even more people seeing, reproducing and even creating new variations on those? -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 07:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The Streisand Effect is much older than the 1990s. In the UK, it was the Mary Whitehouse effect as far back as the 1970s. If MW said a TV programme should be banned from transmission, you could guarantee a really good viewing figure! Mjroots ( talk) 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please undo vandalism by 109.178.199.96? He removed a fair amount of text on 02:52, 29 June 2010 and called them "Bullshit", then rolled back the anti-vandal bot. I could do this but i am not sure how because now when i click "undo" it says to do it manually because people made 3 minor edits in the mean time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.73.10 ( talk) 22:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The police believe that Bristol barrister's wife: Annabel Dixie holds the key to the whereabouts of Suzy's body. Mrs Dixie was involved in a sexual relationship with the suspected serial killer: John Cannan at the time of Suzy's murder. Mrs Dixie has however resolutely refused to assist; in all probability on the advice of her husband Ian Dixie, based no doubt on the embarrassment that giving evidence against Cannan would cause them in their personal lives. One cannot help but notice the double standards at work here: Ian Dixie of Guildhall Chambers prosecutes cases for the Avon & Somerset Police, with a total disregard for the embarrassment to the personal lives of those he prosecutes, by the questions that he puts to those people. These two people should do their public duty and tell the police what they know and give the Lamplugh family the closure that they so richly deserve after a quarter of a century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.232.237 ( talk) 17:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The police believe that Bristol barrister's wife: Annabel Dixie holds the key to the whereabouts of Suzy's body. Mrs Dixie was involved in a sexual relationship with the suspected serial killer: John Cannan at the time of Suzy's murder. Mrs Dixie has however resolutely refused to assist; in all probability on the advice of her husband Ian Dixie, based no doubt on the embarrassment that giving evidence against Cannan would cause them in their personal lives. One cannot help but notice the double standards at work here: Ian Dixie of Guildhall Chambers prosecutes cases for the Avon & Somerset Police, with a total disregard for the embarrassment to the personal lives of those he prosecutes, by the questions that he puts to those people. These two people should do their public duty and tell the police what they know and give the Lamplugh family the closure that they so richly deserve after a quarter of a century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterJM1945 ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed the example with the King of Thailand and youtube. (In April 2007, Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, was portrayed as a monkey in a video posted on YouTube. The Thai government banned the site for lèse majesté, and other YouTube users responded by posting other clips bashing Bhumibol, leading to tens of thousands of views.) Tens of thousands of views at youtube sounded like a really unimpressing number. Of course, this is from the original Forbes article, so it's technically refed. I still think it seems tabloid, more than a very good example. But I don't have any strong feelings if anyone wants it here. Greswik ( talk) 05:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
As noted: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-dns-everydns
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/12/03/french-minister-declares-war-on-wikileaks.html
etc, etc, etc, the US government were daft enough to try pressuring US companies to take wikileaks offline. This has resulted in short outages, but has also resulted in wikileaks 'dead-mans-handle' file (INSURANCE.AES256,WIKILEAKS.SECRET.DOCUMENT.2010.08.06) being distributed more widely. It has also resulted in a quickly growing number of mirrors of both the cablegate data, and wikileaks website itself:
http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-wikiing.htm
I'm not sure if this is yet sufficiently mainstream to warrant an entry on this page, however, it is fast becoming viral among the geek/techy/hacker community. I'll leave the choice as to whether to add this to the page to a more proficient wikipedia editor. Kirrus ( talk) 19:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Think this would be a good example to add? Sometimes people try to silence those they disagree with on youtube, be it for political or religious reasons, whatever. As a result, those who agree with the video that was removed all mirror it, and soon the video is found on youtube hundreds of times.-- Mithcoriel ( talk) 08:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added the earliest example I know of: the Church of Scientology's attempts to suppress the Fishman affidavit, which really spread the story of Xenu in the world. Note that I've included a reference to the original Usenet version (the affidavit's first time on the Net) and do a "see also" to Xenu for the rest of the story, where it's referenced in painful detail. Is that sufficient? If not, the refs are over at the Xenu link - David Gerard 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
User Electricat ( talk · contribs) had added an entry, sourced by BoingBoing.com. Having had a look at the source, I removed it per wp:RS. My revert was undone because "Boing Boing is already listed as a legitimate example....can't be right and wrong at the same time." There is a big difference though: the other example is about something that happened at BoinBoing (with references), and it has huffingtonpost.com and abcnews.go.com as sources. The new entry simply has BoingBoing as a source, and i.m.o. this does qualify as a wp:RS. Ok with everyone if we remove the new entry? DVdm ( talk) 12:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
In any case, going in order:
Every example should have a citation that refers to the Streisand effect, otherwise we're engaging in original research by deciding on our own what qualifies.
Will Beback
talk
00:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyone want to put something about Sony's attempts at removing the PS3 signing keys from the Internet to the examples section? 85.210.95.162 ( talk) 08:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The article is about the concept not about the word. For example the most edited article last month was 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests which uses a descriptive title. Not one single reference uses the term "2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests", not one. Yet, we all know what examples to use in the article. It is not WP:OR or WP:SYN when editors use examples that don't have the exact phrase in the references. If it were, we could not use references that refer to The Great War from 1914 to 1938 that we now call World War I. World War I is a retronym. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. A surprising number of the examples actually did have appropriate references, so this has worked out for the best. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This becomes a typically emblematic of the Streisand effect: http://kyriacou.ch/2011/08/new-from-boiron-streisand-c200/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.28.120.103 ( talk) 08:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Here the (still not complete) website list about the "Boiron affair" Streisand effect: http://www.blogzero.it/2011/08/12/boiron-vs-blog-elenco-siti-supporter/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samriva ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Is the 'Streisand effect' distinguishable from the non-internet phenomenon that mnifests itself in an interest in anything that is forbidden and tends to generate paparazzi behavior and tabloid-type consumption? Does the Streisand effect not play itself out in traditional media?
I think there are two pre-existing ideas here. Idea #1 is that internet media is impossible to control. Any authoritative effort to suppress certain media tends to fail as the media/information propagates and is republished so quickly and widely that suppression is largely impracticable. Idea #2 is that people pruriently gravitate to things that others try to conceal from them--thus, the attempt to ban a movie, album or book often makes the book, album, or movie much more popular and widely consumed than it would ever otherwise be. Are there not a hundred examples of unremarkable movies that were given huge publicity because of moral or similar controversies about their content? Hence the adage, "Bad publicity is better than no publicity." When the item remains available for consumption despite the efforts to suppress it, the "Streisand effect" results, as interest rises and is nevertheless readily sated. Obviously, when the suppression is successful and the item is made unavailable for consumption, the "Streisand effect" does not happen. This is where idea #1 plugs in again, as the internet existence tends to make media rather less suppressible than it once was--but we know that about the internet already, didn't we.
All this brings us to my original point, is the "Streisand effect" distinguishable from other well known phenomenon or is it just a word that describes a facet of censorship in the internet age? If this article deserves to exist it should be clearer what it is talking about and its position as to whether it is internet specific or not should be made clear.
I'm not actually going to move for the deletion of this article. Needless to say that would just make it popular.
Thought: Is Deletionpedia an expression of the 'Streisand effect.' Would it not be therefore, poetic to have it deleted and moved to Deletionpedia where someone might read it? Let's delete it and find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.252.64.112 ( talk) 06:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This 2000 Spanish article speaks about this topic 3 years before Streisand effect was coined, and it is named informally "Gilmore Effect". Worth a paragraph in a history section? Regards. emijrp ( talk) 13:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Could this be included in examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.100.168 ( talk) 12:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the Muslim protests against the depiction of their prophet would be a great example of the Streisand effect. There is even an international "Draw Muhammad day" now, simply because they made such a big deal out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.110.12 ( talk) 04:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This Streisand effect is simply the timeless observation that people want to have or know that which is forbidden to them.
Heck, the Biblical fable of the temptation of Eve by the serpent to eat the forbidden fruit is an example!
How ignorant do you have to be to feel the need to mix up Barbara Streisand into it? 192.139.122.42 ( talk) 02:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
...when something like the Streisand effect is used wilfully, ie in this case, to direct attention to oneself's house or to oneself, to get more attention? A kind of publicity stunt? -- Ayacop ( talk) 14:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this and comment on it? It's an example of the Streisand effect, but it is constantly removed from the article without any discussion. Here's the version which was last reverted.
In June 2012, Canadian brewing company Labatt demanded the Montreal Gazette remove a photo of alleged murderer Luka Magnotta from its website. Labatt claimed the photo, which showed Magnotta casually holding a bottle of Labatt Blue, to be "highly denigrating". The newspaper responded by stating it would not censor its photos unless legally required to do so, and stated that its editorial decisions were not governed by "commercial considerations". By attempting to protect its brand through censoring the newspaper, Labatt suffered a public relations backlash in the press and social media. According to a professor of marketing at Queen's University, a connection between Magnotta and the brewer would not have entered the public consciousness if it were not for the "mini-firestorm" created by Labatt. [9] The Labatt-Magnotta blunder has been identified as an example of the Streisand effect. [10]
refs
- ^ "Church of Scientology warns Wikileaks over documents". Wikinews. 4 July 2008.
- ^ Guardian's initial report that it had been prevented from reporting on parliamentary proceedings
- ^ Guardian - 1688 Bill of Rights
- ^ Stephen Fry retweets to followers
- ^ . Telegraph reports on Trafigura
- ^ "Officer Bubbles Sues To Find Out Identity Of Anonymous YouTubers". http://www.techdirt.com/. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
{{ cite web}}
: External link in( help)
|publisher=
- ^ http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/bizarre&id=7906487
- ^ "Google diz que não é capaz de apagar páginas sobre Xuxa da web". http://g1.globo.com/. Retrieved 2010-10-14.
{{ cite web}}
: External link in( help)
|publisher=
- ^ Labatt backs away from Magnotta photo debacle, 6 June 2012, retrieved 17 June 2012
- ^ Defending the brand in a social media universe, Globe and Mail, 15 June 2012, retrieved 17 June 2012
This seems like a good example of the effect. We've got a scholar describing how the brand brought about its own heart-ache, and proof that the episode has been likened to the Streisand effect. Note that the Globe and Mail piece is not a news-story but commentary on how fast a scandal can spread within social media. The Marketing piece is from a magazine which specialises in the Canadian marketing industry. We can add this piece by Die Welt which shows that the episode has been likened to the effect in national media outwith Canada: [9]. Here's another relevant piece in the Globe and Mail, written by the co-founder of a public relations agency: [10]—I actually only noticed this piece on Google through the remarks on it written on behalf of a certain Canadian law firm published here: [11].
For an article like this—about an online-phenomenon of unintended consequences—I think these are pretty good sources. We've got refs showing that the example was likened to the Streisand effect by national media in two different countries. We've also got commentary from a marketing specialist at a University, and from people in the PR and legal professions. Not too many examples in this article have these kind of credentials.
An editor has removed the entry twice, reasoning that the episode is a "recent example" and "more like news". It's clearly a recent story, but that isn't grounds for automatic removal. The refs given here aren't mere news-reports—they're thoughtful commentaries on the episode and the whole phenomenon, written by people in the relevant fields. Also, look at the dates of the five previous examples:
So recent examples are okay after all. Now look at the next couple examples, but also compare the dates of the example and the dates of the refs:
Every example in this article is referenced from recent coverage. The following rationales for removal used in regard to this example don't hold any water at all: "recent example", "more like news", and "more of a news story and the sourcing does not mention the Streisand effect". That's why outside opinions are needed.
Compare this example, and the refs listed here, to any others in this article. I can't see how a reasonable editor would continually revert it's addition. Funnily enough, the thing that brought my attention to this example was the edit summary of a revert of an IP who added the example—the edit summary was "Rv unexplained, undiscussed change". Talk about Streisand effect.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 06:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Just noting here that since Glrx and ianmacm have refused to respond, I've asked for outside input at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Streisand_effect. I noted there that the latest example, about the 9-year old girl, is actually about a week more recent than the Labatt-example.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 22:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)