![]() | 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 |
Editors at the bottom of this talk page are discussing the unencyclopaedic nature of the article and the quality of the references used as citations. I'm inclined to wonder if this might be a potential article for deletion, to be honest; its main claim to notability seems to be a self-referential tendency for people to use the article itself as evidence of the term being used and quoting it when other celebrities or corporates exhibit similar behaviour - I'm not convinced it's a real term used by real people in the wild. Star-one ( talk) 15:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You may wish to look at the talk page of Political gaffe and the articles Nail house and Spite house. They have similar issues with content.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 04:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It's an unencyclopedic article to begin with, about some silly thing from 5 years ago. My question, however, is this: since when did Wikipedia become a clearinghouse for a bunch of inanity like the examples section of this article? Someone really needs to just start a Streisand Effect blog rather than waste Wikipedia's bandwidth on it. Hanxu9 ( talk) 03:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this article is necessarily "unencylopedic", but the reasons for having it could be debated. For starters, the term is already defined at Urban Dictionary anyways, so we probably could get away without having it. However, UD is really more of a humor blog site than a serious website anyways, so defining the term here would put a more serious tone on it.
I do agree that the number of examples in the article is a bit extreme. The only examples that even should be include are ones that meet primarily two criteria. First, mention of it needs to be in a source publication that meets WP:RS guidelines -- if someone blogs about it on a random website, it doesn't count. Secondly, the term "Streisand Effect" should be mentioned in the source EXPLICITLY. If it's not, then it would appear to violate Wikipedia WP:NPOV guidelines, since the article would be suggesting that the incident in question is an example of the Streisand Effect. WTF? ( talk) 21:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby
A situation in which, the more one struggles, the more entwined one gets in the problem? That seems to be analogous to the Streisand Effect but in the modern times (on the internet) and propogated through electronic communications that can easily dessminate information. Unintended consequences, yes. Tar-baby as well, yes. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
204.194.141.28 (
talk)
15:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
There appears to be a war about a new section. We don't just keep putting it an and out like a yo-yo, even if there are different(?) editors. Once reverted once and certainly after twice - It should be discussed here, and a consensus obtained. Page protected for two weeks to allow a full discussion. Ronhjones (Talk) 01:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The ongoing
Justin Zatkoff incident is as valid as any of the other examples on this page. He is actively trying to scrub the internet of any evidence of his lying to police about being attacked by gay liberal thugs. --
Dr Cherry (
talk)
01:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
-I cannot seem to find any valid sources that state a false police report was filed or that Justin Zatkoff claimed to be attacked by gay liberal thugs. Further, it does not seem as though this incident would qualify for this particular Streisand Effect wikipedia page. Perhaps you could provide us a copy of the police report or a quote from Justin Zatkoff that states this.
-This has not had a "Streisand Effect."
Here is the Michigan Daily article http://www.michigandaily.com/content/alleged-political-hate-crime-not-what-it-seemed [3] -- Dr Cherry ( talk) 02:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This article illustrates why the Streisand Effect applies. Zatkoff is activley trying to scrub this incident of lying from the internet. http://markmaynard.com/2012/11/my-site-was-taken-down-in-web-washing-attempt-by-false-hate-crime-victim-justin-zatkoff/ [4] -- Dr Cherry ( talk) 02:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
-The "Michigan Daily" article specifically states that Zatkoff did not know what happened. Where do you get that he claimed it was gay liberal thugs and lied to the police?
-A few additional blogposts being published does not qualify for the Streisand Effect. It typically applies to famous individuals or, in the least, individuals who gain widespread recognition based on the Streisand Effect. Do you have anymore recent news articles to help prove your point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billomega321 ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Sadly No Covered it. [5] But perhaps instead of being include on this page it needs it's own page. -- Dr Cherry ( talk) 02:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The webwashing actions are covered here http://peterslarson.com/2012/11/10/local-liberal-blogger-allegedly-threatened-with-legal-action-for-posting-pictures-of-drunken-college-republicans/ [6] -- Dr Cherry ( talk) 02:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please linkify "famous Swedish murder case" to Christine Schürrer#Murders and arrest -- 82.69.159.205 ( talk) 00:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
This effect is a key plot point in this book. Do you think it should be mentioned? Difficultly north ( talk) 14:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I just read a little of that removed material. Are there RS that state that recent events have caused a molehill to mountain effect with access to online data? Do any state that the government actions and resulting events have caused a deluge of more free access data on the net?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 21:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I feel like Grey Tuesday deserves a mention here. When EMI tried to eliminate DJ Danger Mouse's Grey Album, which combines tracks from The Beatle's White Album with Jay-Z's The Black Album. The cease-and-desist letter prompted hundreds of websites to host the album for download. ( http://www.greytuesday.org/_) 11:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrixRabbi ( talk • contribs)
I understand that there are a lot of examples already but I think it is worth considering the President of South Africa's recent attempt to supress a photo of himself with his genitals exposed which only served to make the painting a not only a South African but an international cause celebre? Just my two cents. Ntshebe ( talk) 17:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The definition claims that the effect is "usually facilitated by the Internet". I would dispute that. Most of the examples given did not rely on the internet. The effect does not depend on the internet. So I would recommend removing reference to the internet in this context. 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 22:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The Suburban Express example does not seem very notable, and is a routine Internet spat where people have cried "Streisand effect". Would there be a consensus to remove this, as there are enough examples already?-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Rather than using the examples section for illustrative purposes, I think it could be renamed "Notable Examples" - then the question of "Do we need yet another example?" won't arise. As long as a new example meets the requirements ("Please do not add examples unless accompanied by sources which actually refer to the Streisand effect by name and which give solid evidence that the attempt to censor increased the publicity of the item in question."), it could be added to the list.
To facilitate readability, I propose dividing the current examples into categories according to the entity affected by the Streisand Effect:
AlmostGrad ( talk) 03:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Another notable example is the hot coffee mod for GTA which unlocked adult content in the game and wasn't downloaded much until efforts to censor it hit the press. 116.90.140.22 ( talk) 22:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm removing the WikiLeaks example because people didn't mirror WikiLeaks becomes someone tried to suppress it - people mirrored it because it was going down, and because they had interesting material.
There was no attempt at suppressing the material - which is the hallmark of this effect. Without that it's simply not an example. Ariel. ( talk) 23:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Mirror sites are keeping WikiLeaks up and running despite the loss of its original wikileaks.org address, shut down by an American provider: Welcome to the Barbra Streisand Effect. ... By 1630 GMT several hundred WikiLeaks mirror sites were listed at one online directory ( http://bluetouff.com/2010/12/03/acceder-a-wikileaks/). For as industry specialists explained, the strong libertarian sensibility shared by large parts of the online community means that any hint of censorship provokes an instant riposte designed to produce the opposite effect. "As soon as a case of censorship blows up on the Web, a community forms spontaneously and everyone replicates everywhere," explained Gregory Fabre, a systems engineer and co-founder of the terra-eco.net site. With information copied on to servers that could be anywhere in the world, trying to stop the information getting out is like trying to plug a leaking sieve. ...What is happening with WikiLeaks has already happened dozens of times," he added. "What they want to censor is thus duplicated," he said, producing precisely the opposite effect intended by the censor.
What about citing an official statement from a CEO of a company talking ABOUT the Streisand Effect is improper or inappropriate? I'm just curious 173.8.158.225 ( talk) 23:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This story must get in: http://retractionwatch.com/2013/12/04/retraction-prompts-letter-of-explanation-by-co-author-and-a-legal-threat-against-retraction-watch/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.230.30 ( talk) 08:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Examples where the given sources do not explicitly reference the Streisand effect would be considered original research would they not? -- John Reaves 23:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Streisand Estate.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 18, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-01-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I think there is another example of the Streisand Effect with the Theodore Katsanevas, incident. (Sampson, Tim. "Greek politician who sued Wikipedia editor clearly never heard of the Streisand Effect". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 19 February 2014.)
Also the Wikimedia Foundation supports the actions of the wikipedia user. (Paulson, Michelle. "Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia user subject to defamation lawsuit in Greece". Retrieved 14 February 2014.)
I don't think that the reason for removal of the entry with the reason: "trying to censor an article on one language version of Wikipedia led to copies being created on other language Wikipedias" seems a bit self indulgent! Also a lot of articles now have seen this issue. So why it is not a Streisand effect. Few people knew about that, and when legal action went for the removal of this content suddenly there is hype about it! -- Hargikas ( talk) 12:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Now and then concerns pop up as to whether include this or that case into the list of examples. Clearly, there are plenty of them, and for illustration purposes we don't need that many. How about the following rule of thumb:
An extra benefit is that in this case we can do with 1-2 sentences per case (plus a wikilink to details), and this article will not be overbloated with text of examples. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The Hungarian example with Linda Király does not seem to be very notable, and the one of the cites is a blog in Hungarian which does not contain the word "Streisand". This looks like a routine misuse of copyright complaints rather than an example of the Streisand effect. It is similar to what happened when KTVU attempted to remove the Asiana Airlines blunder. [8]-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm beginner in editing Wikipedia articles and I forgot to check this talk page before re-adding my new example. Ok, I should look for a reference where "Streisand effect" expression is explicitly used. I read more than one Hungarian articles where this expression was used. By the way, is it required to refer to external articles in the same language as Wikipedia's article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.229.168 ( talk) 19:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I am a member of Hanyang university in Korea, and my classmate and I are going to make this article in Korean better. We will start with this English article first checking the references and make sure Korean version has the correct and necessary information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Db9023 ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
When I search wikipedia for Mediabridge this article is the top result with the text "In May 2014, the company Mediabridge Products, LLC threatened a lawsuit against an Amazon. com reviewer. representing Mediabridge Products, ...".But the information is missing in the article, is there a way to pull the last article that had this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.44.222 ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 May 2014
Per previous discussion and WP:RECENTISM, it is not helpful to add new examples every time someone shouts "Streisand effect". The article is not intended to be an exhaustive list, and this is not hugely noteworthy.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this is a particularly good example of the Streisand effect, on the basis that UKIP having loopy policies isn't some unknown thing that has only now come to light because of the censorship attempt. Also, none of the sources mention the effect unless you count the Huffpo quoting a conversation from Twitter where the original tweeter talks about his experience and uses the term himself. – Steel 18:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Obviously there are thousands of the StEf cases. Obviously they are referenced, by the very virtue of the StEf. Obviously it is meaningless to collect them here. Obviously well-meaning editors will try to add more an more of them. Therefore I suggest to lay ground rules about adding examples.
I looked for appropriate guidelines in wikipedia and found an essay WP:EXAMPLES. I was surprised to see it underdeveloped, while I am sure this issue bugs plenty of articles. Therefore I suggest to have an quick discussion here and move to Wikipedia talk:Example cruft and convert it into a formal guideline.
For starters, in addition to major wikipedia policies, the fundamental rule: the purpose of examples is to enhance the understanding of the topic covered in the article.
Therefore:
Other suggestions? Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
while those are mighty fine criteria, we cannot set them up as "Rules that must be followed". We can however craft some information for potential editors that pops up when you go to edit; like they did here. A notice something like:
I dont think it will help to go into much more detail than that. But I think that kind of covers the major points, right? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I think this should be included as an example of the Streisand Effect. On the above lists of points as to whether to add it as an example, the only point on which it fails is no sources have specifically labelled it the streisand effect. But that doesn't mean that it isn't, and I would largely suggest it hasn't been mentioned because the NZ media generally aren't savvy with this sort of thing.
I think it adds an interesting element in the case, because the judge was specifically concerned about how it made John Banks appear as a target for ridicule, but in doing so they greatly increased the coverage that the particular footage received in the media, thus the judge's action invites ridicule on him. This is an interesting case because in others it is the individual themselves that invite the increased coverage, whereas here it was the judge trying to act in the best interest of Banks that instead made things worse for him. This has been an extremely high profile case in general in NZ, and this particular incident received at least 2 days of media coverage, as well as the subsequent effect on TV3 not being able to cover any more of the trial and it's outcome.
Here's the example I had added to the page:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.165.78 ( talk) 21:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I think, since this list contains a bunch of notable examples, and the opening section mentions that this is mostly an internet-related effect, that Beyoncé's photo should be mentioned here too. Usually memes die out pretty quickly after they get older, but this photo is still being referred to any time anybody tries to cover up something. I think, even though this photo had very little effect on the 'outernet', it has a significant enough effect on the internet. I've seen people refer to the Beyoncé picture more often in these kinds of situations than to the Streisand effect. Any opinions? Joeytje50 ( talk) 13:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
This is another example which is not notable. It is a routine spat over an online review which is blown up out of proportion.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The EU "right to be forgotten" seems to be creating a whole new category of Streisand Effect incidents. -- Resuna ( talk) 01:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
This looks like an attempt to establish notability with WP:109PAPERS. Of the citations given, [14] [15] [16] [17] do not mention the Streisand effect by name.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't think of a more dramatic example of the Streisand Effect. It should be included here.
Based on several recent edits, and at least two reverts, on this article, and based on new source information since it was discussed on 20 Dec 2014, I'm reopening this discussion. I believe the following to be true, and I believe that each of the following edits was made in good faith:
The only trouble is that, I believe, that the Talk (last updated, by me, and with the idea that we need to wait for reliably sourced information, on 20 Dec) is now, as of 23 Dec, out of date.
There is (now) a sourced claim about the Streisand effect and this movie now in the article on The Interview (2014 film). Thus, I believe that the previous Talk page apparent consensus is no longer applicable, and the IP editor, or others, could actually probably succeed in adding that movie as as example in this article, though possibly needing to ensure any source used has a specific clear identification to the Streisand effect.
I've not read all those sources just now. But I think the dialogue ought to restart. And that possibly the IP editor—who may possibly be a new editor—was reverted incorrectly in light of this new information.
I will place an invite on each parties Talk page. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 23:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
[20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] and [28], to name a few. I could list all WP:109PAPERS if you like, but the possibility of this being sent north has been widely covered and widely commented upon. Good luck trying to put the genie back into the bottle. K7L ( talk) 18:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I added the following to "selected examples"
One editor reverted on the grounds that it wasn't notable; I pointed out that it had made international media. The same editor then reverted it on the grounds that no source linked the incident to the Streisand effect. I found three sources (from the Washington Post, Huffington Post, and a Florida local news station) specifically mentioning the Streisand effect and amended it:
But another editor reverted me again without giving a reason, and told me to take it to the Talk page. (At the time of the reversion, I had only added the Washington Post source.) If nobody can come up with more convincing reasons why it should be omitted, I will eventually reinsert it.
Manybytes ( talk) 03:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
I'd never heard of this effect until someone on a forum mentioned it in relation to the recent Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. I think the article would benefit from a section on the success of hit records subsequent to being banned and how even hope of a ban (in the case of 'god save the Queen) has influenced the product. http://www.songpeople.com/songpeople-playlists/top-10-songs-that-were-banned-from-the-airwaves /info/en/?search=List_of_songs_banned_by_the_BBC Adagio67 ( talk) 12:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought I'd made my point clearly but perhaps not. The main article is about prohibition of something making it more interesting/popular/giving it unintended publicity. (my reference to Charlie Hebdo was only tangential. It was in a discussion about the incident, and how the the terrorists action had galvanised support for free speech, someone mentioned the Streisand effect, which brought me here). I would suggest that banned hit records are at least worth a mention as a general example of the phenomena, but the 'selected examples' section is already 70% of the article. Also, whilst I had believed the link between a ban and subsequent popularity to be a recognised phenomena in pop music field, i've not been able to find much information on it; probably as it is something that is very difficult to quantify. Adagio67 ( talk) 14:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
With the recent effects of the Zoe Quinn crisis over Twitter, Tumblr, etc. it would probably be very advisable to put it under the Streisand effect examples. It blew very much out of proportion extremely quickly and has many resources ready to be used in future reference and thus proves to be a wonderful example of the Streisand effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagacity159 ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
created by a sock in violation of a block or ban --
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
17:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
Is the "Streisand Effect" a language term organically defined by usage? If so, should wp report the usage of those commentators who have extended the usage of SE to refer to Charlie Hebdo? GreenPeasAndPotatoes ( talk) 06:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Initial comments by GreenPeasAndPotatoes (aka TGPoH)Request: this RfC using a single-purpose account is my attempt to dig myself out of looking like a troll, which I hope I am not. As an experienced and usually well-regarded WPian, I ask that anyone tempted to delete it first stops to actually read it. Sorry the material is lengthy, but by now it is a complicated problem. Following the first fatal attack on Charlie Hebdo, the next issue sold 100 times more copies than it had sold before, all with a cartoon of Muhammad on the front cover. Various commentators have referred to this as an example of the Streisand Effect, which afaik is the most (the only?) succinct way of referring to the phenomenon wherein attempts to suppress publication result in far greater dissemination of that publication. Although the term "Streisand Effect" is notable, it has never been authoritatively defined:
Afaik there are no scholarly definitions of SE; instead it is defined by its usage by newspapers and bloggers. For this reason all 43 references for wp's SE article might be challenged as being inadequate sources. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effet_Streisand includes the Hebdo example, but attempts to add Hebdo to en.wp's SE were rejected based on some editors' assumptions that various(!) non-authoritative(!) definitions of SE are set in stone and must be forever heeded. My own rejected submission (plus three almost minor changes) was:
As a moderately experienced WPian, I am reasonably sure that wp's Streisand Effect usefully documents a notable but informally defined organically growing term of language, and should be allowed to continue to do so. I am completely open to being persuaded otherwise, but so far there has been no explanation of the rejection except for "Not an example of the effect" along with assertions that I am a troll. This is despite that before adding my submission I had written a multi-par essay at Talk:Streisand_effect#Charlie_Hebdo as user:TheGreenPenOfHope, and I then added my submission with an edit summary that included "- see Talk#Charlie Hebdo". Sorry my Talk 'essay' was multi-par, but several mistakes had already been made. The reason I have asked for help via RfC and at the Village Pump is because this edit war has been clouded by several factors that rule out the usual channels of appeal:
Disclosures: I do think it is terribly important to have a terminology that lets us succinctly illustrate how the violent attempted suppression of information can result in its far greater dissemination. But as a publisher myself, I have a vested interested in being able to publish more safely. For personal reasons I don't wish to identify myself re Hebdo, and my main wp account is not completely anonymous, hence my creation of a single-purpose wp account. I have only ever created two single-purpose accounts: TheGreenPenOfHope, and now this GreenPeasAndPotatoes (because TheGreenPenOfHope is permanently blocked, largely because of its similarity to TheRedPenOfDoom). I have never sought to evade scrutiny, nor use one account to anonymously support another account. So, sorry to have taken so much of people's time. I meant well, motivated by wp's welfare and the welfare of all peoples, and I don't mean to be a troll. I wouldn't bother persisting except that this particular topic is far from wp:lame. I am only still persisting because no-one has yet censured me without showing clear indications that they have not actually understood significant issues (which is not surprising, because by now those issues are almost drowned in a sea of words). If it is any consolation, it takes longer to write than to read, and sorting out this mess is a painful punishment. Suggested way forward: I hope this present account 'GreenPeasAndPotatoes' is not blocked - I think it would indicate a vindictively inadequate understanding if that is done. In a couple of days I will re-submit my contribution with the hope that, in the spirit of wp:HUMAN, it is either accepted, or rejected with Discussion as per wp:BRD. GreenPeasAndPotatoes ( talk) 07:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Threaded discussion[IanMacM posted his comment below before I had posted my initial comments above - sorry that a glitch stopped me from posting them together. So it is my fault that Ian posted his comment without having had a chance to read what I wrote above in this section. Ian, hope I have done the right thing in moving your comment to below mine - I thought the alternative would be too confusing. GreenPeasAndPotatoes ( talk) 07:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
References
|
![]() | 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 |
Editors at the bottom of this talk page are discussing the unencyclopaedic nature of the article and the quality of the references used as citations. I'm inclined to wonder if this might be a potential article for deletion, to be honest; its main claim to notability seems to be a self-referential tendency for people to use the article itself as evidence of the term being used and quoting it when other celebrities or corporates exhibit similar behaviour - I'm not convinced it's a real term used by real people in the wild. Star-one ( talk) 15:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You may wish to look at the talk page of Political gaffe and the articles Nail house and Spite house. They have similar issues with content.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 04:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It's an unencyclopedic article to begin with, about some silly thing from 5 years ago. My question, however, is this: since when did Wikipedia become a clearinghouse for a bunch of inanity like the examples section of this article? Someone really needs to just start a Streisand Effect blog rather than waste Wikipedia's bandwidth on it. Hanxu9 ( talk) 03:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this article is necessarily "unencylopedic", but the reasons for having it could be debated. For starters, the term is already defined at Urban Dictionary anyways, so we probably could get away without having it. However, UD is really more of a humor blog site than a serious website anyways, so defining the term here would put a more serious tone on it.
I do agree that the number of examples in the article is a bit extreme. The only examples that even should be include are ones that meet primarily two criteria. First, mention of it needs to be in a source publication that meets WP:RS guidelines -- if someone blogs about it on a random website, it doesn't count. Secondly, the term "Streisand Effect" should be mentioned in the source EXPLICITLY. If it's not, then it would appear to violate Wikipedia WP:NPOV guidelines, since the article would be suggesting that the incident in question is an example of the Streisand Effect. WTF? ( talk) 21:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby
A situation in which, the more one struggles, the more entwined one gets in the problem? That seems to be analogous to the Streisand Effect but in the modern times (on the internet) and propogated through electronic communications that can easily dessminate information. Unintended consequences, yes. Tar-baby as well, yes. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
204.194.141.28 (
talk)
15:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
There appears to be a war about a new section. We don't just keep putting it an and out like a yo-yo, even if there are different(?) editors. Once reverted once and certainly after twice - It should be discussed here, and a consensus obtained. Page protected for two weeks to allow a full discussion. Ronhjones (Talk) 01:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The ongoing
Justin Zatkoff incident is as valid as any of the other examples on this page. He is actively trying to scrub the internet of any evidence of his lying to police about being attacked by gay liberal thugs. --
Dr Cherry (
talk)
01:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
-I cannot seem to find any valid sources that state a false police report was filed or that Justin Zatkoff claimed to be attacked by gay liberal thugs. Further, it does not seem as though this incident would qualify for this particular Streisand Effect wikipedia page. Perhaps you could provide us a copy of the police report or a quote from Justin Zatkoff that states this.
-This has not had a "Streisand Effect."
Here is the Michigan Daily article http://www.michigandaily.com/content/alleged-political-hate-crime-not-what-it-seemed [3] -- Dr Cherry ( talk) 02:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This article illustrates why the Streisand Effect applies. Zatkoff is activley trying to scrub this incident of lying from the internet. http://markmaynard.com/2012/11/my-site-was-taken-down-in-web-washing-attempt-by-false-hate-crime-victim-justin-zatkoff/ [4] -- Dr Cherry ( talk) 02:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
-The "Michigan Daily" article specifically states that Zatkoff did not know what happened. Where do you get that he claimed it was gay liberal thugs and lied to the police?
-A few additional blogposts being published does not qualify for the Streisand Effect. It typically applies to famous individuals or, in the least, individuals who gain widespread recognition based on the Streisand Effect. Do you have anymore recent news articles to help prove your point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billomega321 ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Sadly No Covered it. [5] But perhaps instead of being include on this page it needs it's own page. -- Dr Cherry ( talk) 02:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The webwashing actions are covered here http://peterslarson.com/2012/11/10/local-liberal-blogger-allegedly-threatened-with-legal-action-for-posting-pictures-of-drunken-college-republicans/ [6] -- Dr Cherry ( talk) 02:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please linkify "famous Swedish murder case" to Christine Schürrer#Murders and arrest -- 82.69.159.205 ( talk) 00:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
This effect is a key plot point in this book. Do you think it should be mentioned? Difficultly north ( talk) 14:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I just read a little of that removed material. Are there RS that state that recent events have caused a molehill to mountain effect with access to online data? Do any state that the government actions and resulting events have caused a deluge of more free access data on the net?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 21:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I feel like Grey Tuesday deserves a mention here. When EMI tried to eliminate DJ Danger Mouse's Grey Album, which combines tracks from The Beatle's White Album with Jay-Z's The Black Album. The cease-and-desist letter prompted hundreds of websites to host the album for download. ( http://www.greytuesday.org/_) 11:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrixRabbi ( talk • contribs)
I understand that there are a lot of examples already but I think it is worth considering the President of South Africa's recent attempt to supress a photo of himself with his genitals exposed which only served to make the painting a not only a South African but an international cause celebre? Just my two cents. Ntshebe ( talk) 17:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The definition claims that the effect is "usually facilitated by the Internet". I would dispute that. Most of the examples given did not rely on the internet. The effect does not depend on the internet. So I would recommend removing reference to the internet in this context. 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 22:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The Suburban Express example does not seem very notable, and is a routine Internet spat where people have cried "Streisand effect". Would there be a consensus to remove this, as there are enough examples already?-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Rather than using the examples section for illustrative purposes, I think it could be renamed "Notable Examples" - then the question of "Do we need yet another example?" won't arise. As long as a new example meets the requirements ("Please do not add examples unless accompanied by sources which actually refer to the Streisand effect by name and which give solid evidence that the attempt to censor increased the publicity of the item in question."), it could be added to the list.
To facilitate readability, I propose dividing the current examples into categories according to the entity affected by the Streisand Effect:
AlmostGrad ( talk) 03:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Another notable example is the hot coffee mod for GTA which unlocked adult content in the game and wasn't downloaded much until efforts to censor it hit the press. 116.90.140.22 ( talk) 22:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm removing the WikiLeaks example because people didn't mirror WikiLeaks becomes someone tried to suppress it - people mirrored it because it was going down, and because they had interesting material.
There was no attempt at suppressing the material - which is the hallmark of this effect. Without that it's simply not an example. Ariel. ( talk) 23:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Mirror sites are keeping WikiLeaks up and running despite the loss of its original wikileaks.org address, shut down by an American provider: Welcome to the Barbra Streisand Effect. ... By 1630 GMT several hundred WikiLeaks mirror sites were listed at one online directory ( http://bluetouff.com/2010/12/03/acceder-a-wikileaks/). For as industry specialists explained, the strong libertarian sensibility shared by large parts of the online community means that any hint of censorship provokes an instant riposte designed to produce the opposite effect. "As soon as a case of censorship blows up on the Web, a community forms spontaneously and everyone replicates everywhere," explained Gregory Fabre, a systems engineer and co-founder of the terra-eco.net site. With information copied on to servers that could be anywhere in the world, trying to stop the information getting out is like trying to plug a leaking sieve. ...What is happening with WikiLeaks has already happened dozens of times," he added. "What they want to censor is thus duplicated," he said, producing precisely the opposite effect intended by the censor.
What about citing an official statement from a CEO of a company talking ABOUT the Streisand Effect is improper or inappropriate? I'm just curious 173.8.158.225 ( talk) 23:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This story must get in: http://retractionwatch.com/2013/12/04/retraction-prompts-letter-of-explanation-by-co-author-and-a-legal-threat-against-retraction-watch/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.230.30 ( talk) 08:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Examples where the given sources do not explicitly reference the Streisand effect would be considered original research would they not? -- John Reaves 23:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Streisand Estate.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 18, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-01-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I think there is another example of the Streisand Effect with the Theodore Katsanevas, incident. (Sampson, Tim. "Greek politician who sued Wikipedia editor clearly never heard of the Streisand Effect". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 19 February 2014.)
Also the Wikimedia Foundation supports the actions of the wikipedia user. (Paulson, Michelle. "Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia user subject to defamation lawsuit in Greece". Retrieved 14 February 2014.)
I don't think that the reason for removal of the entry with the reason: "trying to censor an article on one language version of Wikipedia led to copies being created on other language Wikipedias" seems a bit self indulgent! Also a lot of articles now have seen this issue. So why it is not a Streisand effect. Few people knew about that, and when legal action went for the removal of this content suddenly there is hype about it! -- Hargikas ( talk) 12:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Now and then concerns pop up as to whether include this or that case into the list of examples. Clearly, there are plenty of them, and for illustration purposes we don't need that many. How about the following rule of thumb:
An extra benefit is that in this case we can do with 1-2 sentences per case (plus a wikilink to details), and this article will not be overbloated with text of examples. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The Hungarian example with Linda Király does not seem to be very notable, and the one of the cites is a blog in Hungarian which does not contain the word "Streisand". This looks like a routine misuse of copyright complaints rather than an example of the Streisand effect. It is similar to what happened when KTVU attempted to remove the Asiana Airlines blunder. [8]-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm beginner in editing Wikipedia articles and I forgot to check this talk page before re-adding my new example. Ok, I should look for a reference where "Streisand effect" expression is explicitly used. I read more than one Hungarian articles where this expression was used. By the way, is it required to refer to external articles in the same language as Wikipedia's article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.229.168 ( talk) 19:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I am a member of Hanyang university in Korea, and my classmate and I are going to make this article in Korean better. We will start with this English article first checking the references and make sure Korean version has the correct and necessary information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Db9023 ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
When I search wikipedia for Mediabridge this article is the top result with the text "In May 2014, the company Mediabridge Products, LLC threatened a lawsuit against an Amazon. com reviewer. representing Mediabridge Products, ...".But the information is missing in the article, is there a way to pull the last article that had this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.44.222 ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 May 2014
Per previous discussion and WP:RECENTISM, it is not helpful to add new examples every time someone shouts "Streisand effect". The article is not intended to be an exhaustive list, and this is not hugely noteworthy.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this is a particularly good example of the Streisand effect, on the basis that UKIP having loopy policies isn't some unknown thing that has only now come to light because of the censorship attempt. Also, none of the sources mention the effect unless you count the Huffpo quoting a conversation from Twitter where the original tweeter talks about his experience and uses the term himself. – Steel 18:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Obviously there are thousands of the StEf cases. Obviously they are referenced, by the very virtue of the StEf. Obviously it is meaningless to collect them here. Obviously well-meaning editors will try to add more an more of them. Therefore I suggest to lay ground rules about adding examples.
I looked for appropriate guidelines in wikipedia and found an essay WP:EXAMPLES. I was surprised to see it underdeveloped, while I am sure this issue bugs plenty of articles. Therefore I suggest to have an quick discussion here and move to Wikipedia talk:Example cruft and convert it into a formal guideline.
For starters, in addition to major wikipedia policies, the fundamental rule: the purpose of examples is to enhance the understanding of the topic covered in the article.
Therefore:
Other suggestions? Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
while those are mighty fine criteria, we cannot set them up as "Rules that must be followed". We can however craft some information for potential editors that pops up when you go to edit; like they did here. A notice something like:
I dont think it will help to go into much more detail than that. But I think that kind of covers the major points, right? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I think this should be included as an example of the Streisand Effect. On the above lists of points as to whether to add it as an example, the only point on which it fails is no sources have specifically labelled it the streisand effect. But that doesn't mean that it isn't, and I would largely suggest it hasn't been mentioned because the NZ media generally aren't savvy with this sort of thing.
I think it adds an interesting element in the case, because the judge was specifically concerned about how it made John Banks appear as a target for ridicule, but in doing so they greatly increased the coverage that the particular footage received in the media, thus the judge's action invites ridicule on him. This is an interesting case because in others it is the individual themselves that invite the increased coverage, whereas here it was the judge trying to act in the best interest of Banks that instead made things worse for him. This has been an extremely high profile case in general in NZ, and this particular incident received at least 2 days of media coverage, as well as the subsequent effect on TV3 not being able to cover any more of the trial and it's outcome.
Here's the example I had added to the page:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.165.78 ( talk) 21:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I think, since this list contains a bunch of notable examples, and the opening section mentions that this is mostly an internet-related effect, that Beyoncé's photo should be mentioned here too. Usually memes die out pretty quickly after they get older, but this photo is still being referred to any time anybody tries to cover up something. I think, even though this photo had very little effect on the 'outernet', it has a significant enough effect on the internet. I've seen people refer to the Beyoncé picture more often in these kinds of situations than to the Streisand effect. Any opinions? Joeytje50 ( talk) 13:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
This is another example which is not notable. It is a routine spat over an online review which is blown up out of proportion.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The EU "right to be forgotten" seems to be creating a whole new category of Streisand Effect incidents. -- Resuna ( talk) 01:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
This looks like an attempt to establish notability with WP:109PAPERS. Of the citations given, [14] [15] [16] [17] do not mention the Streisand effect by name.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't think of a more dramatic example of the Streisand Effect. It should be included here.
Based on several recent edits, and at least two reverts, on this article, and based on new source information since it was discussed on 20 Dec 2014, I'm reopening this discussion. I believe the following to be true, and I believe that each of the following edits was made in good faith:
The only trouble is that, I believe, that the Talk (last updated, by me, and with the idea that we need to wait for reliably sourced information, on 20 Dec) is now, as of 23 Dec, out of date.
There is (now) a sourced claim about the Streisand effect and this movie now in the article on The Interview (2014 film). Thus, I believe that the previous Talk page apparent consensus is no longer applicable, and the IP editor, or others, could actually probably succeed in adding that movie as as example in this article, though possibly needing to ensure any source used has a specific clear identification to the Streisand effect.
I've not read all those sources just now. But I think the dialogue ought to restart. And that possibly the IP editor—who may possibly be a new editor—was reverted incorrectly in light of this new information.
I will place an invite on each parties Talk page. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 23:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
[20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] and [28], to name a few. I could list all WP:109PAPERS if you like, but the possibility of this being sent north has been widely covered and widely commented upon. Good luck trying to put the genie back into the bottle. K7L ( talk) 18:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I added the following to "selected examples"
One editor reverted on the grounds that it wasn't notable; I pointed out that it had made international media. The same editor then reverted it on the grounds that no source linked the incident to the Streisand effect. I found three sources (from the Washington Post, Huffington Post, and a Florida local news station) specifically mentioning the Streisand effect and amended it:
But another editor reverted me again without giving a reason, and told me to take it to the Talk page. (At the time of the reversion, I had only added the Washington Post source.) If nobody can come up with more convincing reasons why it should be omitted, I will eventually reinsert it.
Manybytes ( talk) 03:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
I'd never heard of this effect until someone on a forum mentioned it in relation to the recent Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. I think the article would benefit from a section on the success of hit records subsequent to being banned and how even hope of a ban (in the case of 'god save the Queen) has influenced the product. http://www.songpeople.com/songpeople-playlists/top-10-songs-that-were-banned-from-the-airwaves /info/en/?search=List_of_songs_banned_by_the_BBC Adagio67 ( talk) 12:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought I'd made my point clearly but perhaps not. The main article is about prohibition of something making it more interesting/popular/giving it unintended publicity. (my reference to Charlie Hebdo was only tangential. It was in a discussion about the incident, and how the the terrorists action had galvanised support for free speech, someone mentioned the Streisand effect, which brought me here). I would suggest that banned hit records are at least worth a mention as a general example of the phenomena, but the 'selected examples' section is already 70% of the article. Also, whilst I had believed the link between a ban and subsequent popularity to be a recognised phenomena in pop music field, i've not been able to find much information on it; probably as it is something that is very difficult to quantify. Adagio67 ( talk) 14:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
With the recent effects of the Zoe Quinn crisis over Twitter, Tumblr, etc. it would probably be very advisable to put it under the Streisand effect examples. It blew very much out of proportion extremely quickly and has many resources ready to be used in future reference and thus proves to be a wonderful example of the Streisand effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagacity159 ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
created by a sock in violation of a block or ban --
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
17:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
Is the "Streisand Effect" a language term organically defined by usage? If so, should wp report the usage of those commentators who have extended the usage of SE to refer to Charlie Hebdo? GreenPeasAndPotatoes ( talk) 06:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Initial comments by GreenPeasAndPotatoes (aka TGPoH)Request: this RfC using a single-purpose account is my attempt to dig myself out of looking like a troll, which I hope I am not. As an experienced and usually well-regarded WPian, I ask that anyone tempted to delete it first stops to actually read it. Sorry the material is lengthy, but by now it is a complicated problem. Following the first fatal attack on Charlie Hebdo, the next issue sold 100 times more copies than it had sold before, all with a cartoon of Muhammad on the front cover. Various commentators have referred to this as an example of the Streisand Effect, which afaik is the most (the only?) succinct way of referring to the phenomenon wherein attempts to suppress publication result in far greater dissemination of that publication. Although the term "Streisand Effect" is notable, it has never been authoritatively defined:
Afaik there are no scholarly definitions of SE; instead it is defined by its usage by newspapers and bloggers. For this reason all 43 references for wp's SE article might be challenged as being inadequate sources. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effet_Streisand includes the Hebdo example, but attempts to add Hebdo to en.wp's SE were rejected based on some editors' assumptions that various(!) non-authoritative(!) definitions of SE are set in stone and must be forever heeded. My own rejected submission (plus three almost minor changes) was:
As a moderately experienced WPian, I am reasonably sure that wp's Streisand Effect usefully documents a notable but informally defined organically growing term of language, and should be allowed to continue to do so. I am completely open to being persuaded otherwise, but so far there has been no explanation of the rejection except for "Not an example of the effect" along with assertions that I am a troll. This is despite that before adding my submission I had written a multi-par essay at Talk:Streisand_effect#Charlie_Hebdo as user:TheGreenPenOfHope, and I then added my submission with an edit summary that included "- see Talk#Charlie Hebdo". Sorry my Talk 'essay' was multi-par, but several mistakes had already been made. The reason I have asked for help via RfC and at the Village Pump is because this edit war has been clouded by several factors that rule out the usual channels of appeal:
Disclosures: I do think it is terribly important to have a terminology that lets us succinctly illustrate how the violent attempted suppression of information can result in its far greater dissemination. But as a publisher myself, I have a vested interested in being able to publish more safely. For personal reasons I don't wish to identify myself re Hebdo, and my main wp account is not completely anonymous, hence my creation of a single-purpose wp account. I have only ever created two single-purpose accounts: TheGreenPenOfHope, and now this GreenPeasAndPotatoes (because TheGreenPenOfHope is permanently blocked, largely because of its similarity to TheRedPenOfDoom). I have never sought to evade scrutiny, nor use one account to anonymously support another account. So, sorry to have taken so much of people's time. I meant well, motivated by wp's welfare and the welfare of all peoples, and I don't mean to be a troll. I wouldn't bother persisting except that this particular topic is far from wp:lame. I am only still persisting because no-one has yet censured me without showing clear indications that they have not actually understood significant issues (which is not surprising, because by now those issues are almost drowned in a sea of words). If it is any consolation, it takes longer to write than to read, and sorting out this mess is a painful punishment. Suggested way forward: I hope this present account 'GreenPeasAndPotatoes' is not blocked - I think it would indicate a vindictively inadequate understanding if that is done. In a couple of days I will re-submit my contribution with the hope that, in the spirit of wp:HUMAN, it is either accepted, or rejected with Discussion as per wp:BRD. GreenPeasAndPotatoes ( talk) 07:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Threaded discussion[IanMacM posted his comment below before I had posted my initial comments above - sorry that a glitch stopped me from posting them together. So it is my fault that Ian posted his comment without having had a chance to read what I wrote above in this section. Ian, hope I have done the right thing in moving your comment to below mine - I thought the alternative would be too confusing. GreenPeasAndPotatoes ( talk) 07:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
References
|