The result was Keep. (Non-admin closure). The nominator has requested withdrawal and every comment was for Keep. Ritchie333 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply
A number of editors deem the content to be unencyclopaedic, the quality of the references is disputed, and the actual use of the term in the wild is also disputed. See talk for further details. Star-one ( talk) 16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The principle problem is there is no evidence of real people in the wild actually using the term as a real, common-use term, without doing anything other than linking to this article as a definition of the term, or linking to the original article in which the original individual coined the term - so arguments that it is a real term used in common discourse amount to argument by repeated assertion, entirely self-referential.
The examples of the so-called 'effect in action' quoted within the article are just a list of examples of censorship backfiring; on that basis, the phenomenon - if there is one - could just as easily be called the AACS Effect, or the Project Chanology Effect, the Virgin Killer Effect, or the SuperInjunction Effect, or whatever; any journalist could write an article in a reputable news source about censorship and quote any of these examples, and describe it as an example of the (Whatever) Effect, and that would make an article about the (Whatever) Effect no more or less notable than this one. Star-one ( talk) 16:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
“ | No matter how effective your rebuttal may seem to be to you, a response will "bump" the problem into greater prominence and relevance in the search engine results, which then turns your headache into a migraine. This is doubly dangerous since "bumping" the negative information potentially introduces the "Streisand Effect" into the equation, which is something to avoid if at all possible. It is commonly defined as a phenomenon in which an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information on the web backfires, causing greater publicity. | ” |
— John W. Dozier, Sue Scheff (2009). Google Bomb: The Untold Story of the $11.3M Verdict That Changed the Way We Use the Internet. HCI. p. 40. ISBN 0757314155. |
“ | A phenomenon dubbed the Streisand Effect has already sparked attention. Similar to the scarcity principle, when demands are made to remove videos or documents on the Web, hits for those materials increase dramatically. It seems a "forbidden fruit" is all the more attractive. | ” |
— William F. Eadie (2009). 21st Century Communication: A Reference Handbook. Sage Publications, Inc. p. 163.
ISBN
1412950309. {{
cite book}} : Cite has empty unknown parameter: |passage= (
help)
|
“ | Say you discover that people aren't just talking about you, they're bashing you. Should you step in and try to stop them? Again, the answer is absolutely no! Leave them alone – you'll only make the problems worse and create a Streisand Effect if you try to hush them up. | ” |
— Kyle Lacy (2009). Twitter Marketing For Dummies. For Dummies. p. 215. ISBN 0470561726. |
The result was Keep. (Non-admin closure). The nominator has requested withdrawal and every comment was for Keep. Ritchie333 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply
A number of editors deem the content to be unencyclopaedic, the quality of the references is disputed, and the actual use of the term in the wild is also disputed. See talk for further details. Star-one ( talk) 16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The principle problem is there is no evidence of real people in the wild actually using the term as a real, common-use term, without doing anything other than linking to this article as a definition of the term, or linking to the original article in which the original individual coined the term - so arguments that it is a real term used in common discourse amount to argument by repeated assertion, entirely self-referential.
The examples of the so-called 'effect in action' quoted within the article are just a list of examples of censorship backfiring; on that basis, the phenomenon - if there is one - could just as easily be called the AACS Effect, or the Project Chanology Effect, the Virgin Killer Effect, or the SuperInjunction Effect, or whatever; any journalist could write an article in a reputable news source about censorship and quote any of these examples, and describe it as an example of the (Whatever) Effect, and that would make an article about the (Whatever) Effect no more or less notable than this one. Star-one ( talk) 16:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
“ | No matter how effective your rebuttal may seem to be to you, a response will "bump" the problem into greater prominence and relevance in the search engine results, which then turns your headache into a migraine. This is doubly dangerous since "bumping" the negative information potentially introduces the "Streisand Effect" into the equation, which is something to avoid if at all possible. It is commonly defined as a phenomenon in which an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information on the web backfires, causing greater publicity. | ” |
— John W. Dozier, Sue Scheff (2009). Google Bomb: The Untold Story of the $11.3M Verdict That Changed the Way We Use the Internet. HCI. p. 40. ISBN 0757314155. |
“ | A phenomenon dubbed the Streisand Effect has already sparked attention. Similar to the scarcity principle, when demands are made to remove videos or documents on the Web, hits for those materials increase dramatically. It seems a "forbidden fruit" is all the more attractive. | ” |
— William F. Eadie (2009). 21st Century Communication: A Reference Handbook. Sage Publications, Inc. p. 163.
ISBN
1412950309. {{
cite book}} : Cite has empty unknown parameter: |passage= (
help)
|
“ | Say you discover that people aren't just talking about you, they're bashing you. Should you step in and try to stop them? Again, the answer is absolutely no! Leave them alone – you'll only make the problems worse and create a Streisand Effect if you try to hush them up. | ” |
— Kyle Lacy (2009). Twitter Marketing For Dummies. For Dummies. p. 215. ISBN 0470561726. |