Talk:Streisand effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20 July 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

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)

Contents

[edit] Sources

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)

[edit] Weak examples

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)

I have removed all the examples whose sources did not mention specifically Streisand in this edit. To claim that these are all examples of the Streisand effect is ridiculous and original research. I also removed the external links as a result of the article being cleaned up, they had become duplicates of those in the references section. --70.48.241.26 23:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It would have helped if you introduced yourself so we can have a reasonable discussion. I stand unmoved that the entries you removed fit the definition. Revert. -- Wesha 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOR doesn't really invite discussion about it. I'd love to hear your arguments as to why that policy doesn't apply here, however, since you appear to be reluctant to reply to anonymous users' arguments. Aranth 00:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Mike posts examples of the Striesand effect at least twice a week on his blog, [www.Techdirt.com/blog.php]. since this is the origin of the term, as coined by him, an use he makes of the term must be correct, adn hence suitable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.102.188 (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Earliest example: Xenu?

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)

[edit] HD-DVD example

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)

  • It has not been removed, just moved up the list. -- Wesha 19:08, 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)

[edit] photo of art

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)

This? http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p15s01-usju.html and http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html? --RipRapRob 14:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was the one. Thanks SOOO much. I've been trying to find this again for ages. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Cloud Gate --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cui bono

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)

It is quite possible to benefit from something without thinking it up, planning it, and then orchestrating the execution. In fact, it's very possible to benefit from something you never imagined and even fought while it was happening. Thinking otherwise is quite naïve. --216.220.11.84 03:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AOL search queries

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)

[edit] Notable cases

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)

Somehow, looking at that list makes me believe the author of that article actually plucked Wikipedia. :D -- Wesha 18:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I just looked at the May 9 version of the page, and then there are only 3 common cases between the forbes and the wikipedia article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

  • Why isn't the Globe and Mail article [3] referenced, which says "The Digg-DVD donnybrook is the latest example of what's come to be called the “Streisand Effect,” in which efforts to squelch a bit of online information lead to that information being much more widely disseminated than it otherwise would have been." The phenomenon of trying to suppress something resulting in the unintended consequence of heightened publicity did not originate with the internet or with Streisand's attempt to suppress an aerial photograph, but recent discussion of the phenomenon, especially on the internet, has used this term as more specific than "unintended consequences" or the coldwar term "blowback." Nixon's efforts to prevent major newspapers, via injunctions, from publishing the Pentagon Papers, is a previous instance of the same phenomenon, but the term Streisand effect has never been associated with it. The Pentagon Papers were dry scholarly studies, but the President's getting injunctions against the New York Times and the Washington Post to prevent publication put them at the beginning of the evening news for some time. I believe there was a similar matter about publishing plans for building an atomic bomb, with prior restraint attempted against major US papers. Wordspy [4] may or may not be judged a reliable source by Wikipedians, but it cites a reliable newspaper as coining the phrase rather than the blogger the article credits: ' "The "Streisand effect" is what happens when someone tries to suppress something and the opposite occurs. The act of suppressing it raises the profile, making it much more well known than it ever would have been.—David Canton, "Attempt to suppress can backfire," London Free Press, November 5, 2005' The London Free Press (a Canadian paper) wants $15 or so for a copy of an old article, but perhaps a reader near there could verify it at their local library which may have a copy, or through an online search service which has newspaper content. If true it should be included, and along with Forbes and Globe and Mail should go a long way toward establishing notability of the usage and the concept. Edison 06:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced claims

I am moving this unsourced claim to the talk page pending a citation for it's inclusion, and removing the OR tag.

  • DeCSS—This code was posted online in 1999 which, similar to the later HD-DVD controversy, allowed users to circumvent a DVD copy protection scheme. A series of DMCA lawsuit threats led to increasingly sophisticated and varied presentations of the code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 11:24, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Lots more examples off the top of my head, needing citations/etc, from Mathx 15:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • CyberSitter keyword list - internet nanny software that blocked legitimate websites (some say pro-abortion and other sites for political reasons). The keyword list/algorithm was encryped, trademarked or copyrighted and heavily guarded, til someone cracked it, then the lawsuits started flying. Copies were made.
  • DilbertHole comic strip of detourned Dilbert comics, spread widely when United Artists threatened to sue the author of Leisuretown online comic for including the drawings in his work (I don't think he made the drawings, just popularized them).
  • AP threatening to sue for unauthorized posting on the internet of the eternally classic photo of the Fed Agent in full assault gear pointing a (semi-?)auto weapon at Elian Gonzales and the man holding him. The photo got spread everywhere pretty quickly.

[edit] Lol

It is like yelling "Stop teasing me!" at school lunch. Sunshine ҈ 03:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alisher Usmanov

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)

[edit] Valid references for examples

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)

[edit] the examples vs. the missing Forbes article

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)

Thanks for the tip. Here's the ref: [5]. It does merit adding back some examples. nadav (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed The Pirate Bay mention was removed, but it was mentioned in the Forbes article (or maybe it was just in the slideshow...). I think the Examples section could have at least 9 examples, as I said in the Notable cases section up above. --Pixelface 18:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More examples that keep getting lost

Andy Greenberg of Forbes mentions three prominent incidents as examples of the Streisand effect:[1]

  • An attempt at blocking a HD-DVD key from being published on Digg—“The online uproar came in response to a series of cease-and-desist letters [...] demanding that the code be removed from several high-profile Web sites. Rather than wiping out the code, [...] the letters led to its proliferation on Web sites, in chat rooms, inside cleverly doctored digital photographs and on user-submitted news sites. [...] The ironic thing is, because they tried to quiet it down, it’s the most famous number on the Internet.”[2] “[...] at this writing, about 283,000 pages contain the number [...] There’s a song. Several domain names including variations of the number have been reserved.”[3] Google currently reports over 700,000 sites contain the number
  • Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, was portrayed with feet superimposed over his head in a video posted by a YouTube user named "Padidda". “The Thai government charged the site with lèse majesté, insulting the monarch, and [...] banned the site altogether. YouTube users around the world responded by posting a series of Bhumibol-bashing clips, some even more offensive than the originals [...] Each clip has been viewed tens of thousands of times”[1]
  • Video clips portraying paparazzi footage of Brazilian television personality Daniela Cicarelli having sex with her boyfriend on a beach in Spain were uploaded to YouTube. Court injunctions, which culminated in the blocking of YouTube in Brazil, proved unsuccessful in preventing the spread of the video, and only raised the ire of fans.[1]
  • Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, was portrayed with feet superimposed over his head in a video posted by a YouTube user named "Padidda". “The Thai government charged the site with lèse majesté, insulting the monarch, and […] banned the site altogether. YouTube users around the world responded by posting a series of Bhumibol-bashing clips, some even more offensive than the originals […] Each clip has been viewed tens of thousands of times”[4]
  • When an archive of emails from electronic voting company Diebold leaked, Diebold sent copyright threats to the web hosts. Posters, including Swarthmore College students responded by re-posting the emails in a show of "electronic civil disobedience." [5] Two of the Swarthmore students and ISP Online Policy Group sued Diebold and won a US$125,000 settlement for copyright misuse. [6]
  • After internal emails from MediaDefender were leaked onto the Internet [7], MediaDefender sent malformed DMCA takedown notices to two torrent websites, which did not have any effect[8] except spreading the news about the leak further and continuing to keep it in the Internet media.
  • In an apparent attempt to suppress or avoid the Streisand effect, A legal firm representing marketing company DirectBuy copyrighted a cease and desist letter[9] to a critical website[10]and threatened legal actions against copyright infringement should the document be revealed publicly.[11] The letter was promptly posted by its recipient, and numerous legal defenses against copyright infringment action have been proposed and posted by various parties. In effect, the attempt to supress the Striesand Effect has produced exactly the opposite of the result presumably desired by the assertion of copyright.[12]


  • iPhone skins for smartphones—“Ironically, Apple’s attempts to have the files removed from the web have only given the skins greater publicity, and they have already begun spreading to other websites.”[13]

[edit] Talk:Streisand effect/Timeline

Is Talk:Streisand effect/Timeline really necessary or can be deleted? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why it should be deleted. It was really helpful to determine who coined the term Streisand effect. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Like I said in the 2nd AFD, I created the timeline after the 1st AFD resulted in a keep. I wanted to find sources on the term in an effort to improve the article, since the article was going to stick around. The timeline contains a history of the events leading up to the coining of the term, as well as the spread of the term. All 157 dates in the timeline have citations. Now, much of the timeline is sourced to CaliforniaCoastline.org which is Kenneth Adelman's website. The timeline is not meant to be a linkfarm. It's meant to chart the spread of the neologism, which is now apparently some blogger's claim to fame. One of the points of the timeline was that the Wikipedia article was created before any media coverage of the term, and probably led to the spread of the term itself. --Pixelface (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)