Talk:Streisand effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

John Banks Earwax incident[edit]

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:

  • In May 2014, during John Bank's criminal trial for knowingly transmitting a false electoral return, local television station TV3 filmed John Banks apparently picking earwax from his ear and eating it. The judge in the case summoned TV3 and banned them from filming any more of the trial, the verdict, or playing any previously recorded material. This ruling was widely reported and greatly raised the profile of the 'earwax incident', which the judge had described as intending to invite ridicule and derision of John Banks, thus drawing significant media attention to the event and inviting more ridicule and derision of him.[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

no sources have specifically labelled it the streisand effect. Without meeting that criteria, you are completely out of luck. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, as the article has had problems with WP:EXAMPLEFARM for some time. This is not a particularly clear example, as the sourcing does not refer to the Streisand effect.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Steward, Ian (May 26, 2014). "John Banks earwax footage on the nose" (in English). 

Adding beyoncé to this list[edit]

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)

PS: This incident has been linked to the Streisand effect quite a lot too: [1] [2] etc.Joeytje50 (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

French restaurant review[edit]

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)

Fair enough. I've deleted it again. Maproom (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Right to be forgotten[edit]

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)

Have any sources? Tutelary (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González has its own article. It has been pointed out that this court ruling is a good recipe for creating the Streisand effect.[3] There is now a website listing known cases where removal has occurred.[4] However, given the already bloated list of examples in this article, it is more on topic to leave this to the article about the court ruling.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps add an appropriate reference to it and let the main article (Right to be forgotten) cover examples? -- Resuna (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It should at least be mentioned, even if the details are elsewhere; that is a glaring omission given the level of media coverage. K7L (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
See also link? Resolute 15:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

New York hotel example[edit]

This looks like an attempt to establish notability with WP:109PAPERS. Of the citations given, [5][6][7][8] do not mention the Streisand effect by name.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Four of the cited sources (including Techdirt) are listed specifically because they appear on a web search for Streisand Effect and the name of the hotel. The "Page 6" item was the first to break the story, so is notable; this turning up in the Sydney Morning Herald is notable as evidence of international coverage (it also made CNN, TIME magazine and the UK Guardian, which were not mentioned here). 109PAPERS is an essay, not policy, and refers to all media pulling the same story off the same newswire on the same day — which this is not. It also fails to take into account that this article is specifically about reputational management backfiring as more (not less) negative press. If this makes 109 papers, that in itself would be a material fact given the topic. I also see a link to Yelp was removed, despite it's being valid because it is used only to source the establishment's current Yelp rating (1.5) and number of deleted reviews (over 3800 as of yesterday) – material facts as they show that, in attempting to whitewash their online rating, the hotel trashed themselves instead... the whole point of this "Streisand effect". The sources are valid. I could add many more but the point has been made. K7L (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd be more concerned about weasel wording on that one. "earned the ire of" (why do we care that someone made the New York Post mad?), "scathingly negative", etc. In general, I would opine that the growing trend of dropping language into TOS and EULAs that purport to allow the company to fine people who leave negative reviews does belong here, especially since the end result is virtually always a Streisand Effect. Personally, however, I think the Kleargear example would be a better one than the hotel. Resolute 14:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
They both should be listed. Perhaps this was missed as the list hadn't been updated for anything more recent than 2012? K7L (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Re this edit: every example given in this section could be accompanied by a sentence saying "The attempt to suppress x backfired because the story was covered by CNN, BBC, Guardian... (fill in with WP:109PAPERS until the desired effect is achieved). This adds nothing to a reader's understanding.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
We can't list everything. Not only would it be impractical, it would violate a couple editing policies. So when met with more than one example of the same thing - such as attempting to suppress speech via TOS - We should either be using only one example, or preferably using a story that discusses the concept in general if it exists. Resolute 17:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion. I don't like the hotel example, but it has some good points. Fundamentally, I think it is a small story and does not have that much interest. Owner, frustrated by possibly unwarranted reviews, does something stupid to get only positive reviews. It doesn't have the same human interest as a school trying to silence a young student. Hotel owners do not have a lot of muscle to quash the opposition. Glrx (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 08:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)