Talk:Streisand effect

Can we get rid of the gigantic list of examples?

What's the point of having a list of ~35 examples? I doubt anyone trying to learn about the effect is going to read through it. The concept can be fully explained with just two or three examples. Do the sources of those examples even mention Streisand effect? If not it would be WP:OR. I suspect this list is mostly compiled by people who wish to ridicule the parties involved in those events. They saw someone they dislike failing to censor something and they came here to append the list. There was no consideration of whether the example add anything to the article. C9mVio9JRy (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this list is like Topsy because it just growed. People have added various examples over time and there are now too many. They could be pruned back and others split off into something like List of Streisand effect examples per WP:TOPIC. Straightforward media controversies are rarely good examples of the effect, despite what some sources may say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support a split to a list, per ianmcm. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Support Only the three most strongest exampels should be kept. Carpimaps (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support I could see a case for keeping one or two examples from each category that's been listed. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I see a consensus here; I will be splitting the article to List of Streisand effect examples. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 12:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Should Hogwarts Legacy be listed as an example?

As I understand it, the Streisand effect involves the following:

1. A piece of information is released.
2. As a reaction, an organization(usually business, governmental, or religious) or individual tries to hide the information.
3. Because the information is being hidden, a small amount of people are drawn to it.
4. Those people back up the information and share it, thus drawing more people to it, thus causing more backups to be made and more sharing of the info, etc, etc, causing a cascade effect until there is no plausible way to cover up the information.

I don't think Hogwarts Legacy fits this definition for the following reasons:

1. Talk about a boycott was occurring before the game was released. It was not a reaction which happened after the game was released.
2. (My main argument) A boycott works by spreading information, not hiding it. Ex: "Look at this thing, don't buy this thing". This is the only example of a boycott on the list.. surely if boycotts counted there would have been one mentioned before now?
3. Does a relatively small, loosely connected group of people really count as an organization? Even the person who added the Hogwarts Legacy example seemed unsure about that.
4. Exactly what information were they trying to hide? Drawing from the first 2 paragraphs of the article.. They didn't hide, remove, or censor any information (They were doing the opposite: raising awareness) They didn't issue a cease-and-desist, try to stop the publication, or try to remove the publication after it was published. A couple vloggers and articles mention petitions with over a million signatures, but none of them provide links to them or even a source to back up their claims. I can't find these petitions anywhere.
5. People where drawn to the game, yes. And yes, it had record sales. But was it because a small group on the internet were trying to "hide" it? Or because the game had been advertised everywhere, was based on the best selling book series of all time, was a new format which hadn't been seen in the series yet (Large Open World RPG) that fans really wanted to play, had been in development (and anticipated) for over 2 years, was the first major Harry Potter game released in over a decade, and was quickly nearing it's release date?
6. No information was being hidden, so there was nothing to back up and share.

Obviously we'll never know exactly how much attention the boycott drew, but it was probably a drop in the bucket compared to everything else. I'd argue that the game would have become a bestseller anyway (even if the boycott had never happened) because it's a major publication from a major franchise and it was well crafted.

I'm not trying to say that the controversy shouldn't be on the wiki (or that the boycott had no effect), however it's case for being on this page seems very flimsy at best. Chimeforest (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The main requirement is independent reliable sources that mention the effect by name. Although some sources say that this is an example of the effect, there are probably too many examples in the article at the moment, as discussed in the section above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

But what if the source is wrong? A call for a boycott is clearly not the same as the Streisand Effect as it draws attention to the thing being boycotted, it doesn't try to hide it.

Also, the source in the article which references the Streisand Effect(AGrowingPain) appears to be a self-published blog run by a single unnamed person. I believe (according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources) that makes it an unreliable source, yes? Chimeforest (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I've removed it on this basis. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"Nuance"

To the IP editor who wishes to "clarify" the backstory of the original Streisand affair: you can make these changes if (and only if) you provide a reliable source that says so. Such as a court record, for example. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

And the IP's assertions are contradicted by the decision linked in reference 17[1], partucularly page 36.

This article as a rather lengthy protection log already. Because these unsourced assertions have been added by multiple IP addresses, I have semiprotected the article for 10 days. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Now at ECP for 3 months due to continued similar disruption, apparently by the same person with an account instead of an IP address. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

January 2024 and Barbra Streisand's book

I've been having a look at Barbra Streisand's book My Name is Barbra which was published in November 2023. In Chapter 56, Giving Back, she gives her side of the incident that led to the coining of the phrase "Streisand effect". She says "Contrary to the explanation on Wikipedia, I did not attempt to “suppress” a photograph of my house. My issue was never with the photo . . . it was only about the use of my name attached to the photo... all the homes were identified only by longitude and latitude and not by the owners’ names . . . except for five celebrities, including me. Suddenly there was a photo on the internet with my house, my name, and the exact coordinates where I lived...All I asked was that this man please just treat me like everyone else and remove my name, for security reasons. But he refused... Recently I tried to correct the Wikipedia entry to reflect the actual facts, but we were told that would be impossible. Why? Isn’t the truth enough?" This is interesting, because it shows that Barbra Streisand has taken a personal interest in what this Wikipedia article says. She goes on to say "I felt I was standing up for a principle, but in retrospect, it was a mistake. I also assumed that my lawyer had done exactly as I wished and simply asked to take my name off the photo . . . but the lesson I had to learn again was, Never assume. (It’s also my fault. I should have taken the time to read all the legal documents.)" Most people will have received the impression from news coverage that the dispute was over the publication of image 3850 rather than simply the name tag that the image had, which was "Streisand Estate, Malibu" according the court ruling. According to the book, Streisand believes that the lawyer made a mistake by turning the photo into the issue in the court case rather than simply removing the name tag. This casts new light on the matter, but there is some WP:PRIMARY here. Wikipedia summarizes what secondary reliable sources have said about something, and until now the consensus has been that the dispute was over the publication of image 3850 itself rather than simply its name tag; this is supported by the court ruling. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to remove pic from page

Barbra Streisand explained in her memoir her security concerns and experience with intruders. The image is tagged with her name and links to a site that provides longitude & latitude co-ordinates. See Streisand_effect#Rebuttal_by_Barbra_Streisand & topic above this. We should not dox a public figure on WP, and she claims her action was to thwart doxing, not suppress the photo. Walton22 (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I can understand the concerns, but it is now a bit late for this as the photo has appeared so often on the internet that even if Wikipedia did remove it, it would still be easily available elsewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Obviously it would still be available elsewhere, but Wikipedia could do its bit against this doxing (word wasn't available at the time), as it is certainly the most prominent platform. See WP:BLP "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy...the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article" Walton22 (talk) Walton22 (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:BLP:

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy...the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article"

Walton22 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)