Talk:Streisand effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 11, 2007Articles for deletionKept
July 20, 2007Articles for deletionKept
July 23, 2012Articles for deletionKept

Image size of Streisand's house[edit]

Re this edit: I think that the current version of the image is too large. The reason given is "since it shows a small detail in an overall large field, it should be relatively large". The problem is that due to the way that the picture was taken, Streisand's house is going to be small regardless of the size of the thumbnail. If a person wants to see the image to its best advantage, they should click on the link and view the image directly.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

MOS:IMGSIZE says Images in which a small region of detail is important (but cropping to that region is unacceptable) (which is our situation – the whole point is to show the image at issue, as it was, not modified in some way) may need to be larger than normal, but upright=1.8 should usually be the largest value for images floated beside text. The current size is upright=1.7. Obviously the the reader wanting to "see the image to its best advantage... should click on the link and view the image directly", but he oughtn't have to do that just to be able to make out that there's a house in there somewhere.
The old size was 300px, which is nominally equivalent to upright=1.35, so the current 1.7 is only 25% above than that. EEng 18:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The current size of the image risks squeezing the text at some resolutions. It is far larger than an average image on Wikipedia. Anything over 300px is probably too big for compatibility with a range of screen resolutions.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
First of all, specifying image sizes in px is deprecated. Beyond that, our goal is not to make all images some average size, but the right size for that image's function in this article. I'll take the guideline's recommendation of 1.8 over your worries. EEng 15:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This Phenomenon has been around alot longer than 2005[edit]

This phenomenon has been going on alot longer than 2005. This has been going on with Secret Societies etc hundreds of years ago. To say that the term was only coined in 2005 because of Barbara Streisand is ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.113.122.146 (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The growth of the Internet is one of the driving factors behind the modern version of the effect. This makes it highly unwise to attempt to suppress information unless there is a good reason. As John Gilmore said, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the phenomenon has existed for most of human history (Herostratus comes to mind), but the term actually was coined in 2005 (the ancient Greeks obviously couldn't have referred to the "Streisand effect" in the previous example, as she hadn't been born yet). The challenge is to make sure that readers are clear that this is a modern term for a well known and long established phenomenon. --Khajidha (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The "celebrity couple" injunction[edit]

Re this edit. The saga being referred to here is PJS v News Group Newspapers. If you want a source with the National Enquirer angle, there is one here. The couple were also named by the media in Scotland, Canada and the Republic of Ireland among others, making it trivially easy for anyone with access to the Internet to find out who they are. Nevertheless, naming them in the UK could cause this to happen. Scottish media lawyers took the view that the injunction did not apply in Scotland unless a similar injunction, known as an interdict, was obtained.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Will The Job Offer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign To Seth Rich Eventually Qualify for The Streisand Effect article?[edit]

What additional criteria must be met before the exclusion of the Job Offer from the Hillary Clinton Campaign To Seth Rich from the Murder of Seth Rich Wikipedia Article qualifies for inclusion in The Streisand Effect article? From the article, it appears to be when the exclusion results in publicizing the information more widely, and it is documented by a reliable source. StreetSign (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I adjusted your link to more standard format; hope you don't mind. —Tamfang (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
It's unlikely, because the Streisand effect in its true form refers to obscure things that nobody would have cared about otherwise. Hillary Clinton is a well known figure and the Murder of Seth Rich has generated a lot of media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
This article is not a space for a single purpose account to fight a proxy war over their failed effort to bias a separate article. Not to mention the fact that this is in no way a Streisand Effect. SE is when an attempt made specifically to try and hide something itself causes that thing to be more widely seen than if nothing had been done. Your failure to achieve consensus on proposed additions to a Wikipedia article does not fit that definition. Resolute 13:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the honest feedback. The definition in the article of "an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet" and is what I think will eventually fit. Maybe weeks, months, or years. StreetSign (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean, after it has been forgotten? —Tamfang (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Forgotten by some, but in the case of people who rely significantly on Wikipedia, they would never know it. StreetSign (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)