Talk:Streisand effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 11, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept
July 20, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept
July 23, 2012 Articles for deletion Kept
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.
 

Charlie Hebdo[edit]

Charlie Hebdo printed a cartoon that Muslin extremists wanted UN-published. The killing of innocent people over a cartoon gave more publicity to the cartoon than ever before. The opposite of what the extremist wanted. I submit this for a listing in "Streisand effect".--Mark v1.0 (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No. The magazine was widely known and widely viewed for many decades before the attack. The SE is about something that nobody would have known about until the action was made to try to hide it made it widely public.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The header of "Streisand effect" does not specify how widely published the item is. The meaning of the SE is that the effort to suppress makes the information more widely known.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
There is the question of whether the attackers actually wanted publicity. In general, terrorists (the Al Qaeda kind, not the lawyerly kind) do want publicity and this certainly got publicity... so the publicity isn't an unintended consequence per se. K7L (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
There needs to be a clearer understanding of what the Streisand effect is. Charlie Hebdo was already well known in France before the attacks, and there is a common misconception that anything which leads to publicity is an example of the effect. The original example of the effect involved photographs that no-one would have cared about if Barbra Streisand had not taken legal action over them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The other issue is that while the shootings dramatically raised the international profile of Charlie Hebdo itself, the world's media has largely not changed its position on the display of depictions of Muhammad, either in general or in the specific case of Charlie Hebdo‍‍ '​‍s cartoons. So it is impossible to say that there was a Streisand Effect at work here. And, in fact, I am not aware of RSes that do say it was such. Resolute 15:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
RE: K7L the terrorist wanted publicity. Wrong, just plain wrong. The terrorist wanted the cartoon that insulted his religion suppressed.

For proof of the opposite of suppression occurred , with the effort to suppress ( the intent of the killing) "Five million copies of the edition were printed, compared with the usual 60,000. " http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/charlie-hebdo-montrealers-line-up-for-post-attack-edition-1.2912489 --Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Terrorists wanted terrorism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I support Mark's original proposal that the Charlie Hebdo shooting should be added to the article, for the following simple reason. The Streisand Effect is an evidently notable, but it is a language term defined by growing and changing usage, rather than defined and set in stone by scholarly articles. Indeed, I haven't been able to find any scholarly articles that defines it, as distinct from uses it, just as newspapers and bloggers use it.

When examining published examples of usage of the SE, we see it's original usage was re something no-one would have bothered with except for the SE, expanded to takedown notices of content that was already getting some viewing, through to security agencies attempting to suppress individual pages on wp, thru to govts trying to suppress entire websites, and now to gunmen trying to suppress cartoons. The actors started with lawyers, then expanded to security agencies, govts, and now gunmen. The relevant targeted media started with individual photos, but has expanded info about a person, whole websites, shirts, and now cartoons.

The original creation of the term "the SE" was by a blogger on his own website, and the most authoritative sources for wp's SE article are newspapers. So if the sources that use the SE when covering the Charlie Hebdo shooting are not considered adequate, then none of the sources for the entire wp SE article are adequate, so by that argument the entire wp SE article should be removed, which I think is clearly nonsensical.

Re the various objections to Mark's original proposal:

  • TRPoD(a.k.a. TheRedPenOfDoom) said that "The SE is about something that nobody would have known about until the action was made to try to hide it made it widely public". Yet there are many other already-quoted examples of SE usage in wp's SE article that contradict this.
  • K7L suggested that 1) the attackers wanted publicity, and 2) hence SE doesn't apply. Both 1) & 2) are OR, and are irrelevant to the fact that there is published usage of SE re Charlie Hebdo.
  • IanMacM offers OR of what the SE is; I suggest the fact that he describes this "misconception" as "common" supports the expanded understanding of what the SE is.
  • Resolute suggests that whether or not opinions and actions have been changed is relevant, which I think is off-topic OR. imho, that the exposure of the cartoons has increased by several orders of magnitude explains why commentators on Hebdo have applied SE to it. Bottom line is that published commentators on Hebdo have applied SE to it.
  • TRPoD dismissed Mark's (imho) quite reasonable reply with the stunningly terse "Terrorists wanted terrorism." I think this is simplistic to the point of absurdity and pointlessness. It also smacks of OR, given that afaik the gunmen's only public expressions were that they had 'avenged the prophet'. And I know that this is only a talk page, but I think WPians should stick to NPOV 'gunmen' or 'killers', given that one person's terrorist is another peron's freedom fighter / avenger / executioner / etc. afaik, there is ample evidence that many fundamental islamists expressed that the cartoons' publishers were blasphemous and thus deserving of death. However, afaik there is little or no evidence that the gunmen sought to publicise / promote (fundamentalist) Islam, and I don't think WPians should propose arguments based on their unproven assumptions of what the gunmen sought.

Re sources for published usage of SE re Hebdo, there are about 5 in fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effet_Streisand - the sources in fr.wp are about par with other sources in the en.wp article. fwiw, I think French editors deserve a bit of cred when judging whether SE applies to Hebdo. I also noticed a Huffington Post article re SE and Hebdo, and HP meets en.wp sources policy for this sort of thing.

btw, I created a special wp account to get this reverted, because I wanted tight anonymity. (And no, I am not Mark - never heard of him before.) I suspect a reason we have had Mark's contribution reverted for so long is because folk are reluctant to say anything about hebdo. Or perhaps the blood-red colours of TheRedPenOfDoom cause other WPians to abandon all hope of calm and reasoned discussion. Or perhaps WP contributors can no longer be bothered to fight those who slash and burn. RedPen, could you please demonstrate magnanimity and revert Mark's version back in. Or could someone else with more than 10 edits put Mark's version back in, and/or copy a translation from fr.wp along with its citations?

TheGreenPenOfHope 06:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

After thought: The French version is probably has too much detail, and I haven't actually looked at what Mark wrote. But hope we can put in something and then buff it up like WPians. TheGreenPenOfHope 07:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Coatrack problem[edit]

Our article should contain enough examples of the phenomenon to make it clear, but at the moment it seems to be turning into a bit of a coat rack. Are all of these examples needed, and particularly do we need a list of them which will inevitably grow to include many instantly forgettable examples? Wouldn't it be better to use a few choice examples in the discussion of the phenomenon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talkcontribs)

No, if the incidents are topical now and forgotten tomorrow, there is no harm in adding them today and removing them sometime after they have been forgotten. We really don't need someone claiming WP:OWNership of the page and systematically reverting every good-faith contribution just as a clandestine way to edit-protect the page. This has happened on too many other topics (usually removing jokes from articles in category:joke cycles) and it's not a useful contribution to Wikipedia. K7L (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a difference between exercising editorial judgement and blindly deleting everything. What I'm suggesting is that material not contributing to the reader's understanding should be removed. Just because some journalist may have invoked the term "Streisand Effect" in writing about a story, doesn't mean it helps us to understand the phenomenon. At its worst, an otherwise forgettable story with BLP implications can cause harm for years by inappropriate memorialisation.
As to any problems of "ownership" that may arise anywhere on Wikipedia, those can be dealt with through normal dispute resolution. --TS 19:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The removal of examples has gone far enough (or too far) already. If you want to remove content, get consensus for the specific removals first, same as any other edit to a controversial page. K7L (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of the issue may also be that as the phrase is moving into wider use, it is simply being used as a more flowery replacement for "unintended consequences" that involve media coverage rather than the more specific parameters of its original coinage and usage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it'd improve the article and cut down on the coatracking to rewrite the example section as prose - a few paragraphs that group and explore the different contexts of the Streisand effect ("celebrities", "government", "corporate" and "members of public"?) using two or three strong examples to illustrate each. The current mostly-chronological bulleted list is ideal for breaking news coatracking, but doesn't seem particularly readable. --McGeddon (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. List format merely encourages "Lookey! Lookey, I seen it here!!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it is an interesting suggestion, but based on my previous quick survey of sources I suspect that if we did this it could be more wp:OR than continuing to do what has already been done so far, i.e. simply recording usage of the term 'SE' by bloggers and newspapers. On my very long to-do list is to either find or develop wp policy that allows the sort of recording of internet phenomena that the existing SE article already does, i.e. usage phenomena with little or no academic / tertiary sources.
Compromise methods of limiting coat rack expansion could be:
  • Limit new examples in the coat rack to new types of SE, i.e. examples with new types of media (e.g. photos, individual articles, whole websites, shirts, cartoons), new types of actors (e.g. websites, magazines), and new types of censors (e.g. lawyers, security agencies, gunmen), so that the coat rack records examples of different types of usage. And/or
  • Limit new examples to examples where more than, say, a million extra people saw the info because of SE. And/or
  • Limit new examples to examples where more there was more than a 100-fold increase in extra people who saw the info because of SE.
  • Limit new examples to examples where the SE has already occurred, and the addition would have little addition effect.
(Disclaimer, the Hebdo example that I seek in my rfc meets all 4 of the above criteria.) I can see the need for limiting additions to the coat rack, because otherwise there is a temptation to achieve SE for an example by adding it to the SE article, but it concerns me that most of these limiting methods involve imposing rather arbitrary, dogmatic, and censorious editing, which makes this particular wpian feel uncomfortable. Difficult issue.
@TRPoD, having never had anything to do with blocking before, I am unsure of protocol. Now that I am unblocked, should I un-collapse my rfc, or leave it to you to do this? I am in no hurry to re-open the rfc, because we might be able to resolve the relevant issues simply by continuing this thread.
GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
we are not creating a "list". it is an encyclopedia article. a prose version with strict application of WP:OR will actually ensure that the examples are clear and discussed by third parties and not merely "lookey what i found!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. As above, I have yet to closely investigate wp policy on OR re internet phenomena, but I don't understand how what I proposed re hebdo is more OR than existing material in the list. Could you please revisit the hebdo item I proposed and discuss its rejection, particularly explaining why its recording of the expansion of SE usage was disallowed while other recordings of the expansion of SE usage were allowed.
  2. Have you found any authoritative sources defining SE for the encyclopedic summary you propose, or do you propose to create your own inferences from the usage sources?
GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and split the "Selected examples" into three simple sections ("In politics", "By businesses" and "By individuals"), which I can't see involves any WP:OR. Next step might be to restructure the paragraphs in order of significance, rather than chronologically (which seems meaningless, as the Streisand effect isn't something that's changed over time). --McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have some problems with the labels. The article labels Scientology as a "business" in WP's voice. I don't like putting a school under the label "politics". Glrx (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I tried to avoid the need for categories with one example left over, and yes, that wasn't ideal. Maybe an additional "By other organizations" section for Scientology, the school and the Internet Watch Foundation? --McGeddon (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That would be better. I still have reservations, but I don't have anything significantly better. Glrx (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Streisand effect[edit]

The category was deleted following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_12#Category:Streisand_effect, even through there were 7 keep votes and 6 (inc. nominators') delete votes. Ping User:Cirt: should we ask for WP:REFUND or such? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Gov. Pence and Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act - any sources?[edit]

Has anyone seen any sources (I guess a newspaper columnist somewhere) mention this about Indiana's (infamous?) 2015 Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by Gov. Pence? Jimw338 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A Sreisand Effect is not "someone did something extremely controversial", so no, there will be no reliable sources that would make the RFRA qualify as an example for this article. Resolute 21:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)