The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 03:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect[edit]

Streisand effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

entire article is a violation of WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO, etc. the closing admin of the last afd violated WP:JUSTAVOTE since most of the keep arguments presented are violations of WP:NOR and therefore should be ignored. the most compelling argument for keeping is the Forbes reference, and that lone reference isn't enough. Andy Greenberg - the author of the Forbes article - doesn't get to violate WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO any more then any one here does. plus, it seems very likely that this Andy Greenberg based his Forbes article off of this wikipedia article. if a mainstream source uses an article violating WP:NOR as its source, the wikipedia article doesn't, all of a sudden, magically become justified. Misterdiscreet 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I'm sorry, with this 2nd time, I'm getting aggravated now. How do you mean, WP:V, WP:ATT? It's full of freaking LINKS to the credible sources, and quotes from thereof! What else do you need??? Please present *exact* objections on any of the points you brought up. Like, with quotes and everything. I'm not a mind reader, and I'm not seeing what you might be seeing as a violation. -- Wesha 20:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

techdirt.com, mooreon.org, www.slashdot.org are not a credible sources. the thesmokinggun.com article only discusses the event that this article has been named after - it does not discuss the effect and can no more be used as justification for an article then the Tylenol Crisis of 1982 could be used as a justification for the tylenol effect. www.whyaretheydead.net does not discuss the streisand effect, either, nor does cnsnews.com, tvacres.com, theregister.co.uk, news.com.com, theage.com.au, latimes.com, nytimes.com, or news.yahoo.com. to assert that all of these are an example of the streisand effect is synthesis, is considered original research, and is a violation of wikipedia's policies. Misterdiscreet 20:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot is a news source with editors and a publication policy. They passed to a credible source before wikipedia.org was even registered. Joe User NY 21:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the only parts of the Slashdot site that mention the streisand effect are comments and comments do not count as reliable sources Misterdiscreet 21:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were making a comment on Slashdot in general. Joe User NY 21:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the single Forbes source is, to my mind, quite reliable. However, many of the other references do not mention the "Streisand effect", making their inclusion OR. A single source, though less than what I would like, may well be sufficient for inclusion in this case. --Eyrian 20:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Forbes magazine used the term in an article, if that's not a valid source then nothing is. Besides, how do you think words and terms get added to the English language?
  

Also, I suggest that you avoid violating WP:NOR. Do you have proof that Mr. Greenberg used the wikipedia article? You can't just jump to conclusions to justify your argument.

Finally, if we delete this, then we should add truthiness to the list as well, or does one need a comedy show to add new words to the language?

Summary: WP:NOR , WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:RS, - Argument is void, published in national respected magazine as well as several online magazines.

WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO - Argument is void, the term has been in use for several years and returns over 800 results in Google alone. Joe User NY 20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blogs do not count as online magazines and if they do they likely violate WP:NOR. google searches are also not sufficient for keeping an article. there is no article on miserable failure (the article that does exist is a redirect). truthiness should be deleted, too. finaly as i already explained, Andy Greenberg does not get to violate WP:MADEUP anymore then you or i. whether or not he stole it from wikipedia is irrelevant (although i believe he did) and i should not have mentioned it. Misterdiscreet 20:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I disagree, some blogs should count as valid sources, Google searches should be used as an indicator of use, and WP:NOR applies to wikipeida itself, not a third party. As for truthiness, if you hold to your convictions so much, add it to AfD. Joe User NY 21:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add, WP:MADEUP does not apply to third parties writing articles off Wikipedia, that is how new terms get put in use. Joe User NY 21:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

truthiness is not an article i'm going to nominate for deletion right now because i cannot handle simultaneous uphill battles. further, truthiness may or may not have more reputable sources then this. i have not looked nor do i want to right now. finally, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Misterdiscreet 21:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I look forward to your AfD on Truthiness in the future. Also, there was more to my comments above, feel free to respond to the other parts as well. Joe User NY 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i disagree with your first two points. i concede the WP:NOR point, but i still do not think one single notable source (the Forbes one) is enough to establish notability of any sort Misterdiscreet 23:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if Forbes magazine is considered a notable source for any one article, then it's valid for all. Joe User NY 23:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is a reliable source. i'm not saying it isn't. what i am saying is that one article on one reliable source is not enough to establish the notability of a subject. rather, multiple articles are what is needed, and that's not something this article has Misterdiscreet 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your opinion that Forbes is the only source that can make this notable. The Forbes article is the sign that brings the article out of obscurity and into notoriety. The other sources have a supporting role in this and cannot be completely discounted even if they are not considered valid sources. If a dozen blogs say 'x' and then the NY Times says 'x', you can bet that 'x' is now notable no matter what your opinion of the blogs are. Joe User NY 03:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i disagree. if NY Times says 'x' only once and no one else does, then the NY Times is simply jumping the gun. Ippimail was mentioned in The Independant [1] yet it was deleted. do made up words deserve special treatment over that which organizations get? Misterdiscreet 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that you equate unverifiable sources as no source. Other sources need to be added to the equation in this debate. (not in the article). As for ippimail, well, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Joe User NY 05:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One additional comment. Under your guidelines, the first publisher will always be jumping the gun. I think you need to give them some credit, they don't just write 'x' without editorial oversite. Joe User NY 13:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editorial oversite didn't catch the Killian documents or Jayson Blair Misterdiscreet 18:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it eventually did. Or else you wouldn't have known much about it. Joe User NY 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i suppose you also think that Enron is the perfect example of big business policing itself? though the fraud went undetected for many years, it was eventually discovered and thats all that matters, right? Misterdiscreet 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not taking your bait. Like I said before, if a reputable source published information, and in this case, at least two did, then that meets the criteria to void your reasons for the AfD. Joe User NY 01:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree. ive said i agree. two reputable sources is enough. yet you insist on trying to convince me that one should be enough. "[the first publisher didn't] just write 'x' without editorial oversite", you say. why does that matter when a second reputable source reenforced what the first one said? its like your trying to pick a fight. now that your losing, tho, you try to cop out. take some responsibility Misterdiscreet 01:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you agree? You fought my argument the entire way. I'm still not taking your bait, invoking Enron to argue Blair/Killian is inane. Joe User NY 01:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you didnt present a second reputable source - User:Edison did and i agreed with him. stop trying to cause a fight. read WP:CIVIL Misterdiscreet 02:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, pot, kettle, black. Joe User NY 03:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a second reputable source and I'll a third but you keep on butchering teh article to remove sources. It's time for a WP:SNOW keep of an article that clearly meets all qualifications of notability with a rather clear consensus. Alansohn 02:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW is reasonable. your edits appear to just be reversions. did you actually add new material? if so then my own reversions were in haste and i apologize Misterdiscreet 02:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep nothing changed since the last afd, it might be made up and new, but it's reality none the less -- --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the deleting admin violated WP:JUSTAVOTE by keeping this article. AfD's are not popularity votes despite what you and that admin may think Misterdiscreet 20:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the previous afd is more than Just A Vote. It's a clear consciouses to keep that article. In fact only one person in that AFD acutally agreed with the nominator to have it deleted.RiseRobotRise 01:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with RiseRobotRise. There appears to be a good consensus about the article. I believe your comment was in good faith but a strong word like 'violated' seems inappropriate in my view, again because I WP:AGF. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 01:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RiseRobotRise is right - the last afd was more then "Just A Vote" - it was "Just A Violation Of WP:NOR". most votes to keep went along the lines of "obviously notable", as if articles on wikipedia don't need to establish their notability. well, they do. read WP:N. but maybe you think mob rule runs wikipedia - not policies? maybe you should create an afd for every WP:* article then. Misterdiscreet 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, perhaps you need to WP:AGF and lighten up ...? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you selectively ignore wikipolicy. WP:AGF does not excuse that Misterdiscreet 15:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Forbes, techdirt, and some other sources verify the information. I think is good enough for me. RiseRobotRise 01:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

techdirt isn't notable nor are "other sources". check out my user page. you see all those articles? "other sources" verify the information contained therein, but those "other sources" weren't enough to keep those articles. of course, this article is obviously different because you, RiseRobotRise, have set your foot down and decided it is? Misterdiscreet 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per my !vote in the last AFD in re this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in your last afd you said you remember seeing some notability here. how about instead of making colorful allusions you try backing your claims up with real evidence? establish this article's notability without violating WP:NOR Misterdiscreet 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's not merely a list. Bearian 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no - it's merely a violation of WP:NOR Misterdiscreet 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Satisfies WP:N and WP:A by the Forbes article and the Globe and Mail article [2] 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." This coverage by two reliable independent sources satisfies WP:RS and WP:V. The phenomenon of trying to suppress something resulting in the unintended consequence of heightened publicity did not originate 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." I could not think of an article to merge it to or to redirect it to. Nixon's efforts to prevent major newspapers, via injunctions, from publishing the Pentagon Papers, is a previous instance of the same phenomenon. Additionally, Wordspy [3] cites' "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' which would be a third reliable newspaper or magazine reference if someone could confirm it. Edison 05:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nice find with the globe and mail source. you've convinced me the article should stay. i'll be content with removing the specific WP:NOR violations in the article Misterdiscreet 15:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as per just about everyone else here. — OwenBlacker 16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just about everyone here thinks that WP:NOR is an argument to keep instead of to delete. just about every argument here (there are a few exceptions, but not many) is a violation of WP:JUSTAVOTE, because their arguments willfully ignore wikipolicy, and if your argument is the same, it should be discounted with most of the rest.

afd's are not the venue to set policy. afd's exist to apply policy. like the united states supreme court. the supreme court doesn't base its decisions on its own personal preference - they base it off of the original intent of the law. afd's are not decided on your own personal preference - they're based off the original intent of the policy. if you dislike the policy, debate it at WP:NOR - don't pretend as though it doesn't exist in afd's Misterdiscreet 18:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, wikilawyering is not becoming of you. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, wikipolicy is not becoming of you. Misterdiscreet 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting us nowhere. You can debate sources until you are blue in the face but it won't change the fact that there are at least two major sources using the term. (Forbes and Globe & Mail). Any debate on them past this point is a debate by Misterdiscreet on the policy WP:NOR and not on this article. Joe User NY 20:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

knee-jerk reactions are not becoming of you. my response to OwenBlacker and my response to Rawr has nothing to do with WP:NOR. i'm not citing a source or refuting one that's been cited. i am simply calling out a bad argument when i see one. yes, good arguments have been made. OwenBlacker and Dennisthe2 / Raw, however, have not made them. if you think WP:NOR address that, i suggest you read WP:NOR, because you obviously haven't Misterdiscreet 21:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep, and revert this edit. WP:N and WP:V/WP:ATT are satisfied, the list of examples is not WP:OR (hint: once the effect is defined using reliable sources, an article doesn't have to mention the exact term to be an example of the effect), and WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO are not the case as we have reliable sources using the term. I've also read the previous AFD, and WP:JUSTAVOTE was not the case. However, I do think the nominator here may be violating WP:POINT, particularly the sections WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:GAME. Anomie 00:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the list does violate WP:NOR, despite yourself, and is the main reason why i called this afd. your accusation of WP:POINT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME is laughable and is a violation WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. if you disagree with my reversions, take it up with WP:ARBCOM Misterdiscreet 01:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I'm just going to have to disagree with you on the WP:NOR issue. As for the rest, I called it as I see it. Anomie 03:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per above. Rob T Firefly 00:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Adequate reliable and verifiable sources are provided to establish notability per the Wikipedia:Notability standard. You've got to love the claim that the article should be deleted because "Andy Greenberg - the author of the Forbes article - doesn't get to violate WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO any more then any one here does." We Wikipedians are the only ones under a WP:NEO restriction; we are perfectly entitled to create articles based on what other people have "made up" as long as reliable and verifiable sources are provided. Even better is the claim that "if a mainstream source uses an article violating WP:NOR as its source, the wikipedia article doesn't, all of a sudden, magically become justified." which implies that Wikipedia is "really" the source of the term. Doc, isn't this the plot of the move Back to the Future?Alansohn 01:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep -- this is a phenomenon in propaganda that is worth documenting. The timeline is stellar.Gregbard 01:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I created the Streisand effect/Timeline after I nominated the article for the first AFD and it failed. I wanted to see how prevalent the phrase is on the Internet and maybe improve the article but I still don't think it's that widespread, or notable. In the timeline I highlighted media mentions of the phrase in yellow and blogs in aqua blue and bolded information I found significant. I still don't think there's an actual "effect" at play here. Yeah, The Smoking Gun publishes lawsuits and other media outlets repeat news stories. So? That's what the media *does*.

It's not some physical effect like the Casimir effect. The term "Streisand effect" was created as a joke.[4] And the definition of the term has also changed over time. Originally, the blogger (who we shouldn't be quoting anyway) Mike Masnick defined it as lawyers attempting to remove information from the Internet and instead bringing widespread publicity to said information.[5] What if publicity was the lawyer/agent's intention? Does Masnick think that lawsuits don't generate publicity? There's no such thing as bad publicity. Later, Masnick changed the definition and defined it even more vaguely as "the more you try to suppress something, the more attention it gets." [6] Is that "Masnick's Law"? Did he just invent a synonym for anti-censorship or teenage rebellion?

What exactly is the "Streisand effect"? Is it the effect Barbra Streisand has on people? On February 13, 2005, Janet Street-Porter[7] spoke of the Streisand effect when reviewing the musical Acorn Antiques and said it's when one person tries to do everything in a production. Or do we go by Masnick's definition(s)? Is it a causal relationship between prohibition and popularity? Is it a *correlation* between prohibition and popularity? When speaking of popularity, is it only limited to Internet popularity? Is it when any Internet user behaves in a way you disagree with? Is a cease-and-desist letter a necessary component of the "Streisand effect"? Are lawyers a necessary component? Why does the PKZIP article link to the page? Is it any disobedience or rebellion or unintended consequence? Andy Greenberg[8] defines it as a "backlash that occurs when someone tries to muzzle information on the Web." Here, no lawyer is mentioned. So is the "Streisand effect" just a synonym for backlash?

The article still has no clear definition and as time goes by, the Notable cases section will accumulate more and more speculation by editors who come up with examples that they personally think fit the definition, but that is all assumption and should be deleted. This is exactly why neologisms should be avoided in articles. Neologisms often have different meanings to different people. Plus, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. The phrase appears on neologasm.com and also urbandictionary.com and I think it fits just fine there, but I think it does not belong on Wikipedia. Everyone should read about articles on neologisms.

David Canton and James Nguyen and Rebecca Dube used the term, but we must cite reliable secondary sources ABOUT the term, not articles that merely USE the term. So far, there is one article about the term, the article by Andy Greenberg of Forbes. I don't think you can make an encyclopedia article based on one article. Andy Greenberg is the only reporter who has interviewed Masnick about the term and Masnick said they talked for an hour and most of the time was spent trying to come up with examples.[9] Only 3 of those examples are present in the Forbes.com article, the rest are in a slideshow (whose authorship is unknown). Is Andy Greenberg a reliable source? Is he employed by Forbes? Is he a freelance blogger? Did his article appear in Forbes magazine or only online? Even if he is a reliable source, that is still not enough sources about the term. I personally think the Greenberg article is a veiled plug for a company called ReputationDefender (who will help protect you against the dreaded "Streisand effect"), but that's just my opinion. If the Greenberg article is used as a source, the Wikipedia article would just be a definition and a list of 3 examples -- not quite encyclopedia material.

The only non-blog reference in the Notable cases section that contains the phrase "Streisand effect" is the Forbes article. If an incident is put in the list of examples and the reference does not contain the phrase "Streisand effect", it counts as original research, assumption, and speculation and is against Wikipedia policy. Also, who are we going to cite for claims of widespread Internet publicity in the examples? Blogs aren't reliable sources. Nielsen NetRatings? Alexa? Technorati? The number of Google hits? Youtube views? Define "widespread on the Internet." What's the threshold for claiming the information is widespread? Or do we just need to cite a reporter who says a piece of information is popular on the Internet? So far the only citable reporter would be Andy Greenberg (if he is a reliable source and if it was Greenberg, not Masnick, who came up with the examples) or perhaps Paul Rogers of the San Jose Mercury News (who said that the photo of Streisand's house was an Internet hit). [10]

The phrase "Streisand effect" may also be derogatory to Ms. Streisand. Material found in blogs should never be used in the biography of a living person and that should also apply to phrases that contain the name of a living person. You can't just create a Wikipedia article for any person and suffix it with "effect" and call it a real phenomenon. The phrase itself damages her public image.

The mentions of the phrase in Red Herring, The Globe and Mail, and Forbes all come *after* the creation of the Wikipedia article (which should have been deleted in late 2006 because it relied solely on a blog for a source). It's unknown whether the Wikipedia article itself contributed to the belief that the "Streisand effect" is an actual phenomenon, although I have seen links to the Wikipedia page on Slashdot, etc. If you think it's an actual phenomenon, you'll see it everywhere you look. That's called confirmation bias. Yes, information spreads quickly on the Internet. Am I supposed to believe that it's the "Streisand effect" at work? I have also noticed that the Red Herring article with entertainment and copyright law attorney James Nguyen now requires a subscription to view and it's likely that The Globe and Mail article by Rebecca Dube will also require a subscription to view soon. business lawyer and trademark agent David Canton's comments appear in the London Free Press (which costs to view) but also on his technology law blog--not a reliable source.

I agree with Misterdiscreet's nomination. As it is now, the article violates the policies on original research and verifiability and also the guidelines on reliable sources, things you made up in school one day, and neologisms and the phrase is also defamatory to Barbra Streisand. Masnick admitted the phrase is a joke and the article should be deleted. If the article is not deleted, it needs a serious overhaul. --Pixelface 10:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did somebody notice the recursive irony of this AfD? The article Streisand effect potentially might be hit by the Streisand effect itself -- if the NOR'ers get their way and remove it, there's already enough following to take it out of Wikipedia and spread it all around :D -- Wesha 15:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • You know, the thought's crossed my mind. =^^= See Murphy's Law, btw, for a similar effect. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.