Talk:Streisand effect

"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)

One might imagine that the photo's metadata geo-coordinates are ultimately of more concern to the celebrity now than the name tag. Walton22 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit 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 provides longitude & latitude co-ordinates of her home. 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)

If the decision is that hosting this image on enwiki is a privacy issue, it should be on MediaWiki:Bad image list. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You might have had a case if you raised this concern 20 years ago, but by now the photograph has not only been widely disseminated, "being widely disseminated" is precisely what it's famous for! What harm, exactly, is supposed to be done by the photograph's persistence into the future that has not already been rendered moot by the past 20 years? – Teratix ₵ 02:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It's never too late to put a principle into practice. That something unjust (invasion of privacy) has been going on for 20 years is no reason to give up on turning it around where it can be. Because it can't be turned around everywhere doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to do it here, the most prominent place.

The photo has the geo-coordinates of the celebrity's home embedded. It is tagged with the celebrity's name. These are enough reasons not to publish it on Wikipedia (and to my mind makes her legal action understandable to a fair-minded person).

The celebrity's personal security concerns are routine and legitimate, and she has said her legal action was to remove her name in the tag after her requests to do so were ignored, not to suppress the photo for the other purposes of publishing if (California coastal erosion) and that non-celebrity photos did not carry name tags on the website.

The fact that the legal action failed in one jurisdiction (she says due to unauthorised further overreach by her lawyer) does not mean we don't examine it independently under Wikipedia's own policies. I argue the photo of the celebrity's home clearly violates WP:BLP on privacy grounds due to its embedded name and geo-coordinate tags. That's it. Walton22 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You didn't actually answer the question. What harm are you claiming is being done by the continued inclusion of the photograph, 20 years later? I'm not asking about whether or not harm was done on its initial publication, that's a moot point. – Teratix ₵ 02:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The WP:BLP violation is under both "privacy" and potential "harm". I would have thought potential "harm" was obvious. Stalkers stalk celebrities. The most deranged would love to stalk the celebrity's home if they could but find it. Continuing the publication continues the potentiality for this harm. The potentiality for harm is ongoing and not nullified (your "rendered moot") because it hasn't been realised in 20 years. Same goes for privacy Walton22 (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I am flagging my request at MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list#File:Streisand_Estate.jpg

Walton22 (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The deal with the photo is, it's been out and about for over 20 years, making it not exactly a secret. Wikipedia's not here to hide info that's legally out there, especially when it's part of a bigger story, not just some celeb's house. The court dismissed her - which means we're not overstepping. Plus, if someone really wants to find her place, they won't need Wikipedia for that. It's about sharing knowledge responsibly, not about giving out private deets. Keeping the photo up on Wikipedia doesn't change the privacy game. --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You're just restating the same arguments without acknowledging the changed context. The privacy rationale might have been a good argument if this were 2003 and someone had just added the image to Streisand's article. In that case, its presence on Wikipedia would greatly increase its notoriety. However, we're having this conversation in 2024 – the horse has bolted and the image is widely known. Under these circumstances, the image's continued presence on Wikipedia does not meaningfully increase the risk of any hypothetical harm and removing it would not meaningfully reduce it. Arguing over this is like going to Talk:2000 United States presidential election and arguing Al Gore should be shown as the winner. – Teratix ₵ 03:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not about the "image". The celebrity claims it never was for her, that it was about the tagged name and geo-coordinates. And that's what it's about here for me. I don't think the passage of time changes that context at all. Walton22 (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My theory is that in 2003 the concept of image "metadata" was not widely understood. The public understood the case as being akin to suppressing a photo in a hard copy magazine. Perhaps Streisand's lawyer didn't even get it in dumbing the case down to image suppression which she claims was not the outcome she wanted. The image's metadata names the celebrity and provides the geo-coordinates. A more sensible 2003 injunction would have been to merely seek to strip the metadata out of the published photo on privacy grounds. But I suggest again (and for the last time) that the embedded metadata is enough to take the image off Wikipedia on BLP privacy grounds. I have made the nominations/requests that this be done, and have nothing more to add here. Walton22 (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

And, the result is speedy keep: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Streisand_Estate.jpg --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I was advised wrongly to nominate for deletion on Commons, incorrect jurisdiction, Commons has its own rules. Will see re the Bad Image request, where I was also advised to go. Always happy with consensus and enjoy the discussion, though I'm talked out now.Walton22 (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I should have made it clearer that Commons has its own distinct policies, but it was the correct place to go to dispute whether Wikimedia projects should host the photograph at all. – Teratix ₵ 08:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Walton22 (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The photo

A few comments.

1. Commons *rarely* removes a photo that is actually deliberately being used intentially in an article with any sort of support on a wikipedia (and this one is apparently being used on at least a dozen different wikipedias)
2. the Bad image list *might* be willing to restrict the photo if it was being used for vandalism, but the lack of shock value makes it highly unlikely to be used that way. and if restricted, would be restricted to use on this page (and possibly Barbara Streisand)
3. *If* the image is only problematic with the underlying metadata, could a version of the file with changed metadata be used instead? That would not change its use in the article from a visual point of view?Naraht (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Naraht (talk)Thank you for engaging with this.

Re your point 3., I also thought of at least proposing the stripping of the geo-coordinate metadata from the photo on WP out of respect for the celebrity's security and privacy, and also her concern about this particular Wikipedia article and her rebuttal to it, all this as expressed in her memoir.

I agree the horse has bolted as far as stripping out her name, especially as it seems the consensus and likely outcome is that the photo remains with the article, which would make it completely moot to remove the name.

But surely WP should not publish what is effectively her address, which she says was the focus of her objection 20 years ago (along with the fact that attaching names was done only for celebrity homes at a site purportedly publishing photos out of concern for coastal erosion only) and that the proposed full suppression of the photo was attorney overreach, as she also says in the memoir? Walton22 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

New version of the lead section

This version has made extensive changes that are not an improvement. "The photo had 6 views, two from Striesand’s legal representation, then gained over 500 thousand views. CCRP took the photo down, but it had become widely published elsewhere on the internet. The legal action on Streisand’s behalf gained notoriety after the website Techdirt coined the term." This isn't needed in the lead, it is covered below. "The Streisand effect since then has been often and popularly attached to backfired attempts at information suppression". Poor wording, not an improvement on the previous version. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for entering discussion with many good points which may now be addressed by new edits. By sticking more essentials, the lead is now more concise.

5ive9teen (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted those changes because they removed information that was highly relevant to the topic. I moved that into a new section, making the lead even more concise. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the approach, and have further applied it, successfully, I hope

5ive9teen (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I added a very brief paragraph on Streisand account of her regretted involvement 5ive9teen (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Propagation is not idiomatic expression peculiar to English. It is the exact same word in French and other languages have extremely close variations of.

"Propagation" is primarily an English word, but it has equivalents or similar concepts in many other languages. For example:

- French: propagation

- Spanish: propagación

- German: Verbreitung

- Italian: propagazione

These terms are used to convey the idea of spreading, disseminating, or propagating something, similar to the English word "propagation." 5ive9teen (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The lead

Here is my lead which disposes of extranea (since inexplicably TMI is not to be used in edit comments, though well known and well understood as too much information)

I believe this is much more direct and appropriate. The effect is a popular phenomena. Anarchonist’s edit would have unaware of the term’s broad usage. Which is a pity since that is the only reason it has a Wiki entry. The casual reader could be excused for drawing from the lead that it is an obscure term of art for media or academia.

Named after singer actress Barbara Streisand, the Streisand Effect is a popular phenomenon of unintended consequence arising when attempts to conceal information backfires—particularly if available on the internet or in other media. It exemplifies psychological reactance: where a desire to hide information instead makes its propagation more likely.

Streisand regrets that her name is attached to the phenomenon, saying she was associated with it after her lawyer attempted to suppress an online photo of her Malibu, California residence. She only wished for her name to go unmentioned with the photo. 5ive9teen (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted it. You basically restored your wording which has already been reverted multiple times. It is not direct, it is not appropriate, nowhere the article says it's a "popular phenomenon" (apparently your own synthesis), you re-instated the idiom "backfires", and added an inconsequential note about feelings that aren't supported by the article body. None of this is acceptable.

You are edit-warring now. I advise you to propose changes here. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Apparent edit war

Unfortunate we have came to a manifest edit war after a request for cordial dialogue, made after, I believe, a 2nd revert within 24hrs, (typically when for comity’s sake discussion is encouraged) has received disregard. We now have, by mistake or by intent, from Anachronist 3 reverts within 24 hrs (usually the mark of an edit war escalation and when a request for intervention becomes a reasonable option. It has a brute force affect to me, but that’s personal, so nm). For myself, I think I’m at 2 reverts, and the second revert was attended by a courteous but seemingly ignored request for dialogue before any more reverts.

The reverts:

The 1st revert in 24 hrs to to this

The 2nd revert in 24 hrs

The 3rd revert in 24 hrs

What’s even more unfortunate is this edit war could been avoided easily if objections, now explicated for the first time, were expressed before that avoidable 3rd revert. Let’s go over those points and others as well.

Backfires is a fine word, but now that we know (I didn’t) that it is idiomatic and possibly unfamiliar to international readers as such, it can go.

Streisand did regret her lawyers actions (there was no earlier objection made to this) but it is easy to replace it with something like Streisand addressed her association with the Streisand effect saying…

The origin of the term belongs in the lead and Streisand was there, so her recollection should return to the lead. Without her instigation, no effect to edit war over. Nothing could be more essential. The same for who invented the term.

The effect is popular phenomenon (a piece of popular culture) and nothing else. Not saying so suggests it may be an obscure term of art. The international reader, as we have advised to heed and consider, may well be unaccustomed to common American idioms (but given popularity of American art products, I doubt it. But let’s not quibble over this). They should be allowed to not make such an erroneous inference.

Not sure what is the difference between remove and censor: it seems a distinction of tiny differences. Even so, rather than split hairs on that, suggest simply using suppress instead.

Extranea such as ”taken to document coastal erosion in California“ can exit the lead. Streisand would have objected for any reason the photo was taken. And that it was a clifftop residence, more appropriate for real estate copy, is also unneeded in the lead. The body is where this lead bloat belongs.

“The effect is named for American singer and actress Barbra Streisand” is classic case of poorly applied passive voice. Lets instead look at this:

Named after singer actress Barbara Streisand, the Streisand Effect is a popular phenomenon of unintended consequences followimg attempts to conceal information—particularly if available on the internet—but instead draws to it unwanted attention. It exemplifies psychological reactance: where a desire to hide information instead makes its propagation more likely.

It is hoped for the above gets helpful replies, comments and suggestions. Bear in mind that his editor would be help that WP rules and customs invoked and cited are attended by brief detailing of what is precisely at issues. Not that this is imminent, but a reply saying I’m not edit warring because read all of lengthy policy X, has often, is jailhouse lawyering level stuff that, in my experience, seemed more like filibustering and less in good faith. Perhaps we can agree to avoid that.

To collegiality and a better lead. 5ive9teen (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The previous version of the lead was reasonably OK, but this version was not an improvement. It contains poor prose, and saying that "The legal action gained notoriety" is not NPOV. The WP:LEAD is also a summary and does not need to go into details that are only a paragraph away.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to count reverts, why doesn't 5ive9teen count his own? 5ive9teen has been reverted multiple times by other editors, not just by me. The edit summaries have been clear enough to get the message across.

Furthermore, the points 5ive9teen makes amount to synthesis and original research.

There is no need to create undue weight in the lead for the two sentences describing Streisand's rebuttal, and saying she "regrets" anything is pure WP:SYNTH if the source does not say that.

The term "popular phenomenon" is original research, and I would argue it is false and not applicable. The phenomenon has existed for generations, not just since someone applied Streisand's name to it. There is no need to give this a vague label like "popular phenomenon".

Starting out the lead with a bare assertion that has no explanatory power ("Named after singer actress") is far more awkward than the simply starting out with the term and then explaining it.

Poor prose isn't an improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I prefer 5ive9teen's version - more concise and explains things better, while not getting hung up on details that are also covered in the main body. Using the word "backfire" is not a problem; it has a different meaning than unintended consequence; it is what is called a "perverse result" - but that is a much more obscure and less likely to be understood phrase. While the phenomenon has existed for generations, this article is called Streisand Effect and that is a popular phenomenon, or at least a popular expression.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The point of the lead is to summarize the main body text, and 5ive9teen's version does get hung up on a detail (the "regret") that isn't even mentioned in the body text. The the proposed lead sentence explains nothing and fails to summarize the circumstances that led to the name of this topic. 5ive9teen's version engages in synthesis and fails WP:LEAD. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)