User talk:Psa188

Welcome!
Hello, Psa188, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Streisand Effect
For what it's worth, and per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, your next step should be to discuss the inclusion on the article's talk page. Speaking personally, however, I don't consider it a good example of the Streisand Effect. Video of the newscast had already widely circulated prior to their attempt to take the videos down. I don't see this as a better example than what is already on the article. Resolute 02:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Streisand effect. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--McGeddon (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I have cited a valid example of the SE. The initial KTVU report quickly fell off the news cycle and was basically forgotten. When KTVU began their campaign to take down the videos, it brought unwanted attention to the initial mistake. The story got more attention than it did the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psa188 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 August 2013‎


 * Talk:Streisand effect is the best place to have this conversation. But I don't think anyone disputes that the KTVU story is an example of the Streisand effect - they're just unconvinced that it's a good example. Wikipedia could list every single thing that's ever been described as the Streisand effect, but it wouldn't make for a very readable article if the heavyweight and illustrative examples were mixed in with a lot of lesser, interchangeable examples. --McGeddon (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * McGeddon is right on this issue. The silly Chinese names had been all over the world's media by the time that the DMCA takedown requests occurred. This is not a good example of the Streisand effect.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the KTVU story should not be used as an example. KTVU made a mistake. When the mistake was uncovered, KTVU broadcast a retraction. Ariana threatened suit, but public opinion was against the suit. There was wide publicity about the gaff from that, but it backfired on Ariana. Arguably, KTVU has a duty to remove copies of its original broadcast. There's no significant SE story here. KTVU was the victim of a prank; there's no silly, bad, or unusual motive behind the suppression effort. I don't think the story became better known due to the suppression. KTVU has a right to its copyrighted broadcast. Streisand had no copyright on the coastal photos. The school had no copyright on photos of its lunch. Glrx (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * KTVU has copyright, but fair use for critical commentary is fair game, and that is where they erred. Part of the problem here is that the Streisand Effect isn't well defined even on our own article. It is basically when something becomes famous or widely dissemenated specifically because of the attempted suppression. In this case, the erronious news report was already widely reportedly covered.  KTVU's attempt to take down videos resulted in further embarrassment, but it didn't make a story few would have heard of famous. It already was. Resolute 22:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)