Editing Unintended consequences (section)

===Unexpected drawbacks===
The implementation of a profanity filter by [[AOL]] in 1996 had the unintended consequence of blocking residents of [[Scunthorpe]], [[North Lincolnshire]], England, from creating accounts because of a [[false positive]].<ref name="risks digest">{{cite journal |url=http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/18.07.html#subj3 |title=AOL censors British town's name! |journal=The Risks Digest |publisher=ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy |date=25 April 1996 |author=Clive Feather |volume=18 |issue=7 |editor=Peter G. Neumann}}</ref> The accidental [[censorship]] of innocent language, known as the [[Scunthorpe problem]], has been repeated and widely documented.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://blog.siliconglen.com/2010/03/bbc-fail-my-correct-name-is-not.html |title=BBC fail – my correct name is not permitted |first1=Craig |last1=Cockburn |publisher=blog.siliconglen.com |date=9 March 2010 |access-date=24 February 2011}}</ref><ref name="butt">{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2667634/The-Clbuttic-Mistake-When-obscenity-filters-go-wrong.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2667634/The-Clbuttic-Mistake-When-obscenity-filters-go-wrong.html |archive-date=2022-01-12 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |title=The Clbuttic Mistake: When obscenity filters go wrong |last=Moore |first=Matthew |date=2 September 2008 |work=The Daily Telegraph |access-date=4 April 2010 |location=London}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.switched.com/2008/08/01/town-censors-its-name/ |title=F-Word Town's Name Gets Censored By Internet Filter |access-date=27 July 2011}}</ref>

In 1990, the Australian state of [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]] made [[bicycle helmet|safety helmets]] mandatory for all bicycle riders. While there was a reduction in the number of head injuries, there was also an unintended reduction in the number of juvenile cyclists—fewer cyclists obviously leads to fewer injuries, [[Ceteris paribus|all else being equal]]. The risk of death and serious injury per cyclist seems to have increased, possibly because of [[risk compensation]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1241.html|title=Head Injuries and Helmet Laws in Australia and New Zealand|website=www.cyclehelmets.org}}</ref>

Research by Vulcan, ''et al.'' found that the reduction in juvenile cyclists was because the youths considered wearing a bicycle helmet unfashionable.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cameron |first1=Maxwell H. |last2=Vulcan |first2=A. Peter |last3=Finch |first3=Caroline F. |last4=Newstead |first4=Stuart V. |date=June 1994 |title=Mandatory bicycle helmet use following a decade of helmet promotion in Victoria, Australia—an evaluation |journal=Accident Analysis and Prevention |volume=26 |issue=3 |pages=325–37 |doi=10.1016/0001-4575(94)90006-X |pmid=8011045}}</ref> A health-benefit model developed at [[Macquarie University]] in Sydney suggests that, while helmet use reduces "the risk of head or brain injury by approximately two-thirds or more", the decrease in exercise caused by reduced cycling as a result of helmet laws is counterproductive in terms of net health.<ref>
[http://docplayer.net/storage/64/52001739/1538888219/17X_qhDVpvxBJrWz1V_yZA/52001739.pdf de Jong. Piet (2012), "Evaluating the Health Benefit of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws", ''Risk Analysis'', Vol.32, No.5, p.782-790.]</ref>

[[Prohibition in the United States|Prohibition in the 1920s United States]], originally enacted to suppress the alcohol trade, drove many small-time alcohol suppliers out of business and consolidated the hold of large-scale [[organized crime]] over the illegal alcohol industry. Since alcohol was still popular, criminal organisations producing alcohol were well-funded and hence also increased their other activities. Similarly, the [[War on Drugs]], intended to suppress the [[illegal drug trade]], instead increased the power and profitability of drug cartels who became the primary source of the products.<ref>Juan Forero, "Colombia's Coca Survives U.S. plan to uproot it", The New York Times, August 19, 2006</ref><ref>Don Podesta and Douglas Farah, "Drug Policy in Andes Called Failure," ''[[Washington Post]]'', March 27, 1993</ref><ref name="streatfeild">{{cite web |author=Dominic Streatfeild |title=Source Material for ''Cocaine: An Unauthorized Biography'': Interview between Milton Friedman and Dominic Streatfeild |date=June 2000 |url=http://www.dominicstreatfeild.com/2010/11/08/interview-with-milton-friedman/ |publisher=Dominicstratfeild |access-date=2012-11-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121113201345/http://www.dominicstreatfeild.com/2010/11/08/interview-with-milton-friedman/ |archive-date=2012-11-13 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=An open letter |url=http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html |publisher=Prohibition Costs |access-date=2008-02-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060110171453/http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html |archive-date=2006-01-10 }}</ref>

In [[CIA]] [[jargon]], "[[Blowback (intelligence)|blowback]]" describes the unintended, undesirable consequences of covert operations, such as the funding of the [[Afghan Mujahideen]] and the destabilization of Afghanistan contributing to the rise of the [[Taliban]] and [[Al-Qaeda]].<ref name=BinLiner>{{cite web |url=http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp |title=Bin Laden comes home to roost |website=[[MSNBC]] |access-date=2009-12-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19981202035147/http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp |archive-date=December 2, 1998 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96may/blowback.htm |title=Blowback – 96.05 |publisher=Theatlantic.com |access-date=2012-11-21|date=May 1996 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=Peter Beaumont |url=http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,787999,00.html |title=Why 'blowback' is the hidden danger of war &#124; World news |publisher=The Observer |access-date=2012-11-21|newspaper=The Guardian |date=2002-09-08 }}</ref>

The introduction of [[Introduced species|exotic]] animals and plants for food, for decorative purposes, or to control unwanted species often leads to more harm than good done by the introduced species.
* The introduction of [[rabbits in Australia]] and [[New Zealand]] for food was followed by an explosive growth in the rabbit population; rabbits have become a major [[feral]] [[Pest (animal)|pest]] in these countries.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/app/barrier/history.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050722133944/http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/app/barrier/history.htm |archive-date=2005-07-22 |title=The State Barrier Fence of Western Australia |publisher=The State Barrier Fence Project |access-date=2009-10-09 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/Kids/NZBirdsAnimals/Rabbits/ |title=Rabbits: Introduction into New Zealand |publisher=Christchurch City Libraries |access-date=2009-10-09}}</ref>
* [[Cane toad]]s, introduced into Australia to control canefield pests, were unsuccessful and have become a major pest in their own right.
* [[Kudzu]], introduced to the US as an ornamental plant in 1876<ref name="Kudzu: Love It or Run">[[Smithsonian Magazine]] [https://archive.today/20130202145614/http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/kudzu-abstract.html Kudzu: Love It or Run]</ref> and later used to prevent erosion in earthworks, has become a major problem in the Southeastern United States. Kudzu has displaced native plants and has effectively taken over significant portions of land.<ref name="Illinois">{{cite web |url=http://www.news.uiuc.edu/NEWS/05/1020kudzu.html |title=Fast-growing kudzu making inroads in Illinois, authorities warn |access-date=April 28, 2008 |publisher=News Bureau, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign |year=2005 |author=Molly McElroy |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080706015032/http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/05/1020kudzu.html |archive-date=July 6, 2008 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref name="blaustein">{{cite web |url=http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_blaustein001.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061006031255/http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_blaustein001.pdf |archive-date=2006-10-06 |url-status=live |title=Kudzu's invasion into Southern United States life and culture |access-date=August 20, 2007 |publisher=United States Department of Agriculture |year=2001 |author=Richard J. Blaustein }}</ref>

The protection of the steel industry in the United States reduced production of steel in the United States, increased costs to users, and increased unemployment in associated industries.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg81372/html/CHRG-107hhrg81372.htm |title=The Unintended Consequences of Increased Steel Tariffs on American Manufacturers |journal=Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives, 107th United States Congress |location=Washington, DC |date=July 23, 2002 |number=Serial No. 107–66 |publisher=[[U.S. Government Printing Office]] |access-date=October 26, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://citac.info/study/citac_2002jobstudy_020703.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030403044706/http://www.citac.info/study/citac_2002jobstudy_020703.pdf |archive-date=2003-04-03 |url-status=live |publisher=CITAC Foundation/Trade Partnership Worldwide, LLC |title=The Unintended Consequences of U.S. Steel Import Tariffs: A Quantification of the Impact During 2002 |first1=Dr. Joseph |last1=Francois |first2=Laura M. |last2=Baughman |date=February 4, 2003 |location=Washington DC |access-date=October 26, 2014}}</ref>