Talk:Facebook/Archive 6

Check the internet archive... from April of 2005, and you will see the old about face site that launched in the 1990s... clearly this is NOT the facebook site.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050408055255/http://www.facebook.com/

Checking the internet archive for august of 2005, however, shows the facebook site in its current manifestation. It is plainly obvious from recorded history at archive.org that Facebook, in its current manifestation, did *not* launch facebook.com at any point in the year 2004, as is currently asserted in the main article.

If there is some reason otherwise to believe it was in 2004, I'd like to read the source on it so that a correction could be made. For example, did the site originally launch under a different domain or without a dedicated domain? As it stands now, the launch date looks to pretty much be made up... maybe its when the current domain name owners started coding the project? Either way, its wrong by at least 14 months. Zaphraud (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Facebook originally started at www.thefacebook.com before moving to www.facebook.com after it could afford to pay the $200,000 for the domain name. Gary King (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And, at the very least, read the reference next to the first sentence in the History section to learn the launch date. It gets under my skin when you have edit summaries such as "This is just plain wrong." when this article has several dedicated editors. At the very least, write down "I think this is incorrect" rather than stating that the editors of this article are incompetent. Gary King (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That may very well be when www.thefacebook.com launched, but that is not when the website www.facebook.com launched under its current ownership. To say so is completely absurd and every bit as wrong-headed as to suggest that since the California State University has been around since 1862 the ground-breaking for CSUCI must have also been in 1862. It wasn't, of course, it was less than a decade ago.

A web-site launch is the digital equivalent of a ground-breaking, it is site specific. Like a groundbreaking, it can be construction of something new where something else once was, but the key thing is that it is in that location! It is not directly tied to the founding of some entity regardless of where that entity may reside and as such, to say that facebook launched in 2004 is verifiably incorrect.

Also, since was archive.org not regarded as a reliable source, and who the hell made that decision? Last I checked it is, hands down, the single most complete index of historic web content, and I have not been aware of any instance where it contained false information - only instances where information was missing entirely. Zaphraud (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Same question I posted on your talk page: "If MSN started at http://msn.microsoft.com/ in 2000 and then later moved to http://www.msn.com/ while redirecting traffic from http://msn.microsoft.com/ to http://www.msn.com/ in 2005 , does that mean that MSN started in 2005 or 2000?" This article talks about the Facebook company, not just the website located at http://www.facebook.com/ Gary King (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Zaphraud, relax. It's not the end of the world if this specific sentence is wrong, and there's no reason you can't discuss this in a calm and civil manner. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the article discusses the company, but the sentence uses terminology that refers to a website's launch. Where is the problem in sticking to what is factual? Zaphraud (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The website DID launch on that date. The website changed domains sometime in 2005, but the website is the same - even the layout, the database, etc. was the same, unless you can prove otherwise that the entire website was completely different. Gary King (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding your response to my MSN question (response found here: User_talk:Zaphraud#March_2008), it was just hypothetical, so there was no need to fact check it for accuracy. Again, it is beyond me as to why you would consider an established website's launch date to be the date when it first began operating on its most recent domain name. For instance, http://www.googlemaps.com/ points to http://maps.google.com/ right now, but if Google decided to make http://maps.google.com/ point to http://www.googlemaps.com/ instead, then functionality would not change. Most users would not notice the difference. And the website would be the same - only the domain name would have changed. Gary King (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, Internet_Archive is actually referenced in the reference guide. Just a heads up.. LOL.Zaphraud (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's used when a website cannot be accessed. Gary King (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Facebook has released a Chat feature to some of its networks. (See http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=12811122130 ). Although this hasn't been released to all of Facebook, it will release to all of Facebook in the coming days or weeks. I believe it is in the spirit of Wikipedia to mention the Chat feature in the Facebook wikipedia article. This is a big development in Facebook and is very relevant. Gary King undid my changes to the Facebook page when I added that a few sentences on Chat on f--Geo19 4 (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)eatures. I'm interested in other people's opinions on whether or not the Chat section should be in the Facebook article. -- Geo19_4 —Preceding comment was added at 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am against adding this—for now, because it is still in beta. Within a week, a long will change, and by then, it will most likely become proseline. I am willing to have it added when, say, mainstream media reports on it, such as The New York Times, which consistently reports on major Facebook developments. Gary King (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Geo19 - this feature does exist, and we know it's coming more broadly. Waiting for NYT to validate seems against the spirit of WP, as WP can publish more quickly & flexibly. What's the harm in putting it up there? --Jajasoon (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with both Geo19 and Jajasoon. Facebook Chat marks a significant release\added functionality to the Facebook ecosystem. Even if only in beta release, it deserves mention as such. Why wait for NYT? --Bellross (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm with Gary King-- wikipedia isn't the place for beta's. It's meant for documented and well sourced information. Facebook has announced many plans for future features- and as the beta doesn't seem to have a set release date to Facebook as a whole, it shouldn't be included until either reported on or up and running. ~~ DaRkAgE7 (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that Geo19 is in the right. The fact is that unless one is aware that the chat feature is in beta, it looks like a fully functional, up-and-running feature. The label "beta" does not make the feature any less there. Although having a prestigious source to cite for any fact is ideal, what is more ideal for WP than to have both the most up-to-date information (i.e., "this feature exists in beta; FB has announced that it will likely expand the feature's implementation") as well as activity (i.e., update information on the feature as and when it changes). As Jajasoon noted, WP can publish more quickly & flexibly, so it owes it to itself to employ a complementary mode of updating its information. --Jgurd (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "fully functional, up-and-running feature" until all of the users have access to it, in my opinion. ~~ DaRkAgE7 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Naturally not. It "looks like" one "unless one is aware that the chat feature is in beta." --Jgurd (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how being beta reduces legitimacy. Gmail is still in beta technically, and even if we go back and look at the history of the WP Gmail page, there was a listing shortly after its announcement--before anyone could sign up. Additionally, the iPhone OS page discusses the 1.2 and 2.0 firmware updates despite the fact they are under very limited release currently. It seems there is a clear precedent. --Bellross (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Another argument for mentioning the chat feature: Beacon has its own section and even its own article, Facebook Beacon. Beacon obviously isn't used anymore but is an important element in the general history of Facebook. Even if chat isn't universally released, it represents, like Beacon, a large step in Facebook's development.

I also want to echo what Bellross said about how the gmail article came out before gmail was widely released. I see these two situations as almost identical.

Finally, as the first of WP's five pillars suggests, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_Is_Not ) Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Therefore, we as contributors have the freedom to put in up to date information and be extensive as possible. I think this debate, though somewhat trivial, gets to the heart of what Wikipedia should be. In my opinion it should be an entity that offers something the mainstream media does not. -- Geo19_4 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems that I'm the lone voice against it. That's good enough for me. Put it in, but be sure to reference it properly. ~~ DaRkAgE7 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also for putting it in. According to Facebook employees, the chat feature has been rolled out at Stanford, Harvard, and UC Berkeley so far. I used it on Sunday but I'm not sure if it was released earlier. Given the spirit of Wikipedia, I think it makes sense to have it in the Wikipedia article even in advance of mainstream media coverage. Darkage7, its very honorable of you to allow it. (Ajhendel (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

I really appreciate everyone's feedback and I put the changes in. For some reason, I can't get the second citation to look right. Could someone please fix it? I've spent a good amount of time trying to format it right and I just can't figure it out. Also, thanks again for everyone's friendliness and openness. --Geo19 4 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also when the citation is fixed, can you please tell me what I was doing wrong? Thanks, --Geo19 4 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just changed "[[Wired Magazine" to "[[Wired Magazine]]".  :) Was that all, or does it still not look right to you? — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks a lot. --Geo19 4 (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There are only three items in the header now: profile, friends, and inbox. There use to be four, what went missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.161.187 (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Network" section was removed from the header bar due to traffic concerns. It is now accesable from the profile page. This was mentioned on the offical Facebook blog. --Electrokinetica (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"The feature allows users to Instant Message their friends, much in the way Google Talk or AOL Instant Messenger works."

Google Talk or AOL require client-side program, but Facebook's does not. Also, if the sentence are refering to instant messaging & messengers, why only these two are mentioned? I suggest removing this statement, or changing "Google Talk or AOL Instant Messenger" to more general terms. – PeterCX&Talk 11:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The way it's currently stated- "The feature allows users to Instant Message their friends, much in the way instant messaging works." seems redundant and awkward. Suggest changing it. (I actually think it was more informative and appropriate before, for the record). ~~ DaRkAgE7 (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

From the article: "Facebook is often compared to MySpace by the media, such as The New York Times, but one significant difference between the two websites is the level of customization.[77] MySpace allows users to decorate their profiles using HTML and Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) while Facebook only allows plain text.[78] However, a number of users have customized their profiles by using hacks. For example, on February 24, 2006, users exploited a cross-site scripting vulnerability on a profile page and created a fast-spreading worm, which loaded a custom CSS file on infected profiles that made them look like MySpace profiles.[79]"

This is not a controversy. I moved it to the "features" section because customization is a feature -- or in Facebook's case, a lackthereof. Telstar2 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ConnectU controversy: ConnectU recently sued Facebook for allegedly stealing ideas from the site. According to this article in the Wall Street Journal dated June 27, 2008 the case was originally dismissed, ConnectU appealed the decision and was denied. This is just an update to the controversies section. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/27/facebook-wins-connectu-appeal-blames-fee-dispute/ (Rikkiteale (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Just a short note...Facebook is not banned in the UAE. If it was in the past, it was probably a temporary thing: http://www.7days.ae/showstory.php?id=57772

144.173.6.67 (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Sophie 01/05/2008 12:23 pm

Thanks, I've added that as a contradictory statement to the one that is currently in the article. Gary King (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Baalthazaq (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I don't think that really works. It's not just contradictory information, it's simply a mistake (or at least misleading information) by the original source which should be removed. I've been using Facebook for the last few years. There has been no interruption in service. My home uses Etisalat, and my work uses Du. Thus covering both ISPs available in the country. I log on daily. Etisalat, the TRA, and Du have all specifically stated that Facebook would not be banned.

The real story is effectively: The TRA banned Orkut (a site simular to Facebook), and people worried if Facebook would be next. Facebook had 10 hours of downtime to some users on Etisalat, and the community panicked that the facebook ban had come into effect, prompting petitions and whatnot.

Furthermore, it's the second most popular site in the country: http://www.itp.net/news/511899-facebook-myspace-to-be-banned

It is currently "not the case" that it is banned: http://www.itp.net/news/511911-uae-users-face-part-ban-of-facebook

Some info on the sporadic nature of the 10 hour downtime of facebook: http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/10/03/facebook-blocked-in-the-united-arab-emirates/

"Recent problems accessing the social networking site, Facebook, were not a result of censorship": http://inventorspot.com/articles/facebook_not_banned_7325

That is fair enough; I have removed the information regarding the UAE since I can't confirm with another source that it actually took place. Gary King (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An Egyptian woman called Esraa began using facebook to promote for a general strike on 6 April 2008 in a group called "4 May-General Strike for the Egyptian people" against the rising prices and low wages in Egypt with the slogan "Stay home",in return for the strike's success,she was imprisoned for 16 days for investigations.Before being caught on 6 April,she planned for another strike on 4 May 2008 and some Egyptian Facebook members followed her idea creating groups promoting for it.There are claims that Egypt might ban Facebook to avoid further strikes and opposition groups.The national security members was clear in the group as they went on posting aggressive and obscene posts on its wall trying to discourage new members from joining the group. The Egyptian government made a 30% raise for all governmental employees to avoid the 4th of May strike and other private sector companies followed the same decision Here's the group's link:[] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elv2003 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The group's link doesn't really help as I, and I'm sure many here, don't read Egyptian. If someone has a reliable source written in English, then please post it here. Gary King (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

,I'll get you some cartoons too from the group album,reffering to the facebook revolution.rtoons too from the group album,reffering to the facebook revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elv2003 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This information should probably go to Criticism of Facebook since it does not explicitly fall under one of the sections that we have under Controversy over here. Gary King (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been a recent surge in Facebook popularity, catapulting it from an Alexa traffic rating of 8 behind Wikipedia, 7 and Myspace, 6, to take a rating of 6, with Wikipedia falling to 8 and Myspace to 7. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This article would be even better if it had a map like the hi5 one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.61.120 (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to mention this controversy, about not listing Palestine as a place/hometown since there are so many groups about this. Facebook seems to be one of the few places that does not recognize Palestine as a country. It seems in line with the other themes such as Connect U. At least a sentence would be appropriate, if not a subheading and small paragraph.

I just checked. I can join Palestine's regional network, so I don't see what the issue is? Furthermore, I was quickly skimming through a few headlines and came to this, which actually mentions several Facebook groups that petition Facebook remove the Palestine regional group, not add it. Gary King (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Gary King took it out without warning a couple of weeks ago. As a practicing attorney, I am very busy and only caught this unexplained deletion right now. What was the reason for taking it out? The photo was shot with proper angle and contrast and was obviously relevant to the subject of the article. After all, you can't have a commercial Web site if you don't have a building to house its commercial operations in! (I've never heard of any major commercial Web site operating from an open field or the top of a mountain.) If no one gives me a good reason, I'm putting my photo back in. That photo was particularly difficult to make! --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it was recommended at the current WP:FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Facebook that it be removed. Gary King (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's odd. Can you point me to the particular recommendation? I've read that FAC very, very carefully twice over and there is no suggestion that the image should be removed. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, that was the wrong page. The suggestion to remove the image is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive3. Gary King (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am putting my photo back in and will take up the dispute directly with User:AnmaFinotera and ask her to respond on this talk page. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't really feel too strongly about the issue, but when it was brought up, I felt that their concerns were warranted. It's not a major issue, since the image is free to use, but it's just decoration and not much else because as it was mentioned, the headquarters itself is not discussed in great detail. Gary King (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The picture adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the encyclopedia and is more decoration than anything else. Per WP:IMAGE: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." What the headquarters of the building looks like is not significantly relative to the article's topic. The building is not discussed in any detail in the article at all. Its unnecessary, no matter how nicely shot it is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. Your position is internally inconsistent and makes no sense. In line with your position (in which relevance of images must be demonstrated by an express discussion of the content of each and every image in the body text of the article), more than 95% of the images on Wikipedia should be removed because they are NOT expressly discussed in the articles in which they are displayed. That would make for a terribly boring, colorless encyclopedia (which would look like Citizendium or one of the smaller Wikipedias in other languages).

For example, the article on the United States currently contains photographs of Buzz Aldrin on the moon, Interstate 80, the University of Virginia, and the Hollywood sign, even though none of those objects are specifically discussed in the body text of the article. Under your extremely constrained view of relevance, all of those would go, because the article lacks a paragraph specifically discussing the importance of Buzz Aldrin, Interstate 80, the University of Virginia, or the Hollywood sign. But under the more sensible, broader view of relevance that I (and most human beings) adhere to, they are relevant to the United States because the article indirectly discusses the American space program, American car culture, American postsecondary education, and the American entertainment industry. That's close enough.

Furthermore, the headquarters of a corporation is clearly relevant to a corporation because by definition, it is the place where the officers and senior employees of the corporation work. It is literally the home of the corporation. It is the "principal place of business" of the corporation (as distinguished from its state of incorporation).

I believe the appearance of the headquarters of a company or organization is strongly relevant to an article about that company and adds a great deal of value even if the headquarters itself is not expressly discussed in the article. There is a tremendous difference between Apple Inc.'s five-story tall headquarters complex in suburban Cupertino and News Corporation's soaring skyscraper in New York (both of which I photographed for Wikipedia). The appearance and location of a corporation's headquarters speaks volumes about its corporate culture (and indeed, such buildings are often selected and designed with that point in mind, which you would know if you regularly read BusinessWeek, Fortune, Forbes, the WSJ, or any other periodical which regularly discusses commercial real estate issues). Furthermore, I think an image speaks for itself (that's why attorneys nearly always bring visual aids, photographs, or physical objects for the jury to look at) and there is no need to restate the obvious in a thousand words of prose when a single photograph would do.

Please note that I am prepared to take this issue to arbitration and will revert any other image removals based on User:AnmaFinotera's extremely limited view of the word "relevance." --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, try and remain civil and do not threaten to take this to arbitration. I think it will be quickly dismissed. This view is shared by many, many more people than only User:AnmaFinotera. If you go through Featured Article candidates, you will find this out quickly. When you say that 95% of the images in Wikipedia articles should be removed, I have no doubt that there are many editors (although probably not in the majority) that share this sentiment. This is talking in terms of the Featured Article criteria, though, specifically. No one here is going to go on a rampage and begin removing images from articles, but I respect the editors that suggest some images be removed in order to meet the higher standards set by the Featured Article process.

I think a lot of the disagreements here stem from misunderstandings. This article is currently going through the Featured Article process and therefore is being held to higher standards than most articles, and even images are being scrutinized. And I agree with AnmaFinotera's views. I have requested that some other editors give their input to this discussion, and hopefully some light can be shed for everyone involved. Gary King (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, arbitration doesn't decide content issues for the most part and would quickly dismiss such a filing. Second, I would think its obvious, but this article is NOT about the company Facebook, Inc. It is about the website, Facebook.com. They are, in fact, two separate things. If the article were actually about the company itself and not the website, then the picture would likely be appropriate But the article IS about the website, and as such, a picture of the company's headquarters is not significantly relevant. The rest Gary probably said better than I could. I hope you will be willing to listen to the input of others as well, even if they agree the image doesn't belong. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt that the image is decorative and doesn't really add anything to the article. It's not discussed in the text, and the building isn't even identifiable from the image - it's just an office block. However, since it's a free image, the necessity for removal isn't as strong as it would be normally. Black Kite 08:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Facebook, Inc as well as the website. Click the wikilink. Reinstate the picture, it adds value to the article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just returned from a badly needed transpacific vacation (during which I contracted my second cold this year and earned another 12,000 frequent flier miles). Mostlyharmless has elegantly stated the point I was going to make in rebuttal, which is that the article is about Facebook, Inc. as well as Facebook the Web site. If it were solely about the Web site, then the article should focus solely on the features, design, and user community of the Web site (the obvious analogy would be to a psychological study of the end user experience which would assume the existence of its design and make no inquiry into its creation).

But the article also clearly discusses the history of the founding of the Web site and the fundraising by the subsequent private corporation which has supported its operations since (analogous to a corporate history). This makes sense in the context of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, because as any Web designer knows, Web sites do not design themselves. Like all technological artifacts, they are designed by humans, built by humans, and used by humans. In fact, it takes hundreds of hours of labor to design a really good Web site. So the picture of the company building is relevant because that's where the people behind Facebook physically gather every day to keep it operational. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And editor has suggested that this article does not meet GA standards. The Good Article Reassessment discussion can be found here. Majoreditor (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In May 2008, news surfaced through blog circles that hitting the down arrow key or entering a period in the search prompt would bring up a list of five "important people" according to Facebook's own release.^[1] The algorithm seems to have been based on both the number of views of those individuals profiles on behalf of the user and the number of times the user had viewed said individuals on their own. This, however, is in direct violation of Facebook's own commitment to total anonymity in their privacy policy. This effectively adds and element of exposure the end user cannot control.

This one actually has serious legal implications. We need more research. Gawker is good for getting publicity, but I agree with the criticism leveled against this source in the criticism of Facebook discussion. Gawker is dedicated to breaking stories, but we can get something with more credibility. I will continue to research. But the issue needs more coverage and awareness. Facebook has been flirting with breaching their privacy contract with Beacon and now this, and they just might have done it. We cannot allow this type of "opt out" breach of contract behavior to continue.

In the introductory section, last paragraph, the article states: "Due to its popularity, Facebook has met with some controversy." Since when did sheer popularity cause controversy? Unless somebody can find a source that states that Facebook's popularity itself is causing some controversy, I think this should be changed. Thoughts? ~~ DaRkAgE7 (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to incorrectly claim there is a dispute as to Facebook's valuation. I see no sources pointing to the existence of the dispute. What exists is a disparity between the post-money valuation established by Microsoft's venture financing of the company, and the company's internal valuation, metrics, etc. This is utterly normal for quite a few reasons, as anyone close to venture transactions can tell you: venture investors get preferred shares whereas other valuations are based on the value of common; companies like Microsoft invest for strategic reasons and not cash flow projections; dot com companies are typically not valued on current revenues, etc. I don't think the issue is notable at all, but if it is noted it's barely a mention or a footnote to an investment and funding section, hardly worth spending an entire heading on. Anyway, if there is a dispute and people want to call it that, could you please provide a reliable source? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought ConnectU was a separate project. The redirect indicates that ConnectU is an alias for Facebook but upon reading about the ConnectU controversy in the article it is not the case.

I think the redirect is misleading. Kristensson (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

ConnectU seems notable on its own. Why not write an article for it? That would solve the problem. Wikidemo (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Darrenhusted, it does not require a source if it is common knowledge. Eivmeidwl (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it does require a source. What you call "common knowledge", Wikipedia calls "original research." UnitAnode 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It does not need a source. Nowhere does it say that it needs it if it is common knowledge. If we are talking about what Facebook is used for, then we should mention groups. We mention about the pages. Eivmeidwl (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Our policies require sourcing. It's as simple as that. If there are other unsourced portions of the article, then remove them. Don't add original research just because you think that there's original research in other portions of the article. UnitAnode 21:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that I object to people calling me out, but you were reverted Unitanode first. And the logic of "let me add my stuff then you make it better" is flawed. Get a source, then add it. And your 3O says 2, when it is 2:1. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it was 2 editors before you came along. Eivmeidwl (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Since we're focusing on this one edit and I was about to submit this for peer review because it is really close to FA status, is Mashable a reliable source?--The lorax (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You might take that question to W:RS/N, as I'm not sure. UnitAnode 22:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

According to this, it's not a RS.--The lorax (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I will ask if Mashable is a reliable source. Eivmeidwl (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They suggested I use primary sources. So that's what I did. Eivmeidwl (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Joe Kral designed the Facebook logo in 2005. He's born and bred in Faribault, Minneapolis USA and founded the Test Pilot Collective.

Jusum (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel like the Chinese website Qzone deserves a mention when Facebook's size is refereed to. JyoNah (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

MySpace Buys iLike in Effort to Best Rivals (WSJ article by Emily Steel) "MySpace is acquiring online music service iLike, as the social-networking site faces a drop-off in visitors and tries to remake itself as a destination for music, videos, games and other entertainment content."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125071805039144277.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 13:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

the number of employees that work for facebook is out of date the number of employees has gone from 700+ in 2008 to 900+ in 2009 here is the referance ^[2] 200.32.232.37 (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Gabe 24/8/09

Due to the open nature of Facebook, several countries have banned access to it including Syria, China and Iran? This information is incorrect.

Facebook is NOT banned in Syria, searches on Facebook will still show users, groups and pages for Syria and contact is still available. Furthermore the references are in fact 2 years old, this information should be updated. Delly54 (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this really merrit a reference? Facebook is available on many mobile platfroms such as Blackberry. If it is to be included should we not just blend it in to the Platform section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macutty (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of just blending it in the platform section. It's not very common for websites to have non-computer access that is both highly supported and regularly used so I think that it's still worth calling out the dual-use. But I completely agree that this doesn't warrant a whole section.Jopo sf (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that mobile use of Facebook is worth mentioning, but specific mention of the iPhone's app is unnecessary and unfair. Other platforms (WM, BB, Nokia) support Facebook apps and have high usage statistics. See last paragraph of in which usage statistics indicate significant competition in this market. Anon user23 (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC) But isn't important about apple not letting facebook update the app? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.4.3 (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Just added a short section detailing Facebook on the BlackBerry, Nokia S60 and Android. Hopefully this goes at least some way to solving the discrepancy! Thecurran91 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is out-of-date: There is an app for Android: http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=74769995908 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.35.42 (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There should be something mentioned about Facebook's support of interracial relationship group, but discrimination towards same race relationship groups. Norum (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Any reliable sources making this claim? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources you say? Just go on Facebook and do a search for (for example) "interracial", "black men", "white women who worship black guys" etc etc and you gonna have so many groups encouraging interracial relationship, but basically none where it says white only, because some people may misunderstand this as racist. They openly incite what are obviously very disturbing inclinations of racially aggravated sexual conquest, but if someone was to create a group named something like "Dating - for white people only" etc then the group would disappear right after, because people would deem this to be racist. So it is ok to write "for black men only" or something similar to this, but if you write "for whites only" then that's a big no no. Where is the justice to this? As you can see, FB does discriminate against same race relationships. Norum (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Read these: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ro/www/OrangeandBlueObserver/posts/march06/facebook_discriminates.htm , http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/12/27/18556629.php Norum (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RS. These aren't reliable sources. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Wanna hear this from BBC or CNN? No wonder no one can take Wiki seriously. Norum (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take the time to read WP:RS; self-published sources and forums posts aren't sufficient. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it is worh mentioning the current sitution with Facebook, were Hometowns in Wales are being classed as being in England^[3], and the group petition about it that has gotten over 13,000 members in three days.--Welshsocialist (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

An article on todays cnn.com homepage says they have been discussing virtual currencies and that facebook commented that they are researching the idea of a global virtual currency. Should this be put on the main page?

Link: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/05/19/online.currency/index.html

Simon.uk.21 (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My paragraphs about Controversial Groups and Use by Islamist terrorist have both being reverted because they apparently don't have sufficient facts. If so please edit the paragraph and don't reverted. Reverting the paragraph is just a lazy way of saying that you disagree with what I wrote. Please at least tell me why you reverted the paragraphs on this page. Who ever reverted my paragraphs I expect you to give me a brief understanding of your reasons and at least make some effort to editing the paragraph your self. Even if you don't know much about it, I have given a reference so you can use these sources to help you edit the paragraphs.--Bouklyloo (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." The information you added does not belong on this article, do not plead with others to edit you text rather than deleting it, that there is a reference is not the problem, that you want to give undue weight to the happenings on a social network is the problem. There are thousands of groups on Facebook, we do not have the space to cover them all. That there are holocaust denial and Islamist terror groups is not surprising, nor is it significant. You talk of "international pressure" and tie the HD groups to the "19th of May 2009", what is this "international pressure" and are you going to update the date every day? The sentence "This is not the first time Facebook does not except to delete these groups" is badly written but also seems to claim a persistent history which cannot possibly be dated or quantified. In the second section why just "Shin Bet", no doubt there are hundreds of Islamic terrorists on Facebook. "Only a few proofs and evidence were made public including one in which a man called the Shin Bet to report that a case in which an apparent Lebanese merchant asked him for confidential information for money", what does this badly constructed sentence have to do with anything? Do you work for Shin Bet, are you against Shin Bet? I'm sure al-Qaeda are recruiting on Facebook, and RIRA and CIRA. None of this has anything to do with Facebook. The information is not notable, that is why I reverted and didn't bother editing it. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This stuff obviously has to do with Facebook because it is part of Facebook. This stuff is happening on Facebook and is obviously important because it has been on the news a lot. If you think Holocaust-denial and terrorist recruiting people is not important then your wrong. You seem to think that the Shin Bet is a terrorist organization and if you think my sentence are badly written check out yours "In the second section what just "Shin Bet", no doubt there are hundreds of Islamic terrorist on Facebook." I didn't understand that. If your to lazy to edit stuff then you shouldn't be on Wikipedia because Wikipedia would rather have understandable content that might not be superbly written rather then have nothing. If your so sure that al-Qaeda is recruiting on Facebook then why don't you put it on this article, isn't this part of Facebook? Or do you just think that it's not important enough.--Bouklyloo (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not important. Plus the phrase is "you're too lazy" not "your to lazy". And you are incorrect in saying"Wikipedia would rather have understandable content that might not be superbly written", the point of having multiple editor looking at every article is to refine and improve the language, not add chunks of text and hope it will do. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

People who have passed on but are still on Facebook

Has anyone addressed what happens in these cases? It seems like there should be something about this... Or maybe about how those pages become tributes to those who have passed on? Voice99 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My paragraphs were not junk and meet truly the requirements of Wikipedia from my point of view. Now if don't accept that that's fine because all I wont is a mention of what's happening on Facebook that is important enough to put on Wikipedia. If you agree with me that there should be a sub-topic called "Controversial Groups" thats speaks about some groups that are controversial and another paragraph that speaks about the use of Facebook by terrorist then we are on the same page. If you don't wont the paragraphs to be on the article because they are badly written thats fine too. Lets just fix them up instead of doing this useless fighting. Here is the paragraph that I wrote on Controversial Groups, make the changes that you wont and then we will put it on the article.

On the 19th of May 2009, after much international pressure Facebook still decided not delete Holocaust-denial groups. Facebook stated that it would not delete groups that “speak out against countries, political entities, or ideas”. Facebook did start to delete Holocaust-denail groups in countries such as Israel and Germany were Holocaust denial is illegal. Facebook also deleted two Holocaust-denial groups in Australia after demand from the Australian Jewish Community. This is not the first time Facebook does not except to delete these groups, in fact in July 2008 the Jewish Internet Defence Force took over Facebook and started deleting these groups manually. After a few days the Jewish Internet Defence Force gave control back to Facebook but stated that if it had too it would take over the website again.

Here is the reference: http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=7458

Here is the paragraph on Use by Islamist Terrorist.

Several terrorist groups have been using Facebook as a way to recruit Israeli civilians for intelligence or terrorist purposes against Israel. The Shin Bet announced on the 17th of May 2009 that they had multiple records and proofs that Islamic terrorist were using Facebook. Only a few proofs and evidence were made public including one in which a man called the Shin Bet to report that a case in which an apparent Lebanese merchant asked him for confidential information for money. The Shin Bet said that this was putting Israeli civilians in great danger if they accepted the demand. The Shin Bet also said that evidence was found to prove that other networking websites were used as recruiting fields by terrorist.

Here is the reference: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/18/israel.facebook.spies/index.html

If you think the names of the topics are not suited then change them too.--Bouklyloo (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know Facebook's official time zone for global site wide changes? They have several HQs so it's not particularly clear. --Steve (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Facebook put up a clock, and looks to be Eastern Standard time --Steve (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The article, and related articles, could be improved by creating separate articles about Facebook as a website, social networking mechanism, and internet phenominon; separate from an article about Facebook, Inc. as a business. Then, re-incorporate information from the article Criticism of Facebook into each article. It would be better to have balanced articles about narrower topics then to divide larger topics into pro and con articles. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

FACEBOOK WON'T LET PEOPLE LOG IN!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.154.2 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not usually find myself agreeing with the abovementioned states, but I will on this issue. Facebook, and all other applications like it, are iniquitous. They encourage self-promotion, egoism, abuse, scandal, prostitution and even public riot, as the girl who advertised her party on the site found out when over 100 gatecrashers turned up. I personally have no idea why someone would wish to advertised themselves in this way, and can only expect trouble if they do.

I understand the point you are making but the fact remains that free speech, which is what facebook for all intents and purposes is, should not be restricted. And while self-promotion and egoism can be seen as negative personality traits, no one has the right to say you can not practice them. The issue here is not whether the concept of facebook is "right" or wrong, rather the issue is people need to learn more personal responsibility. A knife can kill. But a knife can also cut you a nice piece of pie. Jersey John (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't people be satisfied by email, a letter or a telephone call? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.10.43 (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

People have the right to chose what satisfies them. Facebook satisfies a vast majority of people. Anyone who questions why could be seen as a snob. Jersey John (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Let's pick and chose our battles, folks. Facebook really isn't worth a cultural crusade...

The fact that you propose censorship because a website is not to your taste is shocking (158.223.169.40 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Is that really such an amazing fact to put on the first paragraph? I bet loads of websites are banned there! Cls14 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is really not amazing but Iran and Syria are probably the only countries that banned facebook, so it is mentioned there.Lilied1 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not blocked in Iran. My friends are using it right now without any proxy. The sentence smells anti-Iranian. Without citing anything, even an old report, or even putting a question mark, it just broadcasts opinions.

I added a citation. As with any internet filtering, it's spotty and intermittent, and in some areas it will be easier to access (maybe some internet cafes). That's the case with Syria, I would assume it's similar in Iran. Joshuagross (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

depends on your internet provider in iran Lilied1 (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Proof that Facebook is not blocked in Iran: http://www.payvand.com/news/09/mar/1180.html - Please remove Iran from the list.--92.7.47.244 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I was recently in Iran, and I used facebook fine with any internet provider I used. It does NOT depend on your internet provider because in Iran if a website is blocked it does not matter where you get your internet from. It all goes through the same filters, and facebook isn't one of the websites. Remove the wrong, racist information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunfl0wer00 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as of the 2009 June elections. The site only needs to be blocked sometimes to be "blocked intermittently". http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090614/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.142.194.131 (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Anybody knows anything about that? It is impossible to join (requires "work email", which is NOT the email one has registered at Wikipedia).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is a network for Wikimedia members (members with a Wikimedia email address)? Strange that it is called Wikipedia though - I don't think WP people specifically have WP email address. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is for Foundation employees/board members that have an @wikimedia.org email address. I could be wrong, however. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have many contacts based in Iran too, they all use facebook without "filter breakers".--92.3.103.205 (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on "Facebook" should mention the current controversy about Facebook's 2008 redesign, which has caused a major outcry in the user community. Facebook is planning to make the new design compulsory to all users within the next few weeks. Many users would prefer the option to keep the old design or reject the new design alltogether. Major points of criticsm include a greater focus on intrusive news/communication features and the loss of the more "personalized" look of the old design as the new design bans personal info and application boxes from the profile page, so that visitors have to klick themselves through to find them.

see: http://www.insidefacebook.com/2008/08/25/facebook-redesign-may-not-go-live-to-all-users-for-a-month http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=21195574231 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.39.235.97 (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a tempest in a teacup. The tech community is always up in arms about something. Growing web companies redesign their website yearly at least. Any reliable sources to show that either the redesign itself, its effect on users, or the user reaction is notable to the company?

A blog and FB group are not RS. If it signalled the beginning of the end then next year add something, otherwise it is 273,000 moaners out of how many millions members? Darrenhusted (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds just like the whole issue that came up when last.fm changed their website design - see what I mean here. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the biggest group against the redesign has 1,094,438 members. I think that is enough to be considered a controversy. http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=21195574231&ref=ts Tyler John (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still wondering which bit of FB groups are not reliable sources people are struggling with? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm still using the old Facebook client, I didnt change to the new one. The article is incorrect in saying that the new version is the only version available! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.105.83 (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot more than 273,000 moaners as of today. At least 1.7 million in only one of the many anti new Facebook groups, and counting. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That number referred directly to the FB group listed. Doesn't change RS rules though. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1053525/Facebook-fury-One-million-users-protest-design-social-networking-site.html - that reliable enough? 83.100.161.252 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs more than one ref. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I think you're being overly picky. There's really no reason why this information can't be included in the article, and one reference is fine for a small section like this would be. The largest English language group is now at just below 2 million members: easy to link to, and with the reference provided above, more than good enough. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Overly picky for wanting WP:RS and WP:V. In the grand scheme of things a bunch of people joining a group on facebook is not a major event. The redesign is permanent, out of 100m users so far around 2% object. In the grand scheme of things this may not end up being significant. As the forced adoption of the new design is only a week old I suggest waiting for a few months. If this causes 50 million people to leave then it is significant, otherwise a passing reference, not a whole section, will be enough. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Darrenhusted I respectfully suggest that it is you that is being at bit arbitrary here. 2,000,000 people doing anything is noteworthy! 2,000,000 people voting in a general election is a landslide. 2,000,000 people marching on Washington is frontpage news. Indeed, there is more than one group on FB that has over 1,000,000 members (there is at least two more), 2,000,000 members opposed to the new format (http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=27233634858) is the largest.

The great thing about a wiki is that if you are correct and the whole thing blows over, then delete the passage relating to it. But for now it is news that relates to this wiki page and should be on here. Just for transparency do you work at Facebook? I will take a no reply to be a yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.24.146 (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your definition of noteworthy, but it is not me that you will need to satisfy. Let me give you an example, there is a website and it has 100,000 members, they redesign it and 10,000 members leave and start complaining in a rival forum, it that newsworthy? No. If Facebook's financial future comes under some kind of problem because 2 million users leave (and is they are in an FB group they are still on FB) then it is worth noting, as it is they are just a group of users complaining about something (and there are hundreds of FB groups where large amounts of people complain about something). Note noteworthy. And on this But for now it is news note, read WP:NOT#NEWS. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Darren's evaluation of the situation. As I said before, this is exactly the same as with last.fm when they redesigned their site - loads of groups sprung up "complaining" about it, but nothing of note except for a few "fringe" (in my opinion) news sites. Also, it is impossible to know over the however many groups there are how many users are duplicated across them - I know of a few friends of mine who are members of many different "hate the new look" groups. The numbers aren't verifiable! ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Darren - We are not talking about 10,000 people here, it is over 2,000,000 (0.03% of the world's population). The 'something' that people in other groups are protesting about may well relate to random topics (so what!), I not asking for the wiki Space_Raiders wiki page to be edited to reflect the group protesting about the price of their crisps compared to the 80's, that is a discussion for that page. In the over 2,000,000 group the 'something' relates to the substance of this wiki page, and these FB users are protesting about FB and the format of FB, that is important to this page, it relates to the core of this page.

I read WP:NOT#NEWS, and this seems to me to relate to making new wiki pages about current events. We are not talking about making a new page, we are talking about editing this one. It also says that the coverage should be proportional. I think few lines about this protest is more than proportional to the rest of the size of this wiki page.

I also note you didn't answer the question if you work at Facebook. It seems to me that you do and that makes you far from impartial on this ... I have to ask, do you actually get paid to 'mind' this page for FB, are you 'cleaning up' it up for FB? I think you should do the honourable thing and not edit here if you are not impartial (I'm sure there must be a WP-style note about this somewhere). Please advise if I am wrong and you don't work at facebook, I would be pleased to hear it.

Yes, I work at Facebook. In fact, I'm Mark Zuckerberg, and I am so concerned I am editing the Wikipedia page to stop people leaving Facebook. Don't be silly, if you want to know anything about me then look through my contribs, I don't work for Facebook, but I do understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, and so far your arguments for adding in trivia to this article have not persuaded me, nor three or four other editors. Throwing around number about 0.03% of the world's population does nothing to help your cause, because we are not a democracy. We rule by consensus, and consensus is not for adding in trivial information about an FB group. If in six months time this is shown to have some long term impact then it will get significant coverage, and then it can be added. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Jam - In reply, these 2,000,000 are just the people on FB who can be bothered to protest, there will no doubt be many more out there, but I do take your point that you can not merely sum separate groups as they may share some users. But in the over 2,000,000 group unless these people have created multiple accounts on FB just to protest, I think this must be a reasonably reliable a number. For example in the world population page it says there is 6.721 billion people on this planet, can this be checked, seems grossly rounded off to me ...?, but this number is still on wikipedia as it is good enough). I ask can your average FB user really be so bothered by the changes made to new FB so as to conspire to create thousands of fake accounts each, just so that they can have a protest about the one account that they actually want to use untroubled ... hrmmm. JAM - same question to you, please confirm you don't work at Facebook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.24.146 (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've condensed and consolidated the material. There was a lot of duplication, unsourced speculation, weasel words, etc. It all ought to be verifiable, so please either come up with solid citations or take it out. Also, we have no source that it was a significant event. We cannot infer that anything is significant merely because several million people sign an online petition or join a group "protesting" (a very loose description for someone who clicks a button on a virally spread invitation) something. As they say, that plus two fifty will get you a cup of coffee. Tech consumers and bloggers rant all the time about every subject under the sun - we don't have enough space in the encyclopedia to repeat every complaint we can source. It's just not encyclopedic. Every time a car, clothing, piece of software, building, phone, or sack of flower gets a face lift somebody isn't going to like it. The approval rate on everything is below 100%. So what? Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

JAM - I think my question was a fair question, and I believe it only right that anyone with a conflict of interest should declare it. Note - I stated that I would be please to hear that Darren is not in the pay of Facebook. I’m sure many big companies have “minders” on wikipages to sanitize them – I would! Also, I would have clicked on your profile, but I didn't because it is in a red font, which normally on Wikipedia means that it is dead link. Bit harsh to hold that against me!

To address your points in turn: Well it isn't a little protest it is a big protest (at least 0.03% of the earth's population are protesting!). Also, it is not just a protest “somewhere online", it is a protest on Facebook about Facebook which is the subject of this wikipage! You mention the guidelines in regard to verifiable numbers Wikipedia:V which reads:

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Thus it is a twofold test (1) can it be found and checked (2) is the source “reliable”.

(1): If anyone goes to Facebook they can very easily find a group with 2.4 million members protesting about FB new format.

(2): I find it incomprehensible that anyone could doubt the "reliability" of Facebook as a source of information about Facebook!!!!

--> Thus it seems that the test for “verifiability” by wiki’s rules has been met.

I can also see why you are happy to let “the matter rest”, I would be happy to “let it rest” if there was a single line on this page which mentions that 2.4 million members of Facebook currently dislike/hate the new page format. In 6 months, if it as you predict, this fuss has blown over, then remove this single statement. I really think it is you who is being arbitrary here, why do you fear this so much? Is the truth so hard to bear! You really can’t believe that the protest is some sort of fabrication!

Wikidemon - (to address your points mostly in turn) - I think there can be no more solid a citation about Facebook than a number actually published by Facebook. No one other than FB collates the numbers in these groups and publishes them. Again you like the others anti-protest editors seem very keen to liken 2.4 million people to a few (meaning maybe a handful or so) disgruntled people complaining about 'a bag of flower'. Again, it not a few it is many many many many (so on) people, and this protest is not about flower it is the subject of this wikipage.

You said "The approval rate on everything is below 100%. So What" - I say to this to you "Water is wet, so what". You statement whilst being true, is meaningless. In things like elections, it is often more important what a few % of people dislike, than what the greater % of people simply just don't care about.

On Facebook there is not other way to vote or express dissatisfaction than by joining a group. I think you debase the views of people by saying that a “click” has less value than a tick in a box on a ballot paper, in fact, I think it is quite rude, you don’t have a place to disrespect the views of others simply by the medium used to communicate it, disagree with others views by all means, but to say someone else’s view is worthless is going too far. After all, a well organised internet based click campaign can be very effective, it only took 1,811,424 UK citerzens to bring a halt to a Governement road pricing policy see: http:// petitions. number10.gov.uk /traveltax/.

Darren (to address your points mostly in turn) - I didn't cite “0.03% of the earth's population” in reference to wiki being a democracy. I think you deliberately mischaracterized the reason I cited this number. I cited this number to prove that 2.4 million (as it is now) is not a small number of people - 2 million is a big number of people.

I would agree that a reference to “2.4 million members protesting about Facebook” placed on a page related to “human rights in China” would indeed be trivial (and should be deleted). However, we are talking about adding this number to a page about Facebook, where it is not trivial at all, it is quite important and goes to the very fabric of social networking – if people hate the format, who is going to want to use it. You mention consensus, do I need consensus from you to edit this page, seems like I do, funny it ... sounds like you are "out-voting" me ... sounds kind of democratic …

To summarise, this wikipage is about Facebook. Facebook is a social networking website. Social networking relies on users logging in and using the interface to network with each other. If such users hate the interface, they wont use it, if they won’t use it, it is damaging to very purpose of the social networking site. At present these users have invested a lot of time building this network and are not willing to just cease using it, but if they feel so undervalued by the provider (Farcebook) then they will start to leave. At least 2.4 million users have joined these protest groups (by Facebook’s own calculations). These people are certainly active users and not dormant unused accounts. This is a verifiable number (by Wiki rules) as it is published and can be readily checked (i.e. just go to Facebook). It is also published by the most reliable source about Facebook that there could be, it is published by Facebook itself. It seems that the above editors have simply closed their mind to 2.4 million Facebook users views, deciding that these people’s views are trivial, without justifying why they think their views are trivial. There is no rational given for why these editors have taken this view, other than some sort of “gut” instinct that they are correct.

Here's a few sources with quotes that I found using Factiva:

• Wong, Wailin (September 12, 2008). "Revamped Facebook site giving users grief; Effort to de-clutter social network has led to minor online revolt". Edmonton Journal. p. E2. In the last month of testing, thousands of users have joined online groups and signed petitions asking Facebook to either dump the new site or continue giving them a choice between versions. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
• Liedke, Michael (September 13, 2008). "Facebook creator prepared for facelift backlash". Guelph Mercury. p. C3. But Zuckerberg, still only 24, is hoping he has found a way to ease the journey down a different road so he won't have to issue public apologies like he did in each of the previous two years after springing new products on users. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
• Staff writer (September 19, 2008). "REDESIGN BACKLASH Face in our bad books". MX (Australia). p. 5. A Facebook group created to protest changes to the social networking website has attracted one million members and is growing by up to 200,000 each day. ... Stanborough said many users were upset Facebook hadn't sought their approval before redesigning the website. However, the group may be outnumbered by the silent majority of users not bothered by the new look. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

-- Mark 14:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it that an admin was arguing to place original research in an article? What a sorry state of affairs Wikipedia has found itself in... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.236.85 (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to this page, but it used to be so much better. This page tlls me nothing about the history of facebook since it's launch until now, and the controversies glosses over some major controversies that happened in the sites ongoing development. How about the introduction of the newsfeed and the outcry among users about its privacy. How about college campuses looking through pages and giving students violations based on pictures. There is so much more meat and substance than what exists now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.98.125 (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that backs you up and you can add whatever you want. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a sub-article (linked to the main article) devoted entirely to criticism and controversies. I have shipped the bulk of the ConnectU lawsuit to that article, and I think much of the rest of the controversies section should be mentioned briefly in summary style. Another section to summarize is the features section. This article really ought to concentrate more on the company history, direction, events, make-up, context, etc. There are a number of things to clean up. Wikidemon (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think people must somehow be going crazy, because TheFacebook was not founded in 2004, not even close, I was on TheFacebook before it was Facebook in 2001! That is the year I started university at Loyola Marymount, and I remember very clearly being asked if I had an account, and I did not, so I signed up and got one and kept in touch with college friends. It wasn't 2004, at which point I was almost out of college! I don't know what the hell is going on with this re-writing of Internet history, but Facebook was very much alive and well in 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.239.152 (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}Facebook has recently clarified that it isn't a social network but a 'Social Utility' for re-connecting with real world friends and relationships.Kindly mention the reference which is a TechPluto,A Technology Weblog

^[4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by prashantkandwal (talk • contribs)

A quick Google search would indicate that you are a writer for this site or you own the site. Please don't use Wikipedia as an advertisement. And regarding the "social utility" thing, Facebook has tried to advance that marketing speak before and the previous consensus was that it's a PR campaign and not a well known/defined concept.--William Graham ^talk 06:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

 Not done per William Graham's point. Additionally, regardless of what Facebook may have said on a weblog, they are still referred to as a "social network" in most of the reliable sources in the article, making that still the correct term to use in the article. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 14:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Facebook's claim that it is a "social utility" was widely reported, and has some interesting implications. The claim isn't reliable as to whether Facebook is or is not a utility, and Facebook does not seem to be substantially different than other networks in this regard. It's still a social network, but the fact that Zuckerberg sees it as a utility as well and it became part of their policy is notable and sourceable. That would belong somewhere in a section about marketing, strategy, corporate positioning, etc., if we ever create one.Wikidemon (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone mind sorting out how exactly the CIA is linked to Facebook. What is true is that there are people who have sat both on the boards of CIA funded companies and on the board of Facebook. I think the interesting questions are : Who are these people? Are the tightly linked to the CIA? Or are the just rich people who have gotten in involved in many new companies? 141.150.252.200 (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• hehehe well the term 'CIA' doesn't appear at all on the article page, so I hope that answers your questions! hahahahahahaha -- Sdfijiuefh (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the page is locked. I think we have our final answer. -- Sdfijiuefh (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer a thing. Something tells me that the CIA has nothing to do with Facebook, unless you're talking about the spies that are hidden within Facebook management. DeathNomad 04:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In the article, the section titled "The New Facebook" has only one sentence under it. no one likes it is an unfair generalization. If there is going to be a section on the redesigned facebook layout, shouldn't it cover both pro's and con's and legitimate points?Chaoswolf313 (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I know there's already a section about the redesign, but it seems to have become polluted with arguments. I just figured someone could clear up the actual article and remove the generalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoswolf313 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

they have added a pirate language to facebook.

So? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

it is awesome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.10.171 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Social networking website Facebook is to set up its international headquarters in Dublin, it announced today." Story here. GeneralBelly (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When i read this article, I get the vibe that its written by a Facebook user for a Facebook user, or a young teenager exclaiming that facebook is finally open for anybody their age

"It later expanded further to include any university student, then high school students, and, finally, to anyone aged 13 and over. The website currently has more than 100 million active users worldwide.[5]" 71.215.210.217 (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You get a vibe? I think you'll find the statement above is the easiest away of describing how the age range was gradually expanded over time, and not the excited ranting of a 13 year old. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing with this: the whole article needs to be more "encyclopedic" otherwise it will resemble what the Facebook PR department would produce----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Zuckerberg, in 2003, was messing around with the harvard college facebooks...maybe this was what sparked facebook? should we include it?

See: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349855 and: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=350143

User:RideABicycle/Signature 03:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to mention the reaction of the users to the new facebook? I think there are plenty of news articles discussing it. Iamcoolerthanyouyepthatsright (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

nevermind, missed the above section Iamcoolerthanyouyepthatsright (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone who can, please put this in it operates in the Irish language also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.102.54 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that, as someone involved in the translation project is only on stage 2 of 3... when the project is complete Irish will be added to the list.--JJ was here (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see below under article 46 of this page and Facebook languages... (Michealomeachair (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

What's this paragraph advertising AboutFace/Atlantic Media doing in the first part of the history section? It's way too long, advertises their stuff and doesn't really belong into the facebook article anyway... 217.162.84.17 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I removed it. Corwinlw (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

76.102.119.92 (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC) The long piece on the dates when new features were introduced should be copy-edited into some kind of logical order. Some ideas:

 -  chronological order
 -  categories such as 'privacy,' 'multi-media,' 'interactive'...

Or another sequence that has some logical flow to it.

can someone change the 120 million users to 130 million users (source: link for the 120 million...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.223.66 (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It says in the article that the net income of Facebook is -$50 million. I have checked the reference and the article and no where I could find phrases which identify the net income of Facebook. Can anyone confirm on whether the figure is credible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.192.160 (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)