Talk:Facebook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Facebook was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Minor edit[edit]

I think "reaching a peak market capitalization of $104 billion"

Should be "reaching an original peak market capitalization of $104 billion"

Currently it now has a market cap of $175.3b so $104b was not the peak market cap.

Dividing this article[edit]

I would think, it is more logical to divide this article in two : (1) about the company "Facebook Inc" (2) about the product "facebook.com"

46.114.43.142 (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. It's a very long article, and there are already a number of spin-off articles on various Facebook topics. --Michael K SmithTalk 14:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2014[edit]

46.19.230.3 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No request has been made; be sure to specify what exactly you'd like changed, otherwise, nothing can be done. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2014[edit]

62.240.37.74 (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Please specify what changes you want made. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014[edit]

5.200.2.242 (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Official Tor service URL[edit]

Regarding the discussion on Village pump, I ask you to support addition of the official URL of Facebook's hidden service – www .facebookcorewwwi.onion. See Facebook#Tor hidden service. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 15:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:IGNORE. This official URL is very important in the entire history of Facebook. We need it. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 19:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
No, we don't. Please provide sources that say, the URL "...is very important in the entire history of Facebook." --NeilN talk to me 20:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Here are some good ones:
--Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 23:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN:? --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 19:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rezonansowy: All these talk about a new option. None of them say, this "is very important in the entire history of Facebook." --NeilN talk to me 19:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
All this is about adding this .onion URL to the article. The problem is that Wikipedia is blocking all .onion links and regarding the talk on Village pump, every case should be considered separately on the topic's talk. I don't see any reason to blacklist this URL, many readers would found it useful. It doesn't contain anything prohibited on Wikipedia, it's just a normal, official website of Facebook, Inc.
Do you support adding including this URL to the corresponding article section – Facebook#Tor hidden service? This section is about this .onion URL and without it, is just not complete. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 19:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
No, external links don't belong in article bodies (readers can get it from the cites, anyways) and one link to the official website at the bottom is enough. --NeilN talk to me 19:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No Wikipedia is not a directory of links. We link to the one official website. It's then up to the official website to put whatever they think is important for their viewers on their homepage, and keep it up to date. That is not our role. Johnuniq (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Johnuniq: Have you read the lat sentence of my comment? I don't want to insert this link, because "I want", but Facebook#Tor hidden service section is about this .onion URL and without it, is just not complete. Just read it please. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 07:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't see the problem. The article says "In October 2014, Facebook announced[211]" and the [211] link shows the Facebook page with all the required information. Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
        • The problem is that there's no link to this hidden service. And besides we usually link to one website, but as WP:ELMINOFFICIAL says If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. This case is is enough appropriate to me. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 09:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
          • It's the same website. --NeilN talk to me 13:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Yes' you're absolutely right, but this URL – www. facebookcorewwwi.onion represents another significant way to access it. Same, like Mobile link next to the Official website link. If Facebook decided to launch such unique thing like its own service via Tor network, it should be included inline the section (like in DuckDuckGo or WikiLeaks) or include it in the External links section. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 16:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I added this link inside the section, to describe its origin. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 21:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • IMO, putting the .onion link directly in the article text is gaudy and unencyclopedic. I added the citation (referred to as "the [211] link" in Johnuniq's comment above) to the blog post in which the link was announced to make the URL as easy as possible to find for those who want it; I think that should suffice. I also feel that the addition of a pull quote just for this one minor point in the article is excessive, and I suggest it be removed. For a related editing guideline, please see WP:BALASPS. (Having said that, I'd be willing to consider including the explicit .onion link in a footnote.) — Jaydiem (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Jaydiem, Tony Tan 98: I put this link because of a new reason. I's needed for analysis of the origin of this backronym. Now there're two reasons for placing it in such form. I think it shouldn't be only mentioned in the footnote, while it's a main subject of the entire section. An towards the pull quote, I changed it because previous the form inside the text was a little hard to read. This quotation has been there already and now it's in a separate box, it's rather a common use. And there's nothing wrong with placing anything anywhere, if it only has sense, like on Wikipedia article itself. Face-smile.svg --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 11:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes It is unencyclopedic to put the link in the text, but I think the ONION link is significant enough to be included in the website section of the infobox. We should have this specific URL whitelisted, as well as that of other legal services, such as DuckDuckGo. Tony Tan98 · talk 01:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Support whitelisting the URLs. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 11:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment Here's a list of some allowed services to whitelist:
  • Facebook – facebookcorewwwi.onion
  • WikiLeaks – suw74isz7wqzpmgu.onion
  • GlobaLeaks – See GlobaLeaks#Implementations
  • DuckDuckGo – 3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion
  • SecureDrop – l7rt5kabupal7eo7.onion
@Tony Tan 98: There are a lot of .onion URLs which are normal websites, like these above. I think the better way is to create a blacklist for some websites which are censored on Wikipedia (like Silk Road) instead of creating a growing and growing whitelist. Basically, it has more sense to me – .onion is the same domain as .com or .net. What do you think? --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 11:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2014[edit]

82.114.178.12 (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Chronological event out of place[edit]

Near the end of the History...college only service section, there is a bit from 2009 right between May 2005 and September 2005. It's totally out of place there.


In May 2005, Accel partners invested $12.7 million in Facebook, and Jim Breyer[26] added $1 million of his own money. A January 2009 Compete.com study ranked Facebook the most used social networking service by worldwide monthly active users.[27] Entertainment Weekly included the site on its end-of-the-decade "best-of" list, saying, "How on earth did we stalk our exes, remember our co-workers' birthdays, bug our friends, and play a rousing game of Scrabulous before Facebook?"[28] A high-school version of the site was launched in September 2005, which Zuckerberg called the next logical step.[29] (At the time, high-school networks required an invitation to join.)[30] Facebook also expanded membership eligibility to employees of several companies, including Apple Inc. and Microsoft.[31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.119.54 (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2014[edit]

130.193.146.26 (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done No request made. --NeilN talk to me 16:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

New monthly user statistic to add.[edit]

As of Sept 30, 2014 1.35 Billion monthly active users used Facebook. https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/ with a monthly growth rate of 1.44% over 273 days. I was wondering if someone could add this because I cant seem to find it when editing this article. Lightspeed2012 19:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2014[edit]

124.6.181.60 (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 05:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2015[edit]

Please change Walsh, Mark (June 15, 2010). "Study: Video Ads On Facebook More Engaging Than Outside Sites" то Walsh, Mark (June 15, 2010). "Study: Video Ads On Facebook More Engaging Than Outside Sites". MediaPost (New York) because link is dead. Merphy88 (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Merphy88: Yes check.svg Fixed with a valid link here. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 16:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Old data and charts[edit]

The data and charts on membership and activity are several years old--not that informative anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:22FF:1EF0:0:0:0:3D (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Technical aspects" section should be updated[edit]

The technical aspects section contains old information. For example, HipHop for PHP was retired in 2013 in favor of HipHop Virtual Machine. Other technical information may be out of date as well, so everything should be checked and updated if necessary. --Veikk0.ma 08:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Veikk0.ma:Hi. Is "2013" that old? I don't think technical data from year 2013 could be considered as outdated. If nothing has happened so far there is none to update right? Did something happen after HipHop for PHP was retired in 2013?--Chamith (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)