Talk:Facebook/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

"Digital mourning"

When I went over the section on the phenomenon of memorializing people by writing on their Facebook Walls, I changed the section header from "digital mourning" to "Facebook memorials" and excised a sentence reading, "This particular phenomenon is nameless, though it may be referred to as digital mourning." The reason why is that it appears to me that this term is a rarely-used neologism (and that when it is used, it is much more likely to mean "mourning related to the loss of a favorite computer peripheral or piece of software"). On Google, I found two non-Wikipedia/mirror uses of the term to refer to condolences sent online, and in both cases they referred to e-cards, not social networking sites. If the phenomenon is really nameless, why are we insisting on giving it the name "digital mourning"? That seems contradictory to me. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 12:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Chris Hughes, co-founder, "Important Person"

Chris Hughes should be listed as an "Important Person" in the article. As the Facebook "press" page indicates...he co-founded the site with Mark and Dustin.

http://www.facebook.com/press.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.42.90 (talkcontribs) 03:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

he co-founded the site but he isn't an executive of the company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.15.20.247 (talkcontribs) 08:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Can we come to a decision on this? At least if there's some consensus on the change, then it (hopefully) won't keep getting reverted all the time. cBuckley (TalkContribs) 12:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Facebook Inc. employs around 100 people. Facebook has listed five as important people:

   Mark Zuckerberg Founder and CEO
   Owen Van Natta COO
   Dustin Moskovitz Co-founder and CTO
   Matt Cohler VP Strategy & Business Operations
   Chris Hughes Co-founder and Spokesperson

In my opinion, we should list Zuckerberg, Moskovitz, and Hughes. It seems co-founder is still considered important by Facebook and I agree. —L1AM (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering the official Facebook list of co-founders and "important people," Chris Hughes should be included in the list. If others would like to include Owen and Matt and indicate their roles that would be fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.253.217.185 (talkcontribs) 23:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I will add that Matt Cohler should definitively not be considered a key person, as he was a later hired executive who was not a part of the original founding team, and has since shuffled roles many times.

Consensus regarding Chris Hughes

Right, after watching people reverting each other's choices on this, I'd like to see some consensus. I mentioned this above, but never did anything about it. The nomination is that Chris Hughes is included in key people (though I mostly just want a decision). Moskovitz should also possibly be included, but there isn't an article on him as yet, and that's not the point for now. After the decision has been made, a comment should be left on the main page indicating the result to anyone changing it again. cBuckley (TalkContribs) 17:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Voting

  • Support. Again, Facebook employs around 100 and considers Hughes to be in the top 5 as a co-founder. Those who keep removing him have not provided reasons for doing so. Keep Hughes included in the infobox. —L1AM (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I think Facebook is in a position to know who its own key people are. They list Hughes, so Hughes is in. In fact, I would support listing all five, but at least the co-founders should be in there. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 05:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. Chris does not actually work in the Facebook offices, and does nothing more than make rare public appearances. I don't think he deserves that placement.
  • Support. To the above voter: yes... Chris Hughes does work in the Facebook offices. He sits behind me. I'm the one who removed Chris Hughe's "Spokesman" title from http://www.facebook.com/press.php and I'd like to have it consistent over here on this page.

Listing first few schools

When individual schools were listed in this article as being the first few to have facebook, people gradually kept adding to the list until readability was compromised and the paragraph became unwieldy. Let's not start this all over again by saying, "Yale and Stanford were added next, and then..." Furthermore, Facebook expanded so quickly and this happened so long ago that it is not even very important anymore which schools outside of Harvard were the first ones to have the Facebook. If you disagree and think this list should be included somewhere, please explain here. If enough people think that it should be included, then maybe someone could put together a separate graphic with the list to include in the article, rather than just typing the list directly into a paragraph in the middle of the text. NBS525 14:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This list was beginning to grow again, so I removed it again. NBS525 15:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Still lacking sources?

I notice this article is categorized as an "Article lacking sources." Is this true? If so, which sources are needed? If not, let's remove the article from that category. MaxVeers 07:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Regional networks

Facebook recently changed their implementation of geography networks. They are now called "regional networks," and include a much broader selection of places from which to choose. Users can choose from local regions in the US, UK, and Canada, or choose another country (full list here). I'm not sure exactly when this was implemented (probably within the past few days), so if someone can find out the date, feel free to add this info to the article. —chair lunch dinner™ talk 19:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

High school facebook?

Quotes from the article follow:

"Although high school students could only join via an invitation for the first weeks, by September 17, an invitation was no longer necessary for most schools."
"Some expressed concerns about the ability of unknown persons to create accounts on the high school version (since University addresses are not required) and use them to access the college version..."

I have a high school facebook, and as far as I am aware, to register for the high school version, the student must either have an email address from their school or be invited by someone from their school (if the school does not give out email addresses). I'm pretty sure that this is still the case, but please let me know if it has changed. cøøkiə Ξ (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, its not the case anymore. You can join the high school facebook without having an e-mail address with the web domain of the school or by being invited by someone...all you gotta do is just sign up.JB196 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure... when I try to register a new account under a non-school email address, I get a message saying "You need an invite from someone at your school to register at <high school name>." Perhaps it's different for different high schools? --OSUKid7 12:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
That is correct. If your high school gives out e-mail addresses then you have to have a valid e-mail address, but if it doesn't (and most high schools don't) then you're not required to provide an e-mail address. Not sure about the invite system, though...JB196 12:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's as simple as that. My high school definitely does not give out email addresses to students, and yet it gives me the above message. --OSUKid7 04:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
You still need either an email address or an invite. There's no other way. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.134.68 (talkcontribs) 16:42, 15 August 2006
I think it's based on how many people from a particular high school have already signed up. If no one from the school has signed up yet, where are you going to get an invitation? I think it will just let the first 5 or 10 people sign up (I made these numbers up, don't put them in the article as fact) and then after that, anyone else has to get an invitation from those first few people (it displays a list. This is only my own personal conclusion, drawn from trying to sign up at different schools and seeing what happens. I would recommend a more fact based investigation before any of this makes it into the article. J. S. Longwell 03:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

List of social networking websites on AfD

List of social networking websites is currently an AfD candidate. You are invited to partake in this discussion. Czj 18:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

News Feed Backlash Discussion

Here is an excellent link to a more easy to read graph of the growth of the anti-feed group. It is from a reputable news site. I think it should definitely be incorporated. http://www.nbc11.com/image/9806054/detail.html

Please add an outside link to this page referencing the large number of users who joined this group in a very short amount of time.Rluecke 03:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The main group's just shy of half a million; it'll probably be there within the hour. The other groups probably have another hundred thousand, although many are redundant (I'm in around 10, in addition to the main one myself).

It also might bear mentioning that the number of people who signed up is rapidly approaching some numbers that might be nice for perspective, such as the population of Washington, DC, and has already passed a few (such as the size of the US Army). Young Skywalker 04:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Young Skywalker

Edit: Army's barely over half a million; use it when it reaches 501,000.Young Skywalker 04:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Young Skywalker

Pardon me - I just want to interject that this is veering dangerously close to original research. I'm sure there are (or will be shortly) several reputable sources from which ya'll can quote or pull information if you really feel it necessary to add it to this encyclopedia article. --ElKevbo 04:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Because this is continuously happening on Facebook as we speak, it would make no sense to sit around and wait for it to be published somewhere else before reporting it here. Whenever a reputable source does report any specific information, a citation can be added. There are quite a few already anyway --Samvscat 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
On that note, I've added citations for everything I can find. Looks like someone removed my Forbes citation on the initial description of the features, though; what's up with that? --Samvscat 00:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Over 500,000 as of 12:59 AM; I'll toss that over to Wikinews when I get a chance. Young Skywalker 05:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Young Skywalker

Edit to the above: Not sure how to work Wikinews; also, I think that the running count on the Facebook site can count as sufficient information; I don't think that anyone will doubt its veracity. Also, as a legitimate question, would it be proper at some point to link the "main group" in at the bottom as a primary source (much like campaign sites are linked to in the relevant articles)?Young Skywalker 05:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Young Skywalker

And an additional update, for the "talk" page...someone's posting Zuckerberg's number in the group. Not sure if it falls under the "original research" umbrella, but if he starts getting legitimately harassed (which I suspect is likely soon), I think that -will- be news. 69.72.100.19 06:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Young Skywalker

Note: main protest group hit 650,000 approx 21:43 p.m. UTC Jrgilmore 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Some sites have popped up with bookmarklets to auto-delete Feed items from one's profile. http://evernex.com/facebook is one such site. --Neurophyre(talk) 02:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's really no need to keep updating the numbers on the group and petition every 5,000 members. Intervals of 100,000 is good enough for the group, and 25,000 will work fine for the petition. Also, no need to link to other smaller groups -- there are hundreds of them and they're all virtually the same; none of them significant. --Samvscat 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on the main page seems to be written strictly from the point of view of those against the News Feed. I say this because the content sounds parallel to the content of the "Students against Facebook News Feed" group page itself, and it also fails to mention any other view points such as users who support the new feature (that support does exist). The use of the word "members" in the main article seems particularly skewed; without specifying that the word refers to members of the "Students against" group or other related groups, statements such as "Members will likely remain unsatisfied" and "such improvements could begin to satisfy members" suggests that *all* Facebook members are upset with the News Feed, which is simply not true. 72.154.233.254 00:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point - I edited in the following statements (new stuff in bold)
- A handful of groups were created in favor of the new features. Although these members and others support the new features, there has been no large-scale support for the new features in the form of a Facebook group.
- Members who oppose the new features will likely remain unsatisfied until Facebook takes action.
- If these improvements are implemented as described, they could begin to satisfy Facebook members who currently oppose the new features.
- Ultimately, the specific options offered in these "safeguards" will determine whether members who currently oppose the new features will accept them as a solution to this controversy or continue to demand the removal of the new features. --Samvscat 00:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The facebook group has hit 700,000 members, if someone could add that in.

Apparently Facebook backtracked only moments ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701784.html TNLTRPB 07:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The facebook group has now hit 746,000 members, but I doubt it will grow as rapidly due to the new privacy options. Nauticashades 10:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Students against Facebook News Feed" user body is starting to decline; it's already below 745,000. In the time it took me to get to Wikipedia's talk page (read:under 3 minutes), that number dropped by a hundred. Maybe change the listing under "Addition of Features" to read something like "Immediate response to the new features spawned massive growth in groups that voiced their protest; some of these groups peaked at membership of over 745,000." (The membership was 745296, then 745205, now it's 745159... steadily decreasing)10:36, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Thinning out links

To make room for new links, older non-notable ones should be removed. Here's a list of the current press regarding Facebook. Since most can be found by searching Google News for 'facebook', I'm going to remove some of these. If you see one here that you feel is notable and should be included, please add it back.--L1AM (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Adverts in the anti-news feed section

I've removed the petition section and seriously pruned the section of "Students against Facebook news feed". This is because it was an advertisment for the group, and is not justified for this article. Additionally, the petition and group are run by the same people. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. St.isaac 04:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the petition was separate and created by an entirely different group; however, the former began linking to the latter on the second day of protest. --Samvscat 07:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The petition's different than the group.--Mystalic 11:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

News feed section bias

The news feed section is seriously biases against the feed and badly written. It needs help. St.isaac 04:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Open to all users

Facebook to Open to All Internet Users - http://www.forbes.com/home/digitalentertainment/2006/09/11/facebook-opens-up-cx_rr_0911facebook.html --Liface 03:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The death of Facebook is on the horizon, it seems. JPG-GR 23:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Facebook is oficially open to all users http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2210227130 132.177.39.181 12:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've updated some of the most obvious sections but I'm sure a change this large necessitates changes throughout the article particularly as this changes the nature and character of Facebook and its users. --ElKevbo 13:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Buyout/merger

Mark Zuckerberg has denied these rumors: http://sau.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2208601394&topic=1841&start=500#post5339 I have added this to the article. If anyone wants to clean up my style feel free too - I just put it in parentheses but I'm starting to think his denial should have more emphasis...

Anyway, $2 billion divided by 15 million users is $133 per user (!!!). Is Facebook really worth *that* much?

Dbloom 00:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The commercial value of the information stored on the average personal laptop has been estimated at over $1,000,000. Is a concise list of one's contact information, interests, friends, and other details, plus the platform by which one could advertise directly to that individual worth $133? I could definitely see the argument for it. NBS525 18:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, a buyout wouldn't only occur to get at the existing userbase, but also for the potential of attracting many, many new users. InsaneNewman 18:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote this passage a bit; putting primary emphasis on the idea that Zuckerberg is looking for $2 billion (a completely unsourced rumor) and then mentioning in passing that he happens to have denied it violates WP:VERIFY and WP:LIVING (see sections 4 and 5). 128.112.203.222 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

I think it should be mentioned in the article that there has been instances of censorship by Facebook of various groups, etc. For instance: [1], this is (or rather, was) a group which managed to amass 430,000 members in early September, 2006 when facebook deleted the group, as well as Brody Ruckus' account. Dept of Alchemy 06:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That was due to a break of the Terms of Service. Brody was not a real person. He was a character created by Ruckus Network to gain a massive email list. Facebook, actually, is surprisingly lenient when it comes to censorship. There are many pictures of illegal activities that are not removed by Facebook itself.Minidoxigirli 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we please get a source so we can add this to the "Privacy concerns" section? It seems that 430k people (second largest group) and the data mining / spam harvesting is a legitamate concern. —L1AM (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to find an official source on that. I saw it on Facebook a while ago, in the "Largest Facebook Group Ever", if anyone feels like searching. I found a blog entry that discusses it here. I can't find a non-blog source currently, and I have a dinner to attend. I'll resume the search later.Minidoxigirli 23:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Facebook open to everyone now?

I believe this should be added--71.67.96.128 01:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is. There is a part called "Opening of Facebook". Gdo01 01:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Under that section, there is a "citation needed" for college groups protesting. I can't add it because I'm a new Wikipedia user, but here's the link if someone wants to add it: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2209278250 InsaneNewman 05:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be added to the "Origins and expansions" section. I added it yesterdays, but it was removed by ElKevbo, stating it was mentioned a paragraph up. I believe this event should be listed by itself under September 26, since it represents a major event in Facebook history. I know it says earlier that Facebook would be open to everyone soon, but the 26th is when it really happened. -newkai t-c 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and move it if you'd like.
That whole section needs to be rewritten but I'm not likely to get to it anytime soon. The multiple listings of "On [date], Facebook [did something]" format is pretty poor; the material really needs to be reorganized into prose or a list or something other than the half-prose/half-list frankenbeast that it is currently. --ElKevbo 16:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A possibility is to add this http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2209020672 group to the listing of Anti-Open Facebook in the citations. However, it might also be desirable to remove all these group URLs and simply replace them with a link to an article pertaining to the creation of these groups. I on the other hand have not yet searched for any such articles, so I do not know if they exist, although it wouldn't suprise me. --Phat104u 01:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Delisted from Good Articles

On September 10, 2006, User:Ugen64 removed this article from the list of Good Articles in this edit with the edit summary "(this does not fit the GA criteria)". Ugen64 failed to tag this talk page with {{DelistedGA}}. I have now added the Delisted template. If you agree with Ugen64's comment, please attempt to edit the article to satisfy the criteria and renominate it. If you disagree with Ugen64's delisting, you can seek a review. — L1AM (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing Facebook?

I was wandering around Wikipedia and came to the article on UCF, in which the section on the university's proposed stadium was referenced partly by a Facebook link. I don't have Facebook, and I'm sure that tons of other Wikipedia users don't, either. Is it proper to have Facebook link references in an article? Nyttend 21:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what I think in gereal regards using Facebook groups as sources for facts. For instance, I don't think giving a link to "The Largest Facebook Group Ever" necessarily proves that it is in fact the largest group. On the other hand, in the context of the point raised, I do think that it shows that a number of students do indeed disagree with the naming. Where Facebook is linked, I think we should observe the same protocol as when an external link requires registration for viewing, with the obvious exception of publicly available pages on the site. I also believe users should refrain from linking to pages that are inaccessible even to registered users (for instance, groups that can only be accessed from certain networks). — cBuckley (TalkContribs) 02:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Combining Site Features and History Section

These two sections are related and many of the entries could easily fall into both. What should we do?

Use by colleges to review applicants

I didn't see this in the article, but I have heard that colleges look at applicants' Facebook profiles during the application process. Has anyone else heard of this? Bok269 22:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)