Talk:Facebook/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Facebook lawsuit

quite funny to see people believe that facebook will close. Bit more information would be needed on this section on the updates of the lawsuit. Under this article [1] that ConnectU propose that Facebook merge with them but not sure if this is relevant.-- 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Court Documents

Here is a source citing court documents through the proceedings provided by this blog. KyuuA4 20:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


From a glance at the relative size of the various topics, the page's description of Facebook dwarfs in comparison to the criticism of facebook. While I think the criticisms themselves are valid, I feel like they should be moved to a second page on facebook criticisms simply due tot he size. Any thoughts? 03:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Regards to criticism, if the content of such a section becomes too large, then yes, that material can be moved into a separate article. For an example, see Microsoft. KyuuA4 15:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User Count

As of July 2007, the website had the largest number of registered users among college-focused sites with over 30 million members worldwide (also from non-collegiate networks).[2] This makes Facebook the second most visited website on the World Wide Web.

IT'S NOT TRUE. It's can be more visited websited specific on college-focused webpages or such but not just say "the second more visited website".

Anyways many statisticals are representatives to US states (plus UK) and not for the rest of the world. If you say that google, yahoo and such are widely popular then you can be right mainly because they are localized to many countries but if you say that Facebook... oh my!, is popular but in China, Japan and the rest of the world..

--Magallanes 20:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Why Americans always seem to be totally oblivious of the world around them, I haven't a clue, but from my experience, that attitude doesn't go down well on an international community like Wikipedia. I removed "Scotland" from immediately after "Uni of St Andrews", because there is no reason to annouce the location of it simply because it isn't in the US! If that weren't the case, we should be announcing the location of all universities, regardless of country.u want to know where it is, click on the link.martianlostinspace 21:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The United States is a large enough country such that it is not impossible that an institution of similar name might also exist there. Considering also that Facebook originated in the United States and is still composed mainly of Americans makes it quite likely that removing the clarification is the greater of two ignorances. Regardless of whether or not it is a faux pas in the internationalist wikipedia community, the location tag "Scotland" is still relevant. 06:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I would dispute the fact that Facebook is composed mainly of Americans - here in the UK Facebook is huge. Still, I see no problem with a university having 'Scotland' placed after it's name, to aid locating it. TheIslander 21:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The single most represented country on Facebook is the US.[2] It's not clear whether the majority or merely plurality of users are American, though I suspect the former. In any case, given that there are other institutions called "St. Andrews" (e.g., [3]), I agree with you that it might be wise to keep the clarifier. S. Ugarte 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Pulse?

Does anyone know what happened to "Pulse"? Both the public and logged in versions are redirecting me to home.php although the "Election Pulse" remains. Does Facebook plan to sell this data to marketing research companies or is this a temporary 404? --LEKI (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know the answer to that question. Pulse has always been hard to find...never a good link placed anywhere, I had to bookmark it...but now, who knows? Does anyone know anyone within the FB organization who could discover the answer to this question? David 05:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't the page have London as being the biggest network. You shouldn't really look at the total number of people from a country, but more the percentage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Facebook is now "open", but to what extent was it "closed" before?

The article mentions that Facebook is now open to all Internet users, and describes the validation techniques now in place. However, it doesn't exactly state what restrictions were in place before it became an "open" site, so I have no idea of the significance of this move.

I assume that the site was restricted to members of particular institutions (hence the references to certain colleges "having" or "not having" Facebook), but how was this membership validated? Was it purely by e-mail address, or were there other methods in place? Presumably undergrads could retain their Facebook membership after graduation, but was it possible for alumni of that institution to gain Facebook membership? 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

To sign in with a network, one needed to confirm through a ".edu" email address at the participating school. For example, anyone with a email could join the Sample University network. This was the extent of the confirmation process, but combined with the limited networks, it seemed to repress MySpace-style spamming. Hope this helps. - Plasticbadge 05:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It was also possible for alumni to join the individual school networks if they had something like an email address, or the equivalent. NBS525 13:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for the clarification. Can I therefore assume that it was (is?) not possible for an alumnus to join the Sample University network if Sample University did not provide alumni with e-mail addresses? 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge that was (and is) correct. NBS525 15:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Facebook's use in investigations

Facebook's use in investigations shouldn't be forked from this article. I recommend merging it back into this one. --- RockMFR 20:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle but in practice the articles are too long to be merged. --ElKevbo 20:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, most of the content at the forked article is already here. At most, there are just a few lines that need to be merged. --- RockMFR 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I withdraw my objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElKevbo (talkcontribs) 20:31, Feb 13, 2007 (UTC)
I would hope that more useful content would be added to this article, particularly the scholarly research into Facebook use, that would later necessitate splitting this article into sub-articles. But let's deal with that if and when it happens. --ElKevbo 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I believe that the article should remain seperate, however re-labeled/re-written to be generic regarding social networking sites with respect to the law. It makes good points on it's own, though I see no reason why it should be facebook specific. I am sure there are other situations similar to this regarding other social networking sites. Spudtheimpaler 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy with this alternative, too. In fact, it's probably better than just merging as there is information from the use of other social networking sites in investigations and a generic article about those uses would be very interesting and useful. Good idea! --ElKevbo 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it should be renamed Timclare (talk) (sign here) 23:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I support Spudtheimpaler's proposal to include MySpace, etc. (See this Google search result for some ideas) --LEKI (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Spudtheimpaler, ElKevbo, Timclare, and myself I have moved the subarticle to Use of social network websites in investigations. Feel free to expand it there with incidents regarding MySpace and the rest as well. --LEKI (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Where do Facebook get their money from? It's a free service and I don't see any advertisements... --Josteinaj 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I, but that's because of Adblock :-P They have a DoubleClick banner on most pages as well as occasional sponsored links in the news feed. [4] They also have a number of sponsored groups. [5]cBuckley (TalkContribs) 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I see they've put up advertisements now. --Josteinaj 17:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a few advertisements in the applications now as well, Gifts cost money even though most users use a free gift app, sponsored polls, marketplace adds, etc., and from what I've heard they are selling data to researchers Bbqturtle 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


I think someone should add in something about I'm not sure what date facebook started it, but it is sure to become a controversial issue pretty soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

PeopleRadar is one of many services developed using the Facebook API, and is not associated with Facebook. — cBuckley (TalkContribs) 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


I think some mention needs to be made of the latest Facebook feature. It was introduced as a temporary thing and for charity, but the charity aspect of it seems now to have disappeared without any notice. *smb 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

When gifts were introduced in early February, it was stated that the proceeds from gifts purchased during the month of February would go towards a charity. Facebook never claimed that gifts would be termporary or that the proceeds would go to charity indefinitely. NBS525 10:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone just made an addition to the gift section, stating that today (April 6th), Facebook added a new gift, the nail. They say that this is interesting because today is Good Friday, the day that Jesus was nailed to the cross according to the Christian faith. While I do agree that this is interesting, should we really be adding things like this to this section? I'm just afraid that, if we do, it could soon become a huge list of every gift facebook has released. Should this information be removed, or does it need it's own subsection, perhaps even it's own article (if the list does actually grow)? --Mears man 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because individual gifts are non-notable . . unless for some reason there are actually multiple reliable sources talking about them non-trivially. –Pomte 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much the whole Features section is non-notable. Facebook features should be treated no differently from the features of automobiles. --Tysto 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Key People sidebar edit

The addition of Andrew McCollum as Co-founder to the Key People sidebar was deleted a couple of weeks ago. Is there a rationale for that edit someone could offer? When Mark wrote Facebook during his sophomore year at Harvard, Andrew was a key contributor, especially to the graphics. He solved various problems that arose and generally supported Mark throughout the development of the site. It was Andrew's summer internship at EA that prompted Mark to go out to Palo Alto with him in June of 2004, and Chris and Dustin to go along to help out. Within a few weeks, Mark persuaded Andrew to leave the EA internship to work full-time on developing Wirehog, an idea he and Mark had come up with that spring. The potential for legal problems with Wirehog being a file-sharing site led them to create it as an entity independent from Facebook, but Andrew was always present at the house and, later, in the Thefacebook office, helping with any programming problems that came up that no one else could solve. That's why his name stayed on Thefacebook site's own list of "About" people ("General Rockstar") for so long, despite not being a regular employee of the company, per se, and why he is recognized as one of the original founders of the business. I'm not sure, then, why he shouldn't be recognized as one of the Co-founders in the sidebar. The same could be said of Sean Parker, whom they joined up with in Palo Alto in June 2004 and who contributed invaluable business expertise to the project at just the right time and place. --Salspsyche 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we've been going on only using current employees. You can take a look at the old discussions about the inclusion of Saverin and Hughes, respectively. But your comment brings up an interesting policy. From the company infobox syntax:
    Key People (Variable: key_people)
     - Which three people closely associated with the business organization are most popular and efficacious?
       *Use: no more than three names unless reasonably appropriate.
       *Use: popular names instead of formal names, if available.
       *Note: The executive branch of a business organization is not necessarily the key people.
So we might want to narrow it down to three. The current about page lists Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz, Owen Van Natta, Adam D'Angelo, Mike Sheridan, and Matt Cohler which along with Chris Hughes, Andrew McCollum, and Sean Parker would be far to many. I would say keep Zuck, Moskovitz, and Hughes because they were all co-founder and each have articles already. The policy says c-level is not necessarily key people so I think the rest can be left off. --LEKI (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You've made a good point. Of the current team, Zuckerberg, Hughes and Moskovitz are the only ones who were members of the original group of Harvard sophomores who actually founded the site (the fourth sophomore being McCollum, and Saverin's financing was there in the beginning as well.) Everyone else came later, after the move to Palo Alto. So if you're going to include only three "Key People", those three would be the most appropriate on that basis.--Salspsyche 00:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


"Another problem is that Facebook users may be under the impression that deleting something from one's Mini-Feed deletes it from the News Feed as well. It does not."

So why does the dialog that comes up when you click the 'x' to delete a story in your feed say "Hiding will remove the story from your Mini-Feed and prevent anyone from seeing it."? 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It does exactly what it says on the tin. It removes it from your mini-feed, and prevents anyone seeing it there. The wording is poor, however, since it remains on other users' news feeds. If you click to remove it from your profile, then when another user visits your profile, that feed item will not appear. However, the information from that item will still appear on your friends' main news feeds. In effect, you only change what is seen by visiting your own profile. — cBuckley (TalkContribs) 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How come the Mini-Feed and News Feed aren't detailed in the Features section of this page? Seems like they're important features. sociate 04:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

ambiguous statistic

"On 2 March 2007, a survey was conducted by that discovered Facebook was the most viewed site by females in the United States (69%) ages 17 - 25 in 2007 and also the most viewed website by males (56%).[78]"

By "males" does it mean all males or only those in the mentioned age group? It's not clear, and the source requires subscription. MickO'Bants 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

TOC font size?

Uh, anyone know what the TOC was set to be 80% of the regular font size? EVula // talk // // 03:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed links

Wikipedia is not a link repository. The article (before this posting) had 31 links under the "External links" heading. That's WAY too much; most of those are just random news stories that really need to be reincorporated into the article as sources; if not, they need to stay gone.

Anyway, here are the links from the article; this is just a straight copy/paste from the article, as I've removed them entirely from the article. EVula // talk // // 03:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. Feeling bold tonight, are we? :) --ElKevbo 03:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Haha, quite true; of the four edits I just made to the article, only one of them didn't involve removing content...
Also, given the sheer number of links, I'm enclosing them in a scrollable box; that should make just looking at them a bit easier...EVula // talk // // 04:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I put a link to the summary of the Facebook TOS (check it) in the "Privacy concerns" section of the article. The original link was to WPs general TOS article; this link readers may find more relevant. Anyhow, this is more of a suggestion, but I feel it fits within the context of the article. --Geneffects 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Print media

College newspapers


New layout

If you go to this poll, you can see that most Facebook-users clearly dislike the new layout. Is it unreasonable to mention a change Facebook made that nearly 60% of the users disliked? - Hmwith 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that a poll of 101 users is representative of the entire Facebook user base? --ElKevbo 01:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's called a statistical population, which, in this case, is based on a pretty random sample of Facebook users. It would be impossible to poll every user out there, so you use a sample. - Hmwith 02:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And where can we find out more about the methodology being employed in this poll? What is the sampling strategy, who is conducting the poll, etc.? --ElKevbo 02:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As a Facebook user, I've seen that poll, and voted in it. It's definitely not a reliable source. --ALL IN 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Paper facebooks

"The name of the site refers to the paper facebooks that colleges and prepatory schools give to incoming students, faculty, and staff depicting members of the campus community."

There is no source for this. I fact tagged it and that was removed with the explanation that "it's obvious." If it's that obvious it shouldn't require saying. However, without a source, this constitutes original research and should be removed. "Look at the disambiguation page" is not a source. A perfect example of how Wikipedia can sometimes create and perpetuate truisms. Savidan 16:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine then. [6][7]. [8][9][10][11] Gdo01 21:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for tracking those down. It be better if there was a way to cite this to Zuckerberg or facebook itself, but one of those would be fine. Savidan 23:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Shootings

The section on the Virginia shootings is not cited. I think it should be removed unless anyone can find a reference to back it up. 23:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to saunter over to the Virginia Tech massacre article and grab the correct citation(s) from there. If there are no such citations in that article, then you're probably right in that the section could be deleted. But there are definitely citations to be had and I'd hate to see this deleted because it's easier to delete it than spend a few minutes adding a reference or two. --ElKevbo 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Why can't it just be added in the memorial section? - hmwith talk 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Most Popular Group on Facebook and other statistics

I'd love to know what the most popular group (i.e. group with the most members) is on Facebook, but I can't seem to get hold of this information. If someone could help that would be most appreciatted. 22:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably "The Largest Facebook Group Ever" [12], but I have no reliable source saying that the group is actually the most popular. --ALL IN (u t c m l ) 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
No, "The Largest Facebook Group Ever" is not the largest... I don't know what is though... Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

External Link

Hi guys,

I found a great profile on Mark Zuckerberg that I think should be added on to the external links section, but someone took it down. It clearly added value and was relevant to the topic. When people come on here to read about facebook, it is logical to expect there to be information present about the founder and CEO. Thoughts? (Babar54BabarBabar54)

It would be a good addition to the page on Mark Zuckerberg. Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

April Fools Section

In 2007, Facebook played a number of pranks on its users during the course of April Fools' Day. Making light of the site's 'poke' function, Facebook offered to dispatch a live person to poke any friend that the reader chooses. Jokes were also made about the basketball tournament competition, Harry Potter, Grey's Anatomy and The Oregon Trail. Also in the footer about the copyright information, the name "Mark Zuckerberg" was replaced by random other names, including those of Facebook software engineers and the user's own name.[1]

I deleted the April Fools section since it has nothing to do with responses to Facebook (the heading it was under) and is nothing but a list of insignificant self-deprecation already listed in other April Fools articles. In the long run, the above is hardly notable. Gdo01 21:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's notable information about the site, and it shows how the site remains friendly and lighthearted. They had never done it before, and it was surprising and humorous to many people. It's definitely notable. - hmwithtalk 21:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
So what lots of sites do this and we already have the info at April 1, 2007. This info has no encyclopedic value to someone who wants general knowledge about Facebook. Gdo01 22:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it goes a ways towards describing the rather light atmosphere on Facebook. Perhaps it should be placed elsewhere in the article? EVula // talk // // 22:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
How does a one time thing show the light atmosphere that only existed for one day. I'd rather a discussion on the dynamics of the "member in this group are also in" than something insignificant as this. Anyway the cite only talks about this in the sense of the April Fools thing, there's nothing about the "light atmosphere."Gdo01 22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thus far, that's 2 votes for keeping the section, and one against it. However, I feel that the section should remain until a more thorough consensus is reached, but I do not wish to partake in an edit war. Plus, if it's reverted again, it will be a violation of WP:3RR, anyways.
Others Wikipedians, please voice your opinions on this subject. Should the April Fools prank section stay or should it go? - hmwithtalk 04:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Much to minor to have its own section, but I wouldn't object to its content being placed in another part of the article.--Jersey Devil 05:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Remove - this is information about April Fool's Day pranks, not Facebook. If it happens year after year then possibly a sub-article Facebook's hoaxes as per Google's hoaxes. Martin Hinks 14:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
If Google has it's own sub-article on the subject, Facebook can't have its own section for it? - hmwithtalk 17:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent)WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good reason. Anyway, three things have to be addressed:

  1. Why is it in the responses section? All the others are responses by 3rd parties or by the users themeselves while this section is fully about what Facebook itself did not what other people have responded with.
  2. What is the reason that it is notable and why doesn't the citation support that reason? The citation just states the pranks, it doesn't say anything about "friendl[iness] and lighthearted[ness]" or the "light atmosphere." Find a cite that does or put this in its own separate article (a move that will likely get it deleted anyway given that they "had never done it before").
  3. The citation blatantly violates WP:SOURCE; its nothing but a chat transcript. Gdo01 17:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's in the wrong section of the article. I didn't add it. I'm just saying that it should be kept... somewhere. Also, note that I didn't bring up the Google comparison. If the chat isn't a reliable source, it should be removed, and a ((fact)) tag should be placed. It doesn't necessarily mean that the section must be fully deleted. Plus, it doesn't say bluntly how "lighthearted" and "friendly" the site is, but, rather, the entire section as a whole demonstrates the fact. - hmwithtalk 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section needs to be removed. While it is marginally interesting and I agree with the assertion that it says something about the playfulness of those who own and operate the website, that strikes me as original research and thus inadmissible. Further, the source offered for the section is absolutely unacceptable. Finally, Martin Hinks assertion that the info should only be included if it occurs more than once has some merit. --ElKevbo 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To respond the hmwith, it is kept somewhere: April 1, 2007. As ElKevobo said, saying that it shows friendliness and lightheartedness is OR. Gdo01 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It needs to go. Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional Features Section

Added new marketplace entry and placed it with gifts under a new section entitled additional features to break it from the Responses sectionBoston2austin 13:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Hey folks. I made the time line into prose, but wasn't logged in when I did it. Anybody know a way I can revert it and put it under my name? I'd like to have it in my edit history, because I worked pretty hard on it. I'll try to write a lead-in later. Benuneko 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

try to sign in for future contributions. Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Privacy Concerns

This section is no longer out of date and, as usual, I don't have time to fix it. Could someone, perhaps? The problem is that the quotes from Facebook's privacy policy are out of date. 02:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Facebook Hates Sick Children

I'm not sure if it's encylopedic or not, but recently Facebook has been closing down quite a few accounts (taking part in a radio contest for The Edge), on the grounds of 'spamming other members'.

One such account that was closed happened to be a charity trying to earn money to donate towards 'Sick Children's Hospital' in Toronto.

Again, not sure if it's encylopedic or not, but Facebook seems to care more about their users than they do about helping out dying children. JimmmyThePiep 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Facebook's terms of use are very clear in that they do not allow groups or organizations to set up accounts; only individuals are allowed to use the service. If you can find reliable sources backing up your ridiculous assertions, we might be able to add them. Until then, let's leave the conspiracy theories and blatant agenda-pushing to others. --ElKevbo 17:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Article states: "The following month, Facebook threatened to seek costs of up to $100,000 from for copyright infringement for allegedly copying the "look and feel" of Facebook" but according to the soure (13) it was the domain that was the issue or something. Someone please correct (a quick look over here:*/ shows that the design has never been similar to facebooks) 07:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it would seem that this site has many skins and one of them really did look like Facebook's.
Take a look:
Northern 18:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Coding and developer stuff

This article should have some information on how facebook is coded (it is pretty advanced, with a lot of dynamic stuff going on), as well as facebook developer stuff, and how developers can create applications that integrate with the facebook data. it's a somewhat open-content project. i don't know enough about it though. Bonus Onus 20:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - some info on Facebook's underlying technology would be really interesting (Is it Ruby on Rails, LAMP, .NET or what? I have no idea) Mattmm 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Facebook URLs tend to have a .php suffix, so I'm assuming PHP. Their HTTP server reports: Server: Apache/1.3.37.fb1. I don't consider this particularly noteworthy, though the mention of their developer API should, perhaps, be expanded. S. Ugarte 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

need help to fix vandalism

See this in the bottom: "^ Doug Beaver (2007). Facebook Photos "*Jesal + Hongjin*" Infrastructure (html). Facebook Weblog. Facebook. Retrieved on 2007-05-30." I never learned how to fix the codes at the bottom - the J/L part needs to be removed.

Yes, but what is it?

Can someone put the actual function of the website somewhere, preferrably in the intro? It's not actually in the article anywhere. If it is, it's hard to find. Voretus 20:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sentence added.[13] EVula // talk // // 20:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Voretus 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert answered for Rrjanbiah

I just wanted to explain for Rrjanbiah why both Pomte and I reverted his inclusions.


As of June 2007 number of users in face book became more than My Space.

Aside from the grammatical errors, this claim needs to be verified, and the text should not have been included where it was — namely, in a previous reference. Provide a notable reference for your claim and it should be added.

Secondly, I'm not sure that a couple of remarks by Digg users is worthwhile mentioning. You may disagree with me here, but I think it'd need to be a more notable and larger article to merit inclusion here. I agree with Pomte that the Harvard comments may be a personal attack, and indeed Facebook does already use PHP.

Hope this helps. — cBuckley (TalkContribs) 16:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


What is the deal with the platform? The programming language? Where is it going? I read a very interesting article about Zuckerberg's expectations of the platform and its future and the potential business to be done if one were to program with the platform. Fortune questioned whether it was a delusion of grandeur, but I am doubtful. Does anyone know anything about this? Kitra101 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Facebook Platform is a programming language, and the idea is that facebook gives the business a platform to stand on, to potentially start a business and make $$$. Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

CIA in bed with Facebook

One of the primary investors of has ties to the CIA. Google searching the references will give you multiple verifiable sources for the information.

An interesting point about how Facebook is really a site for data mining and spying:

by danielson on 12/13/2005 code error? I was on facebook one time and I clicked on one of my friends link and it for some reason it came up with a bunch of the php source code. One thing that kind of caught my attention was this part of it(I took a screenshot because I can't post code here.):

"That's only a part of the code...."

Original link gone, but available now at:

Quite scary! --maxrspct ping me 19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It isn't surprising, the government probably sends facebook millions of dollars just for information... It kind of pisses me off when then get their HTML screwed up... maybe thats what happens when you process 400 terabytes a day! Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Facebook asks for e-mail account password

I just gave facebook a shot for the first time, and was absolutely DUMBFOUNDED when part of the application asked for the password to my EMAIL ACCOUNT! Sure, it was optional, but that's completely unacceptable. That, my friends, is a gigantic red flag. Facebook is not to be trusted. I mean.. think about it. Have you ever seen a legitimate website ask for such information? Of course you haven't. Facebook is shady. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I too was shocked to see Facebook asking for my e-mail account password - and how difficult it was to add friends without doing so (you cannot just enter a list of email addresses--you have to provide a contact list in one form or another; eventually I found the instructions for exporting a contact list from Thunderbird and uploading that). Seriously, though -- this seems like an enormous security breach -- I can't understand why Facebook gets away with this. 17:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it does present a huge security risk, but if you don't want to enter your details, don't. Not that this is an excuse, but there are other sites that use the same procedure for people to perform mass contact searches, and not many offer the safer version of uploading an exported contact list. If you want to find lots of your friends at once, try looking at people in your network and look for groups relating to your university, college, school, place of work — the list goes on. Bottom line, it is a security risk, but you don't have to use it. — cBuckley (TalkContribs) 17:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I was amazed to think they could get away with asking for people's email passwords but then horrified that almost everyone I know blithely provided their passwords. I'm mean some of these people are pretty clever people, but they all responded "oh, was that wrong?" I've seen some other sites have started doing this as well. It's a creepy technique but it obviously works well and is legal. CRS —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, this talk page is a place to discuss ways to improve the Wikipedia Facebook article, not just a general forum on Facebook. Second, in responce to your concerns, Facebook only asks for your password to confirm your identity/ownership of the email address, and also to build your friend list. Now, to the paranoid mind, this is not a very good idea, which does kind of make sense. However, if you're concerned, simply change your email password, give that one to Facebook once, and then change your email password back. I did this and gave Facebook a temporarily changed password, and I have no reason to believe they used it inappropriately. In case you were wondering, MySpace also will ask for your email password to help build your friends list. Besides, I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of internet users use the same password, for everything, so in all actuality Facebook probably already has your email password. But they do not save it for any reason, that would be agains their own privacy policy. Darkage7 18:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

2nd most popular?

I've got an issue with the opening sentence: "Facebook is the second most visited social networking website on the World Wide Web with over 28 million members. It is surpassed only by MySpace." According to Alexa and each site's own given statistics (don't know if that's a valid source), Orkut is a more popular site. I didn't see any justification in any of the talk archives. This really needs to be justified by someone or changed. Maybe second most popular in the North America? Or the USA? Keammo1 04:50, 02 July 2007 (UTC)

Not even close. Myspace has 67 million visitors a month, whereas Facebook only has 20. Use your common sense, why would someone join a site where they can't really look at anyone's profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

User your common sense, why would someone join a site where they can't really be sure of whose profiles they're looking at? -- 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't tell me to 'use [my] common sense', since you it doesn't even sound like you read my post...I'm saying it's the 3rd most popular at best, NOT that it is more popular than Myspace. I'm comparing it with Orkut, and Orkut is more popular than Facebook. In any case, someone has fixed the problem by just removing the sentence. My first post could've been clearer, but it's still not too hard to comprehend. Keammo1 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

it is a very good point, but perhaps it would be better if you had a reliable source to back it up. Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ip address

what is facebooks policy abut handing over ip addresses to cops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctordugihauser (talkcontribs)

I imagine they're quite co-operative, like any other law-abiding website. Why? Octane [improve me] 27.07.07 0156 (UTC)
Actually I think most websites keep their customers' IP addresses confidential unless a warrant is given.. usually. Knippschild 07:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If i were facebook i would sell them... is that legal? i never do read the fine print... Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless you say in your privacy policy that you will be distributing IP addresses to the highest bidder (*cough*,Gov't Agencies), I very highly doubt it's legal. Information that could eventually be traced back to you to is being given to agencies that have the means to trace it back to you without your consent or knowledge. I honestly have not read the privacy policy, but I'm sure they say something to the effect of agencies requiring a warrant for an IP address disclosure. Hell, I could be completely wrong, but I will look into it later today. Knippschild 13:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Famous People

I looked up pro wrestlers like Rey Mysterio, Mr.Kennedy, Triple H, The Undertaker, John Cena and it showed them on the website. Are they real? J.C. 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful. You'll also see names like "God," "Chuck Norris," etc. It seems that Facebook has started implementing some protection mechanisms for these names (I don't know the specifics), but they haven't always been around, and the names you mentioned might not be protected at all. --XDanielx 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes there are people with those actual names and it is hard to figure out...

Questionable source

Under the section of the article that briefly talks about the poke feature it is said that the poke is used as a sexual advance. The source is from a college newspaper and -- at least to me -- is an obviously satirical article. It is quite a funny read, but I don't think it is appropriate for a source. It is footnote 103, here is the article link: Redtemplar 14:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)RedTemplar

I agree. Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


I stress that a semi-protection is placed on the article. It's getting vandalized every minute. Koolgiy 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on it. I don't think we need to lock it down quite yet, but we're pretty close. EVula // talk // // 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've requested it be semi-protected. --ElKevbo 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
As the article is now semi-protected, I'm adding the appropriate tag. Trvsdrlng 13:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, it's already there, although not obvious. Trvsdrlng 13:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand

Why is this site (Facebook) so popular? I visited the site and I just don't get it. Thanks. 11:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Humans are social animals, these new forms of communication allow humans to socialise with even more, therefore they are popular (apperantly as i don't have a facebook thing). (Hypnosadist) 11:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I registered under a fake name to check it out again. I still don't get it. Thanks anyways. 02:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It is so popular because it makes meeting people simple, and its not all screwy like myspace.


If you search for drawball, it leads you to this article. Any idea why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:47, 10 August 2007

Look at Facebook#Customization and security: “…featuring a streaming video and a flash game from Drawball.” — cBuckley (TalkContribs) 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Third party cookies

Hi everybody,

Great job you are doing with this page. I was wondering, why does facebook install so many cookies whose descriptions are of an ad nature? like ad-manager...? Is this worth looking into? (unsigned)

They like seeing what you like to give you better adds, its a google thing. Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocking by many big organisations in London (and propabally other places too)

This article should mention that facebook has been blocked by many big banks and other companies, not because of the themes mentioned in the article but because of concerns of time wasting, abusing company computer facilities as well as being used to slag of the company (many users have set up groups like "my company directors are bunch of w***ers" etc.). Surely many universities woukld criticise such use of faceboo, and other similar sites as it deprives people with legitimate reasons, like for university work, access to computers. I believe these points should be raised in the article.

I also believe thatthe article should mention more about facebook in other countries for example the United Kingdom.

Franny-K 18:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ElKevbo 19:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide view issue?!

Who tagged the page with the Globalize tag? That makes no sense. Facebook is based in Palo Alto in the U.S. and caters to a U.S. audience so it makes no sense to discuss a worldwide view that doesn't really exist. That would be like trying to write an article on koalas from an worldwide view (which also makes no sense as they are indigenous to Australia). --Coolcaesar 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who tagged it but it is sensible to write articles from a world-wide perspective if the subject is world-wide. Certainly the company's head office is in the US and the company clearly started by targetting US colleges, but Facebook is now a world-wide phenomenon (at least in English speaking countries). —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:17, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Facebook Video

How come this article mentions nothing of the new Facebook Video application? [14]. You can find out more about it on their video FAQ [15]. This information is very relevant to this article. The application has over 7 million users. You fail to mention this fact, but yet you focus extensively on trivial features like poke. You are doing a disservice to your viewers not to even talk about it once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzlemctwizzle (talkcontribs) 01:27, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ElKevbo 04:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright I made my addition to the article [16]. Could you please check it for me to make sure I didn't do anything dumb? That would be great. Thanks a lot.Sizzlemctwizzle 19:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good! I made some minor editorial changes and requested a citation for one assertion. The reference citations also need to be cleaned up significantly (see WP:CITE) but overall it looks good. Thanks for adding it! --ElKevbo 19:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The citation about the competition with Myspace comes from the article I cited earlier. [17]Sizzlemctwizzle 19:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate info

In the article it says that by the end of 2005 Facebook had over 11 million users. This is misleading - if you check the source, the data states that 11.1 million was the number of visitors to the site for that year, which is not the same thing.

According to Trendcatching [18] it only just reached 7.5 million users by July 2007, and 25 million as of now. I don't want to mess with the page but if someone wants to find the correct statistics for 2005 they should change it.

-Leo 11:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

7.5 million was July 2006, Trendcatching has a typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Honesty Box

As of now, the "Applications" sections lists the most popular apps, such as iLike, Graffiti, etc. I would argue that the "Honesty Box" application is as large as any of these and deserves mention. --BeastKing89 01:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that it doesn't deserve to be mentioned at all. I think that only Facebook Applications in general should be mentioned. That way there wouldn't be a long list of apps.Sizzlemctwizzle 03:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a list of facebook Apps page? it would be nice... Bbqturtle 03:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Honesty Box is very unique and popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Facebook campaigning works

Anyone seen this: Facebook campaign forces HSBC U-turn? I reckon it's interesting enough for inclusion - it shows the clout that the Facebook community delivers. Against a massive corporation, no less. Seegoon 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Zuckerberg ripped off Greenspan

We need to update to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.petrille (talkcontribs) 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted for too many friend adds too quickly

I don't know if a personal e--mail can be counted as a reference even in full citation, but my account was permanently disabled today, apparently for adding too many friends to quickly. That should be a warning to others until and unless Facebook offers me another explanation for what I did wrong. That a person can have their account disabled for engaging in a major raison d'être of the site is most definitely notable, but difficult to verify. --Scottandrewhutchins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottandrewhutchins (talkcontribs) 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the message I got:

Hi Scott,

After reviewing your situation, we have determined you violated our Terms of Use. Please note, nudity, drug use, or other obscene content is not allowed on the website. Additionally, we do not allow users to send threatening, obscene, and harassing messages. Unsolicited messages and friend requests will also not be tolerated. We will not be able to reactivate your account for any reason. This decision is final.

Thanks for understanding,

Theodore Customer Support Representative Facebook

[ - Thu Aug 30 10:19:31 2007]:

Ever since the first time I was temporarily blocked for adding new friends, I have been blocked subsequent times without any warning. I just tried to add a friend a few minutes ago, and it said I was temporarily blocked. I got no warning to slow down preceding it. I am a real person here and I think denying me that warning is real overkill.

Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20070725 Firefox/

I did not post any nudity, drug use, or other obscene content, nor did I send threatening, obscene, and harassing messages. That leave unsolicited friend requests. Silly me, I thought meeting friends of friends was what a social networking site was for! The only friends I'd added recently were on the friends lists of people who had added me recently and whom I know in real life! The only other thing I can think of is that they are policing private messages, some of which, with certain friends, may have pushed the envelope of what they find acceptable, though it didn't seem to with the recipients in their responses to me. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't find it too surprising if they have filters on private messages to detect obscene words/phrases and flag messages as such, especially since it says right in the terms of use that such messaging is not allowed. There may also be some system in place to monitor how many of a massive number of spontaneous friend requests were confirmed or ignored, where too many being ignored infers a violation of the 'unsolicited friend requests' rule. I don't know anything for sure, but those would be my speculations. timrem Sorry, forgot to log in15:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly if you get ten refusals in a day ,you get permanently blocked. Unfortunately, real people can be treated as if they are bots, and I was one who got burned. there ought to be something about that on the entry. Unfortunately, my edit got reverted by an anonymous user saying that we can't use Wikipedia talk pages as references. How do I reference an e-mail? --Scottandrewhutchins 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, What if I do a mass-add of buddies based on my AIM buddy list? Beings I am using their software to *legally* massively add friends.. I don't know if that's true though, it seems kind of TOO strict for a public resource such as facebook is.Knippschild 18:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And none of this can be added to the article because it's original research. Maybe if it was published in an independent reliable source. --William Graham talk 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg has stressed in many interviews that Facebook isn't for meeting people. Even in the recent Newsweek interview, he claimed something along the lines of Facebook being more for keeping in touch with people you already know, unlike MySpace, which is more for meeting new people. I agree with you being blocked for that reason, and I think most other Facebook users would, as well. As for adding it to the article, I agree that it is WP:OR, and it cannot be added as of now.  hmwith  talk 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I question the intelligence of anyone who thinks I should be blocked for adding friends of friends. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, Zuckerberg went to Harvard and now he's laughing all the way to the bank. And I concur that Scottandrewhutchins' proposed edit is inappropriate original research as well as POV.--Coolcaesar 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Zuckerberg probably doesn't know what's going on as far down as individual members. I keep asking for an explanation beyond the form letter, and they're refusing to give it to me, so I'm going to have to call them again and try to get past the receptionist. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Information Retained After Deletion Rumour?

I'll be honest, I haven't read the entire privacy policy nor the entire privacy policy section on Wikipedia (skimmed through it). I didn't see any bit of the rumour of a costumer's information being kept long after or even permanently after they have their account deleted. I've heard this from a lot of unrelated sources. Is there any truth to this and does anyone think it'd be prudent to create a section about this? As far as i am concerned this is a major reason for people not creating an account. And if it is true, it should be in the privacy policy section. Knippschild 07:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They described my account as "disabled," but I had some people write to me and ask what happened to my profile and posts. Maybe they only take your stuff away if you DON'T want it taken. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Importance Scale?

It says that this article is 'low' on the importance scale. Is this entirely accurate now that Facebook is the most visited site in the world besides google? It is very possible that i misunderstand the purpose of this scale. Bbqturtle 02:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That scale is relative to the San Fran wiki project, so perhaps others felt other articles and components were more important. I wouldn't say FaceBook is visited #2 most, either :P Knippschild 17:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"Is this entirely accurate now that Facebook is the most visited site in the world besides google?" <-- ROFL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Similar services in other languages / clones

Could somebody add the corresponding links in other wikipedia languages. I tried to add vkontakte, the russian clone, but the wikipedia url is very long: it's something like this: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadyes (talkcontribs) 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Image for paragraph labeled Model of the domain

This picture, even though titled on the image page, is not a description of facebook, rather a description of the domain of linkedin social networking site. you can view this by clicking the image and scrolling down to the description... Should the description be fixed or the image removed? Bbqturtle 14:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


The part "Origins and expansion", says the following: "The following month, Zuckerberg, McCollum and Moskovitz moved to Palo Alto, Russia, to continue work on Facebook's development...".

Isn't Palo Alto in CALIFORNIA? Or am I just stupid? Nasht 15:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I see now that this happened here: Revision as of 13:47, 26 September 2007. I'm guessing this was some kind of joke. I don't know what are the proper ways to handle that, but I'll fix it for now.

Nasht 15:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Similar Services

There should be listed only sites that focus in some way on students, otherwise there could be listed pretty many site. increased it´s userbase only through blogmarketing, by that it may be a social network in some way but more an online community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

List of leading applications and app developers

I know little about Facebook, but I came across the following list of leading Facebook apps:

I went to lookup "Top Friends" in Wikipedia, and it redirects to MySpace (?). I eventually found my way to this page. Guanxi 22:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Some analysis to consider regarding the link above: Guanxi 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the "Model of the domain" section needed?

This section seems to border on original research and encyclopedic, but I'd like to get more opinions on this. 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ "IRC Log explaining April Fools' Day jokes". 2007-04-01. Retrieved 2007-04-08.