Talk:Mark Zuckerberg

This article was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 29 November 2005 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Facebook. Since the merger, one or more editors felt the article was notable enough to stand by itself and it was recreated here. To discuss this matter, please use this article's talk page.

STEALING WIKIPEDIA CONTENT!!!

http://english.pravda.ru/business/companies/13-03-2008/104494-mark_zuckerberg-0

They even left the [citation needed] in.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So? Nothing on Wikipedia is copyrighted. People can copy and paste from this site as much as they want.24.190.34.219 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not entirely true. The other site must comply with the license that Wikipedia uses. To put it simply, they must also allow anybody to copy the content on their site. The above site does not appear to be doing that - so they are indeed violating Wikipedia's copyright. DegenFarang (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

September 2006

"On Septemeber 5th 2006, Zuckerberg the son of a whore created a mini feed, encouraging stalkers everywhere to set forth on a global rampage." - Definitely not a neutral point of view (loudestnoise : talk) 05 September 2006

October 2005

There's currently not much noteworthy about him except for his creation of Facebook. Besides, the main facebook article mentions everything currently on this page about him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.99.156 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

March 2006

I recreated this article because I think Zuckerberg is now notable enough to merit his own stub. There are stubs for other Facebook employees and it seems the founder and CEO should get one too. - L1AM (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

July 2006

He is absolutely noteworthy enough to have his own stub. Someone needs to track down the New Yorker's piece on Zuckerberg that was printed in its May 15, 2006 edition. I remember the article saying that he was offered something in the hundreds of millions for the site. Anyone who has been offered hundreds of millions of dollars for anything is worth a "stub" on Wikipedia. [[1]]

August 2006

Why is this article still considered a stub? Generally, when I find a stub it's a paragraph long, maybe 2, but that's about it. While this isn't a 5-page essay on the guy, I'd certainly consider it more than a stub... 82.139.89.208 11:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

May 2007

Is it true that Facebook started out as a game like Grand Theft Auto? That really sounds wild...and it's unsourced. --24.151.241.181 03:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish American

I would remove this from the header per WP:MOSBIO, opening paragraph point #3, ethnicity. Any thoughts? Thanks --Tom 18:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see any reason why it should have been removed, unless it was used in an offensive way which it wasn't. Infact it's positive for the Jewish community, showing Jewish success in Internet ventures, considering Bittorrent and many other contributions the Jewish community has made. I think it should be put back, but in a subtle way on the article somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.67.167 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

...because Jews are relatively unheard of in the business world or something? I'm not trying to stereotype, but please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20.2.185.8 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

well jew's have been persecuted and put down by the world and are continuously and when a jew makes a difference...or when a member of any minority makes a significant contribution of any type...it's only proper that somewhere...it be noted.

credit is given where credit is due. let the haters see elsewhere, don't discriminate or hate, single that you aren't zucky baby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.115.182 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Added it back as it needs verification for the Jewish businesspeople [2] list. I have read from numerous Jewish websites where he has been interviewed and that he still holds ground to his Jewish roots while not a practicing Jew (in terms of obeying all the rules). Hence the reason why i added Conservative Judaism. As a Jew and studying at a Jewish school this would be my best guess, so unless you know better dont change it. Respect peoples religious beliefs, keep it there for all to know so people may relate to him or do religious statistics etc etc. ---Moondy (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvard Student Status

I removed him from the Harvard Alumni category. Drop-outs are not alumni.

--Check the definition of alumnus again, yes they are, alumnus = graduate OR FORMER STUDENT (emphasis mine) of a school. - Josh Sims

According to wiktionary, an alumnus is a student or graduate. If he is neither a student or graduate (and drop-outs aren't either), then he's not an alumnus. 20.2.185.8 13:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to be anti-wiktionary or anything, but that did not sound quite right to me, so I checked with my most used dictionary, the American Heritage online, and it says

A male graduate or former student of a school, college, or university.

For good measure, I checked Merriam-Webster's and it says

1 : a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university
2 : a person who is a former member, employee, contributor, or inmate.

To be fair to others, my own older edition (print) of American Heritage only defined alumnus as male graduates. Nam1123 07:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Early life" section

I deleted "Jews are the best at everything and Jewish people have created mostly everything you use everyday. "

That is just not professional. Its a stereotype, positive, but still racist.

it is impossible for something to be racist against jews.... the jewish people are not a race.

No people are a race... There are no such thing as human races, only ethnic groups and religions. And when you attack or praise people just for their religion or ethnicity is it is commonly termed "racism".--158.36.137.7 06:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The word race has more than one definition, and can be used in regards to ethnicities.24.190.34.219 (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"Facebook" section

This sentence sounds incomplete: The network first expanded to allow other university students to join. Should there be a date at the end of this?

I think this means university as opposed to high school and everyone else, and the date on that would be...2004 to 2006. The expansion happened gradually and I don't know if you can put a date on it. But I agree, the sentence is not great. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Defacing

Somebody added on "The most over valued website in history." under the Partial Sale section. Clearly not Wikipedia material, so I'll remove it. Jon914 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"HE touched his little crotch." What the heck is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.27.218 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just media hype. Everyone knows FB, with its $X _million_/year profits, isn't worth anything close to $15B. No one in his right mind would pay $15B for a 100% stake. Exponential user growth can't last forever -- I think growth will slow down in the next year or two and the Web 2.0 bubble will finally burst. Wikipedian06 12:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and we'll have the last laugh because he could have sold it in 2007 and been a literal billionaire by now. There's no way Facebook's value is going to increase much beyond this point, social networking is at tipping point (look at Facebook's visitor stats). 92.232.121.101 (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

After losing Myspace to Google, Microsoft paid a ludicrous $240m to secure worldwide advertising rights on the property, the 1.6% cardboard bubblegum stake was merely thrown in. To value the company based on that deal is ludicrous. Considering Facebook's cash burn rate and the fact that they just took $100m in debt financing through TriplePoint, I'm wondering if it's worth even what RM paid for Myspace.--122.106.251.190 (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

ConnectU Section

I rewrote the final paragraph due to the heavily pro-Zuckerberg biased language used. It should now read more neutrally. I also added the results of the case at the end of the paragraph. Wolfraem 21:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

American computer coordinator?

Um... what is a computer coordinator? It used to say computer programmer and entrepreneur. -FeralDruid (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC) the possibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.239.202 (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Time

One of time magizines 100 people of 2008 is... Mark zuckerberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.67.189 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that not in the article? Thought it would be. SamanthaG (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, regarding religion...

He has now been placed under the catagory of "Jewish atheists". We've got the link that says he had a Jewish upbringing, but where does it indicate that he lost his faith, or that he stopped believing in God? Not050 (talk)Not050Not050 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Often the term Jewish is used to describe someone's ethnicity; not their race. I have a friend who was raised Christain and considers herself Christain, but she also calls herself Jewish because she's of Jewish ancestry. SamanthaG (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

yes that is aboslutely correct. Jewish is considered an ethnicity.

• Mark Zuckerberg (1984–): Founder and CEO of Facebook

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_(miscellaneous)#Business

There we go. EchetusXe (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I say: Regardless of whether it's considered positive or negative to mention prominently in the article that he or his parents are Jewish, the normal practice is not to highlight someone's religion or ethnicity unless the person's fame rests on that religion or ethnicity. Making a point of the person's Jewishness (or Mormonism, or Catholicism, or atheism) so prominently in the article is not encyclopedic practice; it's gratuitous and betrays an agenda of one sort or another. Agendas don't belong here. Wbkelley (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that this was settled in August last year, and the consensus has been to keep it listed, in the same way we list actors and politician's religions. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about what consensus is on Wikipedia about listing poeple's religions, but I fail to see why it's at all relevant to list the religion of actors, politicians, and business figures as one of the quick facts about them in the sidebar. It seems especially wrong for atheists, considering that the term typically indicates the lack of any beliefs at all. The most appropriate thing to do would be not to list "religious beliefs" at all. Maybe there's a better place to discuss this policy, but I'm just this guy... 72.175.45.175 (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Zuckerberg with Kim Jong-iL's daughter

Is this not actually true then? it seems suspicious that IP addresses keep removing any mention of it. Towel401 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Youngest billionaire

"[the] youngest billionaire on earth and possibly the youngest self-made billionaire ever"

If he is the youngest billionaire then wouldn't that make him the youngest self made billionaire by default? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.29.129 (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Who said that he is a billionaire, is facebook rated so high? --213.168.120.67 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Zuckerberg's wealth/value

Hi, I wanted to inquire a bit more about how Zuckerberg's worth should be calculated. I find Forbes to be an OK magazine for the unsophisticated reader, however while this value has caused controversy, it has continually been determined to be non-ense. I think people will agree with me that he is quite obviously not a billionaire.

In terms of delivering the best article possible I think we should:

• Emphasize his updated worth at 100-200m USD
• Mentions his 2008 Forbes wealth below.

Claims in Forbes are not reliable because they are (which possibly remain private).

Here are the things that mitigate his 1.5 Billion USD guess

• Based off a contract which included stock + contractual deals
• It did not amount to a buy out of the company
• It was Microsoft, a business with a great deal of money on hand
• Although it makes great controversy for him, it's non-sense and is misleading.
• The controversy is essentially over, no serious professional has backed it.

Furthermore, there are the things that mitigate his 200m + USD guess (based of stock + highest Yahoo! buy out offer)

• They were offers by companies which now could not possibly afford it
• The values were given before companies like Yahoo! had trouble with restructuring, failed MSFT buyout, more layoffs, recession
• It was an opportunity at a certain point, and he passed it.

So you can't even say he's worth that, if you have a deal, pass it, never get it again, that doesn't make you rich.

You have a 1000ft villa. Movie makers offer to buy a room for a 200ft movie shooting for $1Million, does that make your entire worth of your 1000ft house 5Million? If someone offers you $500,000 for a house in puffed stock pre-recession, and no other offers come, does it make sense to say you're worth that much?

Furthermore, about calculating wealth in general:

• The individual may not want to sell
• Conversely, No one may want to buy form the individual --Drinkadrink (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds about right the company is only worth about $2 billion and 20% to 30% of that, which Zuckerburg owns, comes out to $400-600 million. Daa89563 (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Much more balanced

I think that mentioning of controversy in this article gives readers the suggestion that the most notable aspects of him are controversial. Having a popular website is great, however if the article proceeds to speak about his travels, it's important to define it in the summary.

"Mark Zuckerberg, (born May 14, 1984) is an American computer programmer and entrepreneur. As a Harvard student, he created the online social website Facebook, a site popular among American college students, with fellow computer science major students and his roommates Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes. He serves as Facebook's CEO. He has been the subject of controversy for the origins of his business[2] and his wealth[3].--Drinkadrink (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_Zuckerberg_CEO_Facebook.jpg

This is a cute, dreamy picture. Why not tone it down a bit? This is a staged photograph, like for modelling a dreamer. The vanity of the picture is almost self-promoting. Why not use a picture form his at a developer conference, like Bill Gates?

Editors need to make sure to keep it balanced, I know many people have a positive view on him, however he has had a fair share of criticism and self-promotion in the spot-light --Drinkadrink (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he actually looks like Sebastian from Cruel Intentions in that picture. I dunno why they changed it Towel401 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that picture looks like something from an early eighties movie (e.g. Wargames or E.T.) because of the lighting and because he looks some of the characters a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.74.204 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Guesstimating Zuck's wealth: enough already

WP: Is not a place where we suppose the wealth of private citizens are. Even if there is controversy between the lines, it's supposition. Interesting, but not objective. The truth is, his wealth is unknown, and it is inappropriate and misleading to give guesses. --Drinkadrink (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed his wealth. It has been officially published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.168.231 (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't he a billionaire? On Oprah she said he is a billionaire and he agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.13.110 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

HAHA Tufts and BU are Ivy League?

Since when did Tufts and BU enter the Ivy League? Yet another example of how unreliable wikipedia is. Pathetic.65.247.226.99 (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You could always change it yourself. You obviously know how since you edited the discussion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Loss of funds

According to Forbes (as quoted by the BBC) Zuckerberg no longer has a billion dollars. I updated his net worth accordingly (after which I wept for the fact that he is not able to buy the new full sized platinum city he wanted).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, "less than 1 billion dollars" also describes my net worth. Can't we find a slightly less vague figure?--Pretty Green (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The source I found doesn't give any more details. We can probably assume that he probably still has more money than you or especially me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't place Zuckerberg wealth in his Info box

Recently we had the post http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7937449.stm citing he is worth a billion. This is incorrect. In fact, this reference states he is below a billion. In a conversation in the topic above, everyone here (except CEO's who edit their own article) are worth less than a billion. If you are worth more than a billion USD and edit here, please make a user template. :-)

I believe we should not speculate on the wealth of this private individual. Most sources of his wealth are from unreliable sources. You may think that business magazines are OK, however they kind of cater to the unsophisticated/embrace temporary fads. Sorry Zuckerberg fans, it doesn't look like he'll have a certain worth unless he goes public, which probably won't happen[3]. --Drinkadrink (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing See Also

This article is missing the option of navigating to similar articles. can anybody create the tab [see also] for this article?203.128.4.254 (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You may want to scroll down to the bottom of the page, there you will find a navbox with all the connected articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

i am having an issue with fb.

i have gotten a warning for commenting on the walk for the cure for cancer. and i don't feel that this is right, many of other people are posting and commnting more then some of us and we are the ones that are getting warnings, this is not right nor far. you calll it spamming or abusing the site, well we are not doing that. what is spamming is that you guys sending everything that people say and do to our apps and what the say in our emails so our emails are fulled beyond belief. this is waht is called a double standard, it is not right or fair of you to do this to some of us that are trying to help with a cause, and an important one at that. we have done nothing wrong and again it is a double standard at what you are saying what we are"doing". in no way have anyone don't anything offending, or anything wrong, we have not abused the site. please think this over and get back to apap please. thank you,. terry hinkley-rossignol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.74.98 (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhmm, the wiki page is entirely unconnected to the administrators of facebook itself, (you should e-mail directly from the facebook site). Besides, you can turn off e-mail notifications for everything in facebook.24.190.34.219 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

terry hinkley-rossignol and many others,

i am having an issue with fb.

i have gotten a warning for commenting on the walk for the cure for cancer. and i don't feel that this is right, many of other people are posting and commnting more then some of us and we are the ones that are getting warnings, this is not right nor far. you calll it spamming or abusing the site, well we are not doing that. what is spamming is that you guys sending everything that people say and do to our apps and what the say in our emails so our emails are fulled beyond belief. this is waht is called a double standard, it is not right or fair of you to do this to some of us that are trying to help with a cause, and an important one at that. we have done nothing wrong and again it is a double standard at what you are saying what we are"doing". in no way have anyone don't anything offending, or anything wrong, we have not abused the site. please think this over and get back to apap please. thank you,. terry hinkley-rossignol. i am sending this to you again cause i am not sure where i am suppose to go. sorry if you did get this message already. the email is peeko09@yahoo.com. please get back to me. thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.74.98 (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, the wiki page is not connected to the administrators of facebook itself. You need to log into facebook and find a contact e-mail there and contact them directly. Besides, you can turn off e-mail notifications for everything in facebook.24.190.34.219 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk)

Isn't he Jewish

I thought Mark Zuckerberg was Jewish, but I can't find anything in the article that says he is. 174.18.22.186 (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but who cares? Drmies (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Ouch, that hurt.

He's not. The best source we have states he stopped practising a long time ago and considers himself to be an atheist. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• True but his ancestry is, maybe that should be reflected in his info box? Nekng (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how it works. Most of those in the category American atheists do not indicate their religion in the infobox, instead it is discussed in their bio, the WSJ cite for his atheism says "[he] considers himself an atheist", if you can find a source which says he was raised Jewish then add it to his bio, not the infobox, per the MOS. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Zuckerberg clearly has Jewish background as indicated here: Israel visit, "Zuckerberg is Jewish", and berg is jewish. the article should place Zuckerberg as Jewish somewhere. Either ethnicity in the infobox, in the categories, or in the bio lead. It's pretty obvious. For those who say Zuckerberg being atheist somehow nullifies his "jewishness" needs to read Jew. Natalie Portman is also an atheist....Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That first citation, Ha'aretz, doesn't state that he is Jewish. The other two are blogs - Jewcy and the particularly loathsome Gawker site - neither one of the two would count as reliable sources. All Hallow's (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In the context of special-interest sources, I think it is pretty clear Zuckerberg is Jewish. Jewcy is a popular Jewish online magazine. I don't think it would qualify as unreliable in this sense. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please restore his ethnic background? He is obviously Jewish and sources confirm. This should be a no-brainer here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can get a credible source, then no problem. Until then, no. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Haaretz and Jewcry are perfectly acceptable under the circumstances. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not. And two editors disagree with you. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Being a major newspaper, Ha'aretz is a reliable source. It just didn't say that he was Jewish, that was the problem. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

All right I'll try to find a more reliable source. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

attack site

-the reference link for his net worth (#1) links to an attack site, somehow 216.110.245.50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC).

RETARD?

Why has it got a section saying RETARD on wikipidia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.194.13 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation_Needed

Here is the original source for the Time magazine list: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733754_1735207,00.html I can't add it cause it's semi-protected and I'm new! What are you talking about, ass-wipe?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.222.33 (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Help Me Cite

I added the movie info but have no idea how to cite my reference. Check this link out: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcut (talk • contribs) 04:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

spacing

{{editsemiprotected}} They don't match in the infobox.. like the networth and the religious views.. one has an extra space. minor edit 98.219.102.24 (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Question: I removed a space in [[Atheist( )|Atheist]], but I don't think that's it.. And the text all looks aligned fine to me. Can you take a Screenshot and highlight what you mean? — Deon^talk 07:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Broken links

These are all based upon the version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Zuckerberg&oldid=333762510 (current as of today).

footnote [8]

I found that footnote [8] is a broken link. In fact, I could not even find the intended page, -- neither using the Wayback machine (http://www.archive.org/ ), nor using the "archives" feature of http://dukechronicle.com/ (the clickable hyper link there called "Archives" points to http://dukechronicle.com/archives , but that seems to be (temporarily?) on the fritz. ("The requested page could not be found." -- just for clicking on "Archives"?)

OK, so maybe footnote [8] is a place where Webcite would have helped.

footnote [6]

I also checked footnote [6], and it is a broken link, too. (So I was really surprised when footnote [7] actually worked!) At least footnote [6], was able to be found, by going to http://www.stanforddaily.com/ an clicking on "Archives", (which points to http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?page_id=17 ), and finding the entries for 2004-March-10.

When I got there (to the entries for 2004-March-10) (see http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?m=2004&paged=201 ), there seemed to be two articles relating to facebook:

• Chris Holt. "Thefacebook.com's darker side".

and

• Jennifer Graham. "Thefacebook.com for dummies".

but while both were humorous, I figured that "Thefacebook.com's darker side". was the one "more likely" to correspond to the cryptic mess that is the "broken link" (current) version of footnote [6]. Hence, that is the one that I (tentatively) made a snapshot copy of (just to be safe), at http://www.webcitation.org/5mO7OKyfP . This is in preparation for (eventually) fixing the "broken link" in footnote [6]; but first, I would like to check, and maybe get a consensus on whether that article, "Thefacebook.com's darker side". which has now been "cached" on webcitation.org, (see WebCite) is the right one for footnote [6].

PS: Maybe we should 'also" made a snapshot copy of footnote [7], on WebCite, even though it works now. Partly in case there is a recurrence of what happened with footnote [6], but mainly, in case there is a recurrence of what happened with footnote [8]!

Thanks for any advice on this. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

News Feed - Found Citation (currently flagged for weasel word)

{{editsemiprotected}}2.3 News Feed: Please change "Zuckerberg was criticized as some[weasel words] saw News Feed as unnecessary and a tool for cyberstalking." _ TO _ "Zuckerberg was criticized as some users saw News Feed as unnecessary and a tool for cyberstalking."

3. ^ Arrington, Michael (September 6, 2006). "Facebook Users Revolt - News Feed & Mini Feed". TechCrunch.com. pp. 1. Retrieved February 3, 2010.

 Not done: Welcome and thanks for the reference, but that reference doesn't mention unnecessary or cyberstalking. The reference isn't explicit about why some were going to boycott Facebook over the new features, but some form of privacy issue is implied. Celestra (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the entire section "News Feed" should go. Unless someone can cite a direct relationship this information has to Zuckerberg it is not relevant on his entry. Jasonfb (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg's 'religion', relevant?

I deleted reference to his 'religion' which is atheism (atheism is a religion?), because I thought his religion would be completely irrelevant to his standing as a businessman (indeed, it should be irrelevant to anyone except politicians).

And some guy added it back in.

What's the Wiki-user consensus on displaying someone's religion for a businessman? To me it should really not be emphasized - is someone wearing their 'atheist pride' on their sleeve and parading it through Zuckerberg? Or is it some really religious person who is trying to discredit him by displaying his personal beliefs? (1tephania (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

It has a reference and he has stated his atheism in interviews. It's not "emphasized" simply stated. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The question isn't the factual accuracy, but the relevance of such an information? (1tephania (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

Given his Jewish heritage and that he has said his is not religious its clarifies an assumption made by many readers. If you want go through the category "American atheists" and remove 'atheism' from every infobox, you will be reverted quickly. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Darrenhusted, I haven't even touched the infobox, and I haven't even thought about going to American atheists category or whatever, so no fears on your part. I just wanted to ask a simple question; Why would a businessman being an atheist (or not having a religion, whichever the case it is) be even a relevant information, and what's Wikipedia's standard on issues like this? No one is going to assume that he follows Judaism just because he is Jewish. (1tephania (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC))

These sections should go

News Feed, Facebook Beacon, Microsoft investment in Facebook, Facebook in 2009

Unless someone can come forward with information that involved Zuckerberg directly, the above 4 sections belong on the Facebook entry, not Zuckerberg's page.

The sections "News Feed" and "Facebook Beacon" do mention him by name, but at that point in the history Zuckerberg and Facebook (the company) are intertwined to the point where this information is not relevant in HIS entry. If the story in some way distinguishes Zuckerberg from the company, then it should be noted on his page, but this entry is a story about Zuckerberg. Facebook is part of his story, but the story has to remain about him.

I might suggest replacing both those sections ("News Feed" and "Facebook Beacon") with a section titled "Privacy Implications" that discusses what know publicly about Zuckerberg himself -- it could reference the information in these two sections -- like character witnesses in a trial. Jasonfb (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Silicon Alley Insider stories March 2010

Three exposé pieces in Silicon Alley Insider went public today. I added a small reference to the ConnectU Controversy section and included a citation to one of them. All three suggest actions which allege Zuckerberg hacked into other people's private accounts. Clearly this is a serious allegation and his entry should reflect, carefully, that Silicon Alley Insider felt they had enough evidence to go public with these allegations. Since Silicon Alley Insider is a reputable news service I propose the adding of this information 5 days from today's date -- to give time for other journalists to vet the claims SAI is making. If they stand up to peer review, they belong on his entry. Jasonfb (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)