Jump to content

Talk:Facebook

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.104.138.119 (talk) at 13:48, 18 April 2015 (→Change picture?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleFacebook was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 10, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 6, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
May 6, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
May 30, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 8, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
November 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
July 12, 2010Good article reassessmentKept
May 22, 2011Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 4, 2010.
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Vital article

Minor edit

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

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

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

Requested Changes completed Jacquelyntwiki (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing this article

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

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

I have to agree with this. It's a very long article, and there are already a number of spin-off articles on various Facebook topics. --Michael K SmithTalk 14:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, because Facebook owns many assets including WhatsApp. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old data and charts

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

"Technical aspects" section should be updated

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015

50.13.112.241 (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No request has been made; please be sure to specify what exactly you'd like changed. Otherwise, nothing can be done. Tony Tan98 · talk 04:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2015

Can someone please update the financial information in the box on the right hand side to reflect 2014? Link to the relevant information can be found here - http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/viewer?action=view&cik=1326801&accession_number=0001326801-15-000006&xbrl_type=v#

(If you click on Financial Statements and then Consolidated statements of income) Cardyak (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Cgx8253. Stickee (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

age policy edit

My contention is that this edit is neither reliably sourced nor neutral. [1] The source provided states that Facebook's policy is that users under the age of 13 are not allowed at the site, in fact, it lists a way to report users who are under the age of 13. So it does not matter whether a user claims to be at least 13, they are not allowed at the website unless they are >=13. From the source provided: "Facebook requires everyone to be at least 13 years old before they can create an account (in some jurisdictions, this age limit may be higher). Creating an account with false info is a violation of our terms. This includes accounts registered on the behalf of someone under 13." The existence of users in violation of this policy (For which the claim is still unsourced and OR) does not change what Facebook's policy actually is. --Padenton (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton: @Qed237:, Lots of users on Facebook are in fact under 13, so if they are on Facebook it is because they have entered a false date of birth so therefore they are claiming to be 13 even though they are not TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 20:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is unsourced original research, and they are still not 'allowed' by Facebook policy, whether they exist or not, as stated at the source provided for that sentence, and as I stated above. --Padenton (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged so felt I should answer. The rules are what they are, are you under 13 you are not allowed account. Writing "claims to be" feels wrong, it sounds like you can say "I am over 13" and then it is allowed which you are not, it is still an invalid account against the rules. QED237 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Qed237: @Padenton: Any thoughts to discuss further ? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 03:19, March 2015 (UTC)
Not particularly. --Padenton (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

I propose merging Criticism of Facebook with Facebook to create a better wikipedia with a more NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Facebook is way too large to merge into Facebook; it's actually larger, with 14,210 words as compared to Facebook's 11,303. You can check it yourself with [2]. Origamiteⓣⓒ 21:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that it would be easy, but it is for the best. it is true that the merge might make Facebook longer than what is ideal according to the policy Wikipedia:Article size but that is only a guideline. Neutral point of view is one of 5 core pillars of Wikipedia. Once we merge the two articles we can split Facebook into small articles (History of Facebook, etc) and get it down to a more managable size. Splitting it solely on Point of view ( criticism and non criticism ) is a bad idea. the Criticism article will have to chose to 1- duplicate information in the main article , or 2 - make no sense and be a low quality article. neither of which is good for Wikipedia. I know it's not easy to get to a NPOV but that is why Wikipedia is great. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for now): I agree it should probably be merged (eventually). For now, I would certainly move the current criticism section items off to the criticism article, I haven't gotten around to it. E.g. the real name section disgusts me. There is a separate article just for it, it's in the Facebook article, it's in the criticism article, it was given a place of honor in the template before I re-organized it. It's in enough places begging for as much attention as it can get. History of Facebook and Timeline of Facebook should also be refreshed with the current content of these sections in Facebook, and probably merged into one. Do other articles have separate 'History of' and 'Timeline of' articles? As I mentioned in the Criticism of Facebook talk page, however, it has considerable issues that would be significantly WP:UNDUE if merged now. I think there's probably a small enough number that should be there that we could give it due weight, but you're talking about a lot of work. The page has become essentially a cesspool of any random person with a gripe or complaint adding random crap to it. Facebook is one of the most popular sites on the internet, and as such, pretty much any complaint that any user might have has a news source that talks about it. The problem is very few of these have any business being in a 'Criticism of Facebook' article, and those that do are written by people with an agenda.

Theres:
  • users having gripes about changes to a website's user interface (I'm sure if I tried I could make a gripe about the interface of any website on the internet. It's not difficult. You get a billion active users on a website, there will be a large-sounding number making every complaint you can imagine)
  • frivolous lawsuits (Diff Countries have their own legal systems, in the US, anyone can pretty much file a lawsuit against anyone, and many go after large corporations)
  • People complaining about the activities of other users, groups, pages (Not sure who thought those was Criticism of Facebook, that's like me having a bad experience with another editor here and complaining about it on the Criticism of Wikipedia page)
  • probably a dozen other things, I still haven't read it all the way through.

I tried to start a discussion on some of these but while waiting for responses, I got sidetracked editing other articles, so I haven't gotten back to trying to fix/tag all the problems in the page. Oh, and I like what you're trying to do elsewhere, but slow down. A LOT of criticism articles aren't watched closely, and I'll bet the vast majority have sections with serious issues just like this one. If even 1/2 of the articles you proposed mergers for are approved, you're looking at a fuck-ton of work for yourself. Are you sure you want that? Sorry for any hostility in tone that came across in my vote, none of it is directed at you, articles like that one annoy me and I haven't slept. --Padenton (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Padenton, no hard feelings at all I understand you're not being hostile you are just passionate about Wikipedia I respect that. I agree that it would be an incredible workload, however it is a workload that grows the longer we do nothing. When source material conflicts, instead of creating a single narrative it is easily to say "we'll make a criticism section at the bottom to stick it there out of the way" but that grows and grows until it becomes big enough to make its own article. The "Criticism of" tends to become very low quality. and it leaves us with 2 articles treating the same subject. one critical ( and usually poorly written ) and one that is suspiciously free of any criticism. that's not NPOV we shouldn't leave it to our readers to read 2 articles about the same exact same topic and then tell them to put it all together. we should create 1 article for 1 topic presenting as neutrally as possible the verifiable sources. I know it won't be easy but it is work that I am passionate about. working closely with what I feel is very important to NPOV is rewarding. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The answer to both questions on the Wikipedia:Merge Test is "yes". Origamiteⓣⓒ 20:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the segregation of "Criticism" and "Non Criticism" creates 1 of 2 possibilities.
  • Possibility 1 - The topics are the same - if the topics are the same then having two articles for the same topic is a violation of NPOV by creating a Content Fork
  • Possibility 2 - The topics are different - If the two topics are different then the topic Facebook Violates NPOV by not fairly and proportionately representing all reliable sources ( since the content in the criticism article is reliable, notable, and verifiable or else it would not be in the criticism article )
Either of these posibilities leads us to a NPOV conflict. WP:NPOV contains a supremacy clause that means Wikipedia:Merge test is negated by it. If you feel that banning criticism of facebook makes the facebook article NPOV please post that. all other arguments about merge test or Article size are not sufficient to trump NPOV. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryce Carmony: Thank you for the removal of the proposal. It may work on some articles, but probably not on this one. Origamiteⓣⓒ 00:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, a merge right now is unrealistic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2015

Hi , I am Anas from Kurdistan-Iraq . I want to be a established registred user to edit more articles , sure I will be like you . Thanks AnasWK (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 14:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

There is a clear consensus for the proposed split. @CookieMonster755: Armbrust The Homunculus 09:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am proposing to split Facebook, Inc. (the company) and the service (facebook.com). The company owns many new assets including WhatsApp, and Facebook is a company with more than one service. It would be easier to identify the service and the company by splitting the article into the company and the service. Vote with Support or Oppose below, with a good explanation why you support or are against it. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support facebook the company has a ton of information on it and facebook.com the website has lots of information too. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While Facebook began as just a social network, I agree it has become much more than that. In addition to WhatsApp, there's also Oculus VR, Instagram of course. For precedent, there's Google, which I'm sure originally contained the info of the Google Search article. It may also be good to consider whether it would be appropriate to merge some of the Facebook-related articles (there's dozens) into either of these split pages. I also think that we should rename Criticism of Facebook as part of this to Criticism of Facebook, Inc. (or whatever name is decided for the company article). There's still plenty of work to be done to cleanup the criticism page into less of a cesspool, but all similar criticism pages are about companies as a whole, it would be inappropriate to have a separate one for the website. ― Padenton |☎  17:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Think we'll get anyone else?― Padenton|✉   15:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes split the article. And the controversies section was split off into a new article so that it wouldn't bog down this article, but it seems like that has failed. Gary (talk · scripts) 19:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2015

114.125.61.117 (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2015

86.123.129.55 (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Study of abandonment of SNS

It is possible to include a reference to a study of the trend of facebook?. "Epidemiological modeling of online social network dynamics" http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4208v1.pdf

Thanks!

Concerning the "formerly thefacebook" in lead

I have used Facebook for a very long time, and I can't remember it being called "thefacebook". Except it is against Wikipedia norms, I'd prefer its former name be limited to the history subsection. I am still new to Wikipedia so don't be offended if my view is off-point. I just don't seem to see the importance or popularity in its former name. Isakaba (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally (stylized as "[thefacebook]"), but you're right, it doesn't really need to be in the lead. I think it was changed in 2005, even before it was opened up to non-students, that's when they bought the 'facebook.com' domain name. It's trivia now. It should remain in the history section (or article(s)) to allow people to find information on it from back then (has anyone else tried searching google for any specific information about facebook? Not easy), but it's not important enough for the lead I don't think. That being said, I'm relatively new myself, and I think there might be some MOS guideline saying former names should be in the lead, in which case, oh well. ― Padenton|✉   05:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change picture?

Maybe we should have a picture of a time line instead of the login?--88.104.138.119 (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Facebook&oldid=657036835"