Talk:Facebook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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

New Facebook data controversy[edit]

Facebook gave "favored companies like Airbnb, Lyft and Netflix special access to users’ data." [1] [2]

References

  1. ^ "Facebook Gave Some Companies Special Access to Users' Data, Documents Show". New York Times. Adam Satariano. New York Times. Retrieved 5 December 2018.
  2. ^ "Facebook allegedly offered advertisers special access to users' data and activities, according to documents released by British lawmakers". Craig Timberg , Elizabeth Dwoskin and Tony Romm. Washington Post. Retrieved 5 December 2018.

Possible Merge[edit]

It has been proposed that Caryn Marooney be merged into this article. Interested editors may discuss at Talk:Caryn_Marooney#Merger proposal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to add the mergefrom template for that... Wefa (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2019[edit]

Whatsapp Hack होने से कैसे बचाए 42.111.31.156 (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 09:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch mass murder livestream Edit[edit]

The revision of my edit looks like an attempt to whitewash on behalf of Facebook. This is a topic that has been the subject of lots of comment in the legitimate media. I cited CNN and my edit was factual.Wickifrank (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted this edit because the wording was too simplistic and lacked WP:NPOV. Yes, the 17 minute video of the Christchurch mosque shootings started out as a live streamed video on Facebook Live. However, as the article there says, "According to Facebook, the original video from the attacker had been viewed fewer than 200 times before the service was notified of its content, and had been viewed 4,000 times before it was removed. Removal occurred within minutes of notification, with Facebook creating a digital hash fingerprint to detect further uploads; however by this point the video had been propagated on other sites." Facebook tried hard to stop the material from appearing on its own website, but could not control how it was redistributed on other websites, eg 4chan, LiveLeak etc which are nothing to do with Facebook. To say that Facebook "permitted" the video to be shown is somewhat misleading. If they had known that it was going to be a video of a mass shooting with 50 people ending up dead, they would obviously not have permitted it. In this BBC News story, Rory Cellan-Jones says "Facebook seems to have acted pretty swiftly in the circumstances and it is striking that it was an 8chan user who made the video go viral. But the real question is whether it was sensible to give between two and three billion people instant access to a live broadcasting platform Facebook must have known would be impossible to moderate in real time." Fair point. This quote from Mark Zuckerberg from April 2016 now looks very prophetic: "Because it’s live, there is no way it can be curated," he said. "And because of that it frees people up to be themselves. It’s live; it can’t possibly be perfectly planned out ahead of time. Somewhat counterintuitively, it’s a great medium for sharing raw and visceral content."[1] So was it a mistake for Facebook to allow live streamed videos without any prior checking of what they might contain? Perhaps, as the CNN article says, but the wording needs to make clear that Facebook was caught with its pants down over the Christchurch video, rather having a deliberate policy flaw that let it happen. I'm not against mentioning the Christchurch shooting, but the wording needs to be clear about what happened. There is some more detail about how Facebook responded after the video was posted in this BBC News article, which says that "No reports about the graphic content in the live stream were made until 12 minutes after it ended".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Things do not have to be complicated to be in Wikipedia. Indeed if something can be explained simply it is often likely to be accurately described. It expressed no view of Facebook's actions - it only described them, whereas the the apologists for the company do express such opinions. I will redraft my edit and include a reference to the Wikipedia article on the Christchurch murders. That article seems to have been heavily edited by apologists for social media companies and I am not going to get involved with it. To completely delete any reference to Facebook's role in providing a propaganda platform for a fascist murderer is certainly whitewashing (an appropriate term given the act in New Zealand) if not vandalism. Wickifrank (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've said, the article here probably should mention the Christchurch shootings, but there is a need to stick to WP:NPOV. The tone of the media coverage is not that it was entirely Facebook's fault that this happened, but that there are problems with moderating live streams in real time.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019[edit]

Ail baba (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 22:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2019[edit]

Including the 's' in the word 'tablets' into the link. In the paragraph starting mentioning Facebook's service. Currently there is a stray 's' not included in the link to the tablet computers Wikipedia page. DanJCowell (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 DoneAmmarpad (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

C. Marooney merge discussion[edit]

Copy of merge discussion from source page
CONSENSUS IN FAVOR:
Reading through the discussion, I see consensus in favor of merging this article into Facebook. The extent of the content that is merged, and how the merge itself is carried out, should be conducted as normal editing (WP:BRD, WP:Consensus, etc) - this discussion is solely about whether or not there should be a merge. If you have any questions about this close, feel free to ask me. Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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 propose to merge Caryn Marooney into Facebook. I think that the content in the Caryn Marooney article can easily be explained in the context of Facebook, and the Facebook article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Caryn Marooney will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Additionally Caryn Marooney has not notability and having pages for figures of little public knowledge or importance is unreasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.92.40 (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Marooney's prominence in tech was recently further demonstrated by the prominent media headlines generated when she said she was leaving Facebook. Marooney said in Feb. 2019 she will be leaving Facebook, after eight years to work in 'tech and product'. There were several major articles about her when she said she would be leaving (Wired, Fortune, AdWeek, Re/Code)[1][2][3][4] further establishing her notability. These article also have new biographical information about Marooney. Wired's headline last month said she has had "the toughest job in tech."[5] No one has done an update yet. I'll add the sources. I can't touch the article because of my COI. Marooney had a major career before Facebook,founding the most prominent communications firm in Silicon Valley, and while at Facebook has been one of the most senior women in tech. There is more than adequate RS for GNG. Wikipedia has a bad problem with women being under severely underrepresented in BLP. The "Women in Red" Project, WP:WPWIR, which works hard to get articles like this into WP, should be notified for comment if anyone formalizes this proposal. Only 17.6% of WP bios are about women (March 2019-WP:WPWIR) Anyone influenced by the HuffPo article allegation should know that it is false: My first submission for this article has 11 sources. When I resubmitted an expanded version 14 months later, it had 23 sources, establishing notability. Resubmitting an improved draft is normal practice, not "lobbying for a year." See:[2] User: Ipigott, a Master Editor III, did the review and approved the draft. COI Disclosure above. Not being paid for this now.BC1278 (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cohen, David (6 February 2019). "Vp of Communications Caryn Marooney Is Leaving Facebook After 8 Years". Retrieved 18 March 2019.
  2. ^ Lapowsky, Issie (2019-02-06). "Facebook's Top PR Exec Is Leaving the Toughest Job in Tech". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2019-03-18.
  3. ^ Stampler, Laura (2019-06-02). "Facebook Loses Top PR Exec After Long Year of Public Relations Crises". Fortune.com. Retrieved 2019-03-18.
  4. ^ Swisher, Kara (2019-02-06). "Facebook's top PR exec is leaving". Recode. Retrieved 2019-03-18.
  5. ^ Lapowsky, Issie (2019-02-06). "Facebook's Top PR Exec Is Leaving the Toughest Job in Tech". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2019-03-18.
Frankly - if you can't touch the article because of your COI, you should not touch this debate here either. We have to disregard whatever you say, because we understand that your arguments may be as likely be driven by your fat paycheck as they are by rational insight. So, just kindly go away and sit this one out. Wefa (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning support. I am not convinced the subject is notable independently from Facebook, so WP:NOTINHERITED might be the decisive factor here. Unless someone is able to show that she is WP:NOTABLE outside of Facebook, Inc. (no, leaving a job in a notable company does not make a person inherently notable!). Do we have a crystal ball? — kashmīrī TALK 21:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. None of the sources for this article support the notability of Caryn Marooney, they establish the notability of Facebook. The only reason this page exists is because money and privilege afford her the services of professional Wikipedia editors and journalists. This article is a farce. 2600:6C44:E7F:F8D6:8694:953B:9EC1:FBC (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not too happy about a simple merge into Facebook. Marooney was already prominent in OutCast Communications and has other business responsibilities. There are not many women in technology who have reached such significant management positions. I would prefer to see the article maintained in its own right, possibly with additional improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Respectfully, "being a woman manager in technology" is not a notability criterion, nor is having "business responsibilities." OutCast Communications is certainly notable. 2600:6C44:E7F:F8D6:8694:953B:9EC1:FBC (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Nonsense on stilts This person meets GNG - see refs for the article, and, for instance, PR Week Power List ratings. There's no good reason to even begin considering a merge, and none has been suggested by the OP. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
GNG requires "significant coverage." Being mentioned in lists or articles about her employer's HR decisions is not that. 2600:6C44:E7F:F8D6:8694:953B:9EC1:FBC (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not a proper merger discussion, which would center around what parts of the content of one article can be copied into another article. It's an AfD discussion, but without the proper process or notifications, or close examination of Wikipedia:Notability_(people) criteria. Please note that 2600:6C44:E7F:F8D6:8694:953B:9EC1:FBC is a SPA account established two days ago just for this article.BC1278 (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278
    BC1278 A merge can but does not have to go AfD. See WP:MERGE for more information. You're right that the proper tags have not been placed. As to IP addresses the one you reference could have been around here under a different IP before; not everyone has as stable of an address as the IP who initiated this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I know a merge doesn't have to go through AfD. But it does have to propose copying one section of an article into another. WP: Merge The more proper forum for a notability discussion, which is what's happening so far, is AfD, in my opinion.BC1278 (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278
so.... - is anyone doing the legwork to get this to conform to WP:MERGE? As I see open points here yet, let me add two:
  • I added the template to the Facebook Article.
  • I also suggest how to merge: we condense the "Career" section into a 3 or 4-sentence paragraph and put it into a newly created chapter 2.7 "Other key personnel" in the Facebook article. Wefa (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is, as has already been pointed out, coverage of her going back to her time at Outcast. This is someone who is notable for their own actions not just for Facebook. Whatever she does next will likely also recieve coverage. Facebook is a big deal and helped cement her notability but is not the sole reason she is notable and so merging her into Facebook is not what best serves our readers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, none of the sources for this article support the contention that Caryn Marooney is notable aside from her employment by Zendesk, OutCast and Facebook. Articles with titles like "Facebook Loses Top PR Exec After Long Year of Public Relations Crises" or "Facebook's top PR exec is leaving" establish the notability of Facebook, not Caryn Marooney. 2600:6C44:E7F:F8D6:8694:953B:9EC1:FBC (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Simply working for a big company doesn't make you important unless you DO something really notable there. No evidence she has. She'd need a lot more coverage independent of FB or involving something notable there to warrant her own article. JamesG5 (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Also, a relatively low-level of corporate hierarchy. Brandmeistertalk 17:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: not independently notable of Facebook. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Kashmiri's WP:NOTINHERITED argument. The subject appears to be a run-of-the-mill low-level corporate executive. Her pre-Facebook coverage doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Her Facebook-related coverage includes a venture capital firm's writeup on a non-notable piece of corporate jargon she coined, a Vogue listicle that quotes her, and rankings on PRWeek's Power List that highlight her for her position at Facebook. That doesn't meet WP:BIO, either. In response to BC1278's diversity argument, I note that a 2018 RfC showed strong opposition against adding diversity to the notability criteria. — Newslinger talk 09:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I don*t see the notability either. What has she done independently of Facebook? Wefa (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems clear that there is a consensus here to merge. I have listed it at Proposed Merges to gain a neutral editor to close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    The proposed merger request is stalled, as this discussion requires closure. I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Talk:Caryn Marooney#Merger proposal. — Newslinger talk 02:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Amazing that we won't have entries on Next Fifteen ([3]) or Tim Dyson or Richard Eyre either once this is deleted... one does wonder how many Next Fifteen (etal.) wiki-workers might be wearing 🎩 more colo(u)rful 🎩 hats for more exposed missions. In any case, en.wiki is usually pretty silent about PR firms and their roles in the mission movement. Why isn't this going through AfD, incidentally? (I don't understand all the procedures). By the way, I just read a 20 March press release that says she's headed to the BoD of Elasticsearch. SashiRolls t · c 22:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    SashiRolls This won't be deleted merely redirected. Because it's a merge discussion it doesn't have to go to AfD. And the level of participation in this discussion would put in the top 5 or 10 percent of discussions at AfD so it's certainly getting a full airing.
    As for the Elasticsearch, being on the Board of Directors is not generally thought to convey notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    if you don't understand the procedures, go read up on them. It's not that hard. WP: merge has been linked several times in this debate, and WP:AfD is equally easy to find, Wefa (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Barkeep49: and others. I would suggest you let this go for another 30 days (or at least 14) and that several more projects be notified. I think the circumstance are unusual here in that a widely-read national publication singled out this article in a story that falsely alleged systematic Wikipedia "whitewashing." It's like a super-charged example of Inappropriate Notification in WP: Canvas. Some independent editors feel very strongly that this article should not be merged, so it's not as though there's no disagreement about what to do here. The only way to address this is to bring in a larger than usual number of experienced Wikipedia editors, unaffected by reading the false allegations in the HuffPo article, to weigh in here. Perhaps also a request at a more general discussion board? If you take my suggestion, someone other than me should decide how to do this on this article. I would not be suggesting this except for the discussion at AN largely discrediting the HuffPo article, so its conscious or subconscious influence here seems inappropriate. [4] I have not been paid, or consulted with anyone, for anything I've done here on Talk since the HuffPo article, although the previous COI I disclosed is, of course, accurate. BC1278 (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
BC1278, obviously no one has chosen to close this yet and so people can, as SashiRolls did, express further opinions. However, just because it was talked about at a very public space does not mean users were canvassed here - the majority of comments I see here are strongly rooted in policy. Further just because they came here because of seeing it at AN doesn't dictate what position they would take in this discussion. Indeed I am here because of that discussion and have !voted similarly to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep: I do see that most people are sincere in their positions. But the situation is unusual because I think the canvasser here is Ashley Feinberg, who self-disclosed on HuffPo. If a Wikipedia editor, under their Wikipedia user name, wrote a column for a Wikipedia blog attacking a specific article (and then, almost immediately, multiple proposals opposing the article appeared on Talk), wouldn't it be a canvas, no matter how sincere the ensuing discussion? Why is this all that different? Feinberg probably even has a user account given how much time she spent on Wikipedia for her article. I don't say this issue presents any argument "pro" or "con" merger. Just pro more discussion. BC1278 (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Media coverage does not count as canvassing, as it's outside the scope of the WP:CANVASSING guideline (especially if you can't identify the reporter's hypothetical Wikipedia account in your allegation). Edits on Wikipedia are public and subject to scrutiny from both editors and non-editors. Articles from news organizations play a key role in Wikipedia content, in areas including sourcing, determination of notability and due weight, and merge discussions. It's unusual for sources to cover a topic's relationship to Wikipedia, but these sources can be used for editorial decisions on Wikipedia when they exist. — Newslinger talk 02:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's clearly self serving attempts at manipulating the system like the one immediately above this that cause many of us to question you being here, @BC1278:, self proclaimed "white hat" status or not. JamesG5 (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I the article puffs up her notability with a lot of low-grade trivial reports about her job moves. All I saw in a search was she's leaving somewhere, she's going to a new job, she got a promotion and so on. I saw one or two interviews and tangential mentions, but they were before Facebook. I saw basically no in-depth coverage of her. Even this Wired article only tells me she is leaving, she worked there and had such and such title. The article section about her motivational essay or whatever it was is also puffed up baloney. Moving this to a couple lines in the Facebook article sounds fine. Or Deletion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Puffery, promotion and ego booting based on trivial mentions.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Not independently notable; relies far too heavily on trivial mentions. --Aquillion (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support or total Delete: There's no 'there' there. References that aren't dead or behind paywalls or register requirements are almost all minor mentions and job change notices. Not notable. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 19:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

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.
Implementing

I have removed the merge-from and merge-to tags from the articles, and will leave it to the primary editors of this page to execute the merge. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and redirected the article. After doing a reread of the Marooney article (last version for reference) and the Facebook article I did not locate any material which made sense to actually incorporate into the Facebook article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Request Edit[edit]


While I am making the following request on an unpaid basis, in the past I have served as a paid consultant to the Outcast Agency, which represents Facebook, and, the following statement concerns my work. So I would like independent editor(s) to review the request.

Request deletion:

"On March 14, Huffington Post reported that Facebook’s PR agency had paid someone to tweak Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s Wikipedia page, as well as adding a page for the global head of PR, Caryn Marooney." [1]

Why?

  • If it were true that I directly edited and posted Wikipedia pages on behalf of Facebook, as this statement says, violating Wikipedia policy, it would be legitimate to include it in the article. But, instead, we know that I followed Wikipedia policy, making my proposals on Talk or AfC, and disclosing I was paid by Facebook's PR firm (see below for links and explanation.) Given these facts, hiring someone to request a correction and, a new article through AfC, is a proper, routine and ordinary matter, happening tens of thousands of times a year on Wikipedia. So it fails under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, despite the sensationalistic headline and claims in the HuffPo essay.
  • The HuffPo essay's allegations were reviewed at length at the Admin Noticeboard. An independent admin, User:SoWhy, summed up the consensus of the discussion as "a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU." Admin Noticeboard Requests for Closure. The admin User: Swarm investigated the essay's claims in-depth and found them to be "trumped-up clickbaity garbage." As User: Collect stated on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion of this article, "Where an article is clearly one filled with the opinions of its author, it ceases to be a reliable source for "claims of fact", which is the case at hand." At best, the HuffPo article can be cited for the statements of opinion of the author. Reliable Source Noticeboard.
  • The HuffPo essay's general lack of reliability is evident in the specific false claim that I was paid to "tweak Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s Wikipedia page." While this is an accurate summary of what the HuffPo essay says, it is false. I did not tweak Sheryl Sandberg page -- there was no direct editing. Rather, I requested a correction on the article's Talk page that a false claim that Sandberg had been indicted for the crime of "incitement to hatred" in Germany be removed or modified. An independent editor decided to remove the claim and did so. A "tweak" to a page can only be read as meaning a direct edit, which is untrue. And asking that a false allegation of a criminal indictment be removed from a BLP is hardly minor, as "tweak" implies. The HuffPo author mischaracterizes the issue as a minor "tweak" to make it seem like an illegitimate promotional action, not a significant correction request. Nor did I directly "add" a page for Caryn Marooney, as the statement says. I proposed a new article through WP:AfC, which was independently reviewed and approved. [5] This is the rare case where the Wikipedia community can judge the veracity of a source based on internal review, as has already been done at AN, summarized by an uninvolved admin at Admin Noticeboard Requests for Closure. BC1278 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Feinberg, Askley (March 14, 2019). "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages". Huffington Post. Retrieved March 15, 2019.
 Comment: I agree with everything you've said in this post except for one claim: "A "tweak" to a page can only be read as meaning a direct edit, which is untrue".[a] Setting aside the largely philosophical question of directness when it comes to making edit requests, the other question which arises is what the word tweak means.
  1. twist or pull (something) sharply
  2. improve (a mechanism or system) by making fine adjustments to it
If one accepts the second definition above, then the claim statement is saying that Facebook's PR agency paid someone to improve the article, which is what you've stated here as what happened. Now I'm not suggesting that this is Feinberg's intended meaning, only that whomever placed the claim in the article used that term and didn't really define it any further (I read the HuffPo article awhile back and don't remember if Feinberg uses that exact term.) As far as saying that tweak can only mean direct editing and not direct suggesting, that seems to be, as I mentioned above, a question of hermeneutics. But I'm definately curious to see how other editor's see this.  Spintendo  20:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Luckily, the first and second bullet points suffice, so we can agree to disagree on "tweak", and it shouldn't affect the outcome. BC1278 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ By saying "which is untrue", the COI editor is not referring to their interpretation of "tweaking" the page as meaning directly editing it — rather, they are referring to the claim itself as being untrue — that they "tweaked the page". According to the logic of that interpretation, because they did not directly edit the article, any statement that they "tweaked the page" is untrue. A better way that the COI editor could have stated this torturous phrase would have been to say: "A 'tweak' to a page can only be read as meaning a direct edit. Because no direct edits were made, saying that I 'tweaked' the page is untrue."

@BC1278: I suggest we change the phrase to say the following: On March 14, Huffington Post reported that Facebook’s PR agency had paid someone to request improvements to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s Wikipedia page, as well as requests for the creation of a page covering the global head of PR, Caryn Marooney." Please advise your thoughts on this.  Spintendo  20:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: The thing is, I think you're correcting a factual mistake in HuffPo by saying they paid someone (me) for "to request improvements" since the article actually says I "tweak[ed]" the page and I "whitewash[ed]" the pages. These allegations are policy violations of Wikipedia. Even if you disagree with me that "tweaked" means or strongly implies direct editing, surely "whitewash[ed]" means improper editing by acting unethically or violating policy somehow or another. But the way you're phrasing it, it's not a policy violation or ethical problem, so it doesn't portray the article's serious allegations accurately. You're "whitewashing" HuffPo! :) HuffPo would never have run an article about routine corrections and requests. It's alleging a scandal. Yet AN has found there were no policy violations and the writer of the article doesn't understand Wikipedia. The consensus on RSN was not to decide whether the article was a RS since AN already addressed the issue. And we know what AN found. So the serious allegations of policy violations should not be used on Wikipedia, nor should they be softened to let them slip by as innocuous, IMO. The article is not a RS for facts, as User: Collect, User: Swarm, User: Barkeep and others have said -- it should only be used for opinions. Even if you don't buy any of that, how is using official channels to request that Wikipedia correct a false allegation that their COO was indicted in Germany for inciting hatred possibly anything but WP:NOTNEWS? And how are we supposed to get the subjects of articles to abide by WP:COI disclosure requirements if they can't even request a correction for a serious matter involving false allegation of a crime without the correction request showing up in the Wikipedia article about the subject as some sort of newsworthy scandal? Putting this on a prominent article like Facebook of all places, dooms WP: COI disclosure. If someone thinks Feinberg's opinions about Wikipedia are worthwhile for the encyclopedia, then Wikipedia would be the place to try.BC1278 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
If you need further proof that including in Wikipedia articles the scandalization of routine, permissible Wikipedia disclosed COI edit requests, will kill public disclosure on Talk, just see this Wired story. The community consensus is that public disclosure be on Talk, not inside Wikipedia articles, presented as newsworthy events.BC1278 (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion on HuffPo source's claims[edit]

KEEP:
Snow Rise stole my thunder on this close, making most of the statements that I was formulating prior to reading their comment. I concur that the WP:WEIGHT argument presented by Colin M and ReconditeRodent does have some heft behind it. This is a close call of sorts, but I also concur that the coverage is WP:DUE. Multiple reliable sources have commented on this and Colin M is right in stating "the argument advanced by BC1278 is a form of original research under our policies: our users--even our admins--do not constitute WP:reliable sources under our policies, insofar as determining the content of our articles is concerned." As such, I am closing this discussion as keep. With all that said, I should note that there appeared to be no opposition to the rewording as suggested by Spintendo and partial support for incorporating the Wired source in some fashion. I do not think that those who commented would be opposed to those options. They may be worth exploring to further improve the article's sourcing and accuracy regarding this. --Regards, TheSandDoctor Talk 04:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
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.

Should the following be deleted from Facebook?: "On March 14, Huffington Post reported that Facebook’s PR agency had paid someone to tweak Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s Wikipedia page, as well as adding a page for the global head of PR, Caryn Marooney.[1] BC1278 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Note: while I am posting this RfC on an unpaid basis, in the past I have served as a paid consultant to the Outcast Agency, which represents Facebook, and, the statement concerns my work.

  • The source here is headlined: "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages." The HuffPo essay's allegations were reviewed at length at the Admin Noticeboard. An independent admin, User:SoWhy, summed up the consensus of the discussion as "a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU." Admin Noticeboard Requests for Closure. The admin User: Swarm investigated the essay's claims in-depth and found them to be sensationalistic, "trumped-up clickbaity garbage." "Eight admins have replied to the thread. All eight appear to be on the same page that the article is exaggerated sensationalism, and that the editor has not actually has done anything wrong."[6] Or, as User: Someguy1221 put it: "I guess CORPORATE PR PHONY WIKIPEDIA EDITOR WHITEWASHES ARTICLES is more compelling clickbait than Several companies pay Wikipedia editor to file routine boring complaints about content that arguably violates Wikipedia's own policies." Admin Noticeboard. At best, the HuffPo article can be cited for the statements of opinion of the author, not used for claims of facts, as it is here.
  • How is using the official Contact Us process for requesting a correction to a libelous statement that their COO was indicted in Germany for inciting hatred possibly anything other than WP:NOTNEWS? Wikipedia instructs subjects of articles to post requests for corrections on Talk or to propose new articles via AfC, publicly disclosing a WP:COI. This happens tens of thousands of times a year on Wikipedia. As an event, this falls squarely under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, espcially in an article about an important company like Facebook. Including a very routine matter like this in the article is actually meant to 1) discourage the subjects of all articles from making correction or edit requests on Talk. The world will take notice that this means Wikipedia will actively harm the reputation of those who follow its public disclosure rules. See Wired for how this plays out in the national press; 2) to find a backdoor to publicize the false allegations of the HuffPo essay, including that Facebook "whitewashed" pages. Having such a discredited article in the citations of a level4/vital article, and one of the most viewed articles on Wikipedia, make all its claims seem highly credible, when AN has found the opposite. BC1278 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I want to point out a column in Wired magazine concerning this HuffPo article. You'll see their are corrections at the bottom. After an investigation, they retracted statements that said or implied Wikipedia policy violations by me, such as canvassing or puffing up articles. In fact, Wired bent over backwards to say I not only followed Wikipedia policy, but provided useful proposals on Talk. It quotes Swarm in the AN investigation: “Most of the supposed ‘whitewashing’ seems to be mundane matters that don’t harm articles at all, if not actual improvements.” Wired investigated carefully and their conclusions (and corrections) about my Wikipedia involvement is 180 degrees the opposite of HuffPo. It's a repudiation of HuffPo's wild allegations, even though that's not the point of the Wired article.BC1278 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
As the RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Talk:Facebook#RfC on inclusion on HuffPo source's claims. — Newslinger talk 10:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

!vote[edit]

  • No, do not delete. Spintendo's suggested rephrasing ("On March 14, Huffington Post reported that Facebook’s PR agency had paid someone to request improvements to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s Wikipedia page, as well as requests for the creation of a page covering the global head of PR, Caryn Marooney") from the above section is an accurate and verifiable summary of the source that is due in the article, although I would change "Huffington Post" to "HuffPost". At Talk:Caryn Marooney § Merger proposal, there was consensus to merge the Caryn Marooney article into the Facebook article, and this is the only relevant portion of the Caryn Marooney article to include here. The Wired (RSP entry) article mentioned above ("Want to Know How to Build a Better Democracy? Ask Wikipedia") supports the statement, and should also be cited. — Newslinger talk 10:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Okay to add to Caryn Marooney's page but not the company's. Meatsgains(talk) 00:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not delete - Per Newslinger, the sentence should be rephrased as "On March 14, HuffPost reported that Facebook’s PR agency had paid someone to request improvements to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s Wikipedia page, as well as requests for the creation of a page covering the global head of PR, Caryn Marooney."[2][3]  Spintendo  18:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete for a different reason. I just don't think it's sufficiently noteworthy to the topic of Facebook that it's worth mentioning in the article. We can't cover every single news story involving Facebook in one article. If this incident were to be mentioned anywhere, I think Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia is a more appropriate article. And indeed, it looks like this is briefly mentioned there (In March 2019 HuffPost reported on paid conflict-of-interest editing by Ed Sussman, a lawyer). Whether that mention should be removed under User:BC1278's rationale, I'm a bit ambivalent (though if it's not removed, I think it should be reworded and expanded to give more context). I'm sympathetic to the explanation of why the HuffPo article was misleading, but digging through user comments on a website (even if that website happens to be the one we're on right now), has a whiff of WP:OR to it. I don't suppose there's been anything published in RS since the HuffPo piece that has reported on the aftermath and the admins' findings? Colin M (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Colin M: An RSN discussion was started, then archived without close. User: Nosebagbear reviewed the RSN discussion and said "as an uninvolved editor I gave a look over and opted against formally closing it since it seems a slight majority of editors think that RSN shouldn't have re-looked at the case. As only those who think that it was legitimate to look at actually cast !votes, it's an inherently disrupted discussion." ANI.
Above unsigned comment made by BC1278.
  • Keep. This is evidently notable and quite important information, especially in light of the ongoing, wide ranging debate about the use and potential misuse of online data in general by Facebook. The information is entirely adequately supported. -The Gnome (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as Caryn Marooney redirects to this page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable for inclusion. Atsme Talk 📧 05:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a poor source that trumps up and misrepresents routine public relations. Consider content written from the superior Wired article on the topic as a replacement. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:THEGNOME. I also agree about the relevance of the information. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep notable information. Masum Reza📞 10:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Facebook isn't the primary subject of the article, and only gets a paragraph. Insofar as it relates to Facebook, I can't find any other serious sources who've covered this as a story, other than the passing mentions in Wired. This is a very long article and there's plenty else that could use the space. As Colin says, it makes more sense to just have a line covering the full scope of the articles somewhere like Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • KeepI also agree with the authenticity and security of the information.--Zhangpeiyao (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Lean towards keep. This is apparently covered in multiple sources (and yes, both Wired and Huffington Post clear our RS standards by light years--I'm not a routine reader of either publication, but if there was an RSN discussion regarding either, I can understand why it was closed summarily as non-productive, since both are used daily on this project across hundreds, if not thousands, of articles). Now the WP:WEIGHT argument advanced above by Colin M and ReconditeRodent does have a little more heft behind it, but while I will grant that it is a somewhat close call, I would say this falls just on the affirmative side of WP:DUE; multiple news outlets have commented upon the purported activity and as Colin also points out, the argument advanced by BC1278 is a form of original research under our policies: our users--even our admins--do not constitute WP:reliable sources under our policies, insofar as determining the content of our articles is concerned. You can't reference a Wikipedia article as a source for another article, and you certainly can't cite an ANI thread. And even if we could, that would just mean there was another voice to add to the narrative; it wouldn't negate the existing coverage, as that's just not how WP:WEIGHT works on this project.
So yes, close call on the W:DUE determination merely as a virtue of the scope of this article and the bevy of controversies Facebook has been embroiled in at this point, but I think a short reference to this episode is warranted: our readers can decide for themselves how credible the source is upon review, if they are so inclined--we cite our sources for exactly that purposes, but it is certainly not our place as editors to impress our own conclusions about what is 'sensationalist' reporting upon the reader by omitting reference to particular coverage we have developed our own idiosyncratic conclusions about: that would be textbook original research. Indeed, I'm pretty sure one or both of the admins referenced above would tell you as much themselves: they developed their conclusions as part of our internal community processes, not an editorial determination. Snow let's rap 06:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
FYI, having now read the Huffington Post piece in its entirety, I do tend to agree its a bit of hatchet job evidencing a whole lot of confirmation bias about the topic filtered through a mediocre understanding of this project's processes. There are a number of statements that are clearly meant to be indictments that actually argue for Sussman conducting his COI editing in above-board manner--incidentally, I did not realize until after reading the article in full that User:BC1278 was Sussman: that's something that could stand to be noted more explicitly above in the RfC prompt. But getting back to the source, when someone makes a statement like "Although he’s only technically allowed to suggest changes on a subject’s Talk page, Sussman has an impressive track record of getting edits approved on behalf of his clients." and doesn't realize that this is actually pretty strong argument for Sussman working within our (fairly expansive) rules for COI editors, managing to garner consensus despite the added scrutiny, it sure does paint a picture of someone trying to put spin on a story, but that person is not Sussman. The source goes on to try to paint the entirety of the Wikipedia community and the project's COI review apparatus as being overwhelmed by a barrage of arguments from Sussman, as if we don't routinely deal with obnoxious stone-walling and have methodologies to shut it down when it gets excessive. BC1278, I will say that there is something of a grain of truth to the wall of text charge, and that's something you might want to keep in mind, particularly when doing your paid advocacy work here, but overall, I see no strong evidence thus far that you have abused process or acted outside of the norms we expect of COI editors.
So, yes I do get it. I do share the apparent findings of the ANI thread if they are accurately summarized above, and I get why the editor in question would be annoyed and would view this article as a hit piece inspired more by the author's feelings about his (Sussman's) clientele than an accurate appraisal of his conduct on this site. However, I am afraid none of that changes the basis of my analysis in my first post immediately above: I write this second message simply to clarify where I am coming from and that it should not be taken as an indication that this community is endorsing the views expressed in that source, should the contents of that source be related here. Unfortunately, you became a part of the story as soon as the Huffington Post article was written, but I'd suggest that being in PR, you might want to get comfortable with the possibility that such things will happen from time to time. In any event, the "fairness" factor put well to the side, as it should be, it's just not our place (when working on the content for a given article) to second guess the positions of reliable sources, even where they pertain to what happens on Wikipedia itself. So I'm still inclined to include the statement in question, though I do think the exact wording should be managed carefully so as to avoid undue implication that the Huffington Post article's charges are credible. I don't think we can omit them under these circumstances, but neither should we be adding credence to the claims. Snow let's rap 07:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Feinberg, Ashley (March 14, 2019). "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages". Huffington Post. Retrieved March 15, 2019.
  2. ^ Cohen, Noam (7 April 2019). "Want to Know How to Build a Better Democracy? Ask Wikipedia". Wired.
  3. ^ Feinberg, Ashley (March 14, 2019). "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages". Huffington Post. Retrieved March 15, 2019.

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 13 May 2019[edit]

There is very little here on US 2016 elections. And nothing on Brexit. I wish to make major contributions that rectify this. DataDebs (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ChamithN (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Advertising" be added as "Industry"?[edit]

I mean, this is how Facebook makes money. Pelroy (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2019[edit]

Add "Advertising" to the mentioned industries in which the company operates. Advertising is both the company's main revenue model and it has several products specifically related to advertising like Facebook Audience Network Pelroy (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to make that change myself without further input/consensus, but I'm inclined to agree that there is a strong argument for this. Indeed "Internet" is a pretty vague term for the kind of services (both to the end-user and marketing sides of its relationships) that this company provides. I would suggest replacing that one word with "social media, advertising" or even just "social media" if consensus does not end up supporting the inclusion of the advertising element. Though honestly, while such companies do tend to define themselves to the average user in terms of the services they are offering them, I think Pelroy makes a pretty good argument based on the fact that Facebook's "customers" are ultimately other corporations interested in both the advertising market it represents and the troves of information (personal and demographic) that it often has to offer to the same advertising industry giants. Snow let's rap 07:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Facebook is the #2 digital advertiser in the US, according to eMarketer data cited in The Washington Post.[1] I've implemented Snow Rise's suggestion, supported by the source. — Newslinger talk 00:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Shaban, Hamza (February 20, 2019). "Digital advertising to surpass print and TV for the first time, report says". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 2, 2019.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2019[edit]

197.41.223.163 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Newslinger talk 23:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)