From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Facebook 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.
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017[edit]

In the article, it says "...the backend is written in Java and Thrift is used as the messaging...," but the link to the article for Java goes to the island of Java in Indonesia. It needs to be a link to

If this is changed, the usefulness of the article will be increased. Personally, I use such links a lot, so a broken/incorrect link is bad. I hope this is changed! Bobdabiulder (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Done NeilN talk to me 02:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Full Copy-Edit[edit]

I'm planning to attempt a full copy-edit of the article later this week. I'm doing some editing on the Google article as well. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2017[edit] -> Emotional health impact -> Last word of first paragraph -> esteeem -> esteem Cminusincplusplus (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017[edit]


st:void|State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes, preferably in a "change X to Y" format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined.}} (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2017 (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. — IVORK Discuss 12:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

TOC limit and Criticism section[edit]

Hi everybody! I hate the "TOC limit" that prevents subsections from being shown in the table of contents. However, I also notice that the "Criticism and controversies" section contains an excessive amount of subsections, many of which the average user don't necessarily need to know about here in the main article. I will be attempting to move some of the sections to the main Criticism of Facebook article, eventually replacing the subsections with an overview of the most prominent and persistent issues. This won't be done in five minutes, but I wanted to write a message here stating my intention. LocalNet (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear UserLocal! Criticism section (FSB / kremlin /Spins Smock / Emotional discoloration / dubious transactions, etc.) serves exclusively for exchanges game on downsampling the faceboock securities; But. The stock exchanges are not going very far! Bilingual roof (Russian / English) give, yes, adequate security for investors and securities owners. Hofrfe helped you with this. Sincerely.Facebook Fann (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. To be honest, I have no understanding of any of that. LocalNet (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Facebook Aktie [Valor: 14917609 / ISIN: US30303M1027]
13:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC); 129,5 CH Frank's
16:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC) 135 CH Frank's

Article length[edit]

@LocalNet: I don't think that reverting all of my edits was necessary. This article is alarmingly becoming a guide. An example is this sentence: After registering to use the site, users can create a user profile indicating their name, occupation, schools attended and so on. Users can add other users as "friends", exchange messages, post status updates and digital photos, share digital videos and links, use various software applications ("apps"), and receive notifications when others update their profiles or make posts. I think the main problem concerning this article's length includes the lead section. The "website" section of the article is even worse, I think that the Like button section of this article is the only appropriately sized sub-section under website. Sub-sections do not need to be that big especially when they have a main article. The biggest problem in terms of sub-sections/main articles is the News feed section. For example, part of the opening paragraph: which appears on every user's homepage and highlights information including profile changes, upcoming events, and birthdays of the user's friends. This enabled spammers and other users to manipulate these features by creating illegitimate events or posting fake birthdays to attract attention to their profile or cause. Initially, the News Feed caused dissatisfaction among Facebook users; some complained it was too cluttered and full of undesired information, others were concerned that it made it too easy for others to track individual activities (such as relationship status changes, events, and conversations with other users). Most of that information is excessive and is non-encyclopedic, but considering it has a main article linked to it, it should be even less detailed. The article as a whole is too long to comfortably read. Music1201 talk 18:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Music1201: I fully understand that you disagree with me reverting your edits and I did express my feelings that I didn't like to do it either. But I viewed the edits you made as too drastic. I'm happy we can have a conversation.
You are absolutely right in some of your remarks, especially regarding the "News Feed" section. I am actively working on improving the main News Feed article, and in the end, I have plans to use the lead summary of that article as the summary in that section here. For examples, see the "Like button" and "Instant messaging" sections, where I personally made lots of edits in each of their articles, eventually building a lead summary that was then used in the page here. I have not yet finished the News Feed article, but it is a work in progress. This Facebook article, and its associated topics, don't appear to have had any active editors in a long while. There is much work to do, but I am slowly, but surely trying to fix it. (Check the page history and you'll see my name pop up a lot hehe).
The lead section on Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the article. At this point, it does not do that properly enough, but I am also working on that. But the lead should indeed contain information on what a registered member on Facebook gets to do. The WP:NOTGUIDE policy on "Internet guides" (I'm assuming that's the one you're referring to) states that "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance". The article as a whole describes much more than the lead, and the lead section needs reworking to properly balance all information in the article. But removing information on what a registered membership means would, in my opinion, make the article worse, not better. I would like to edit the lead section more, especially with a little further information on its user growth and extensive criticisms, but I like to write the actual content first and then change the lead. But I'm just one person, doing this on voluntary basis, so it won't be done within five minutes. But I am working on it. LocalNet (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@LocalNet: I agree with what you are saying, although the sentences that I mentioned above are examples of why this article is so miserably long. In general, the length of the article needs to be reduced. Music1201 talk 17:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Music1201: You are absolutely right that the article length needs to be reduced. Working towards that goal. Just a few days ago, I removed lots of information that was either a duplicate of information relating to other sections or unnecessary for this article. More editing needs to be done to reach a desired length, but I'm working on it :) LocalNet (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

What is LSM???[edit]

Unfortunately, the term "LSM" is linked only with a disambiguation. What does LSM stand for here? I couldn't find any suitable meaning on the disambig.--Curc (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Curc: I have no clue. But here's a bold thought, how about we remove the info? The text "Despite Facebook's age demographics, a study has identified five distinctive kinds of high LSM Facebook users. The study found that the popular assumption among advertisers that the wealthy aren’t engaging with social media platforms, was incorrect. For brands or companies to leverage Facebook as an advertising medium to higher LSM users, extensive target market and customer base knowledge is required to execute an effective marketing strategy" seems more like a guide to effective marketing rather than related to Facebook. What do you think? LocalNet (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, @LocalNet: Very nice of you to answer! I, for my part, wouldn't mind at all if you removed that part. Best--Curc (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
PS: Also, I fail to see a real relation between the statement about the wealthy not engaging in social networks and the infos how brands and companies can use Facebook most effectively... Just out of curiosity: Do you see any connection here or are those supposed to be two separate aspects?--Curc (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Curc: It seemingly looks to relate to the same sources, but I also fail to see how the information relates to each other. I'm just going to remove it either way. Unclear and unhelpful info. LocalNet (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Curc: @LocalNet: It appears that "LSM" refers to "Living Standard Measure". It is 'a thing' and all things being equal I would have kept it. However, on reading that block of text it looks like someone is trying to promote their services -- not saying that is the case, but it looks like it and I am not sure overall it enhances this particular article. Leaving it as I found it :) DeepNorth (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@DeepNorth: Thank you for your comment!--Curc (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Open Standards[edit]

Does Facebook supports open standards, such as OpenID, RSS, DNT ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)