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 organisation:

Faster Than a Speeding Bullet[edit]

Under the early history of the site, it says, "Zuckerberg wrote a program called Facemash on October 28, 2003 while attending Harvard…" Really? He wrote the whole program on one day? I know he's talented, but somehow I doubt this. 2601:9:A80:7CE:74D1:52C7:C4A:2987 (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Usually that wording indicates it was released on that day, but in Facemash's case, it's fairly doable. Facemash was essentially something along the lines of this: [1] Nothing too fancy/difficult. I would argue most experienced web developers familiar with PHP and databases could probably do the same. Really only requires a single page and pictures in a database. Couple hours even if you already have a script for scraping the pictures into the database. ― Padenton|   08:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like original research to me.-- (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It was not creaded in one day....I remember an article... an interview with zuckerberg where he talks about how he started it on Wednesday, worked on it on Thursday and the laptop that was hosting it eventually broke because it was right by the shower. If anyone could find this and cite that'd be awesome!Jakesyl (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC) updating now

Rainbow/US flag filter controversy[edit]

There should be an article about the rainbow flag filter created in the aftermath of the (fantastic) news in America, the news speculation about it being a Facebook social experiment, and the backlash by conservatives who are using a US flag filter. Theres def. something notable in there.

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}} I am in new Orleans louisana not Washington or Alaska … The following coordinate fixes are needed for — (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • You are at Wikipedia, not Facebook; this is an encyclopedia article about Facebook. The only geographic coordinates that appear in the article are those of Facebook's corporate headquarters in California, not those of any place in Washington or Alaska (or New Orleans). If Facebook somehow has misidentified your location, you'll have to take the matter up with them. We have no connection with Facebook and thus can do nothing about the matter. Deor (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Note & Request[edit]

  • There are many Wikipedia articles concerning cities linked to Facebook pages. Example: Antwerp, Belgium... Can you please explain in this article, how Facebook links the Wikipedia articles to the convenient Facebook pages? Because for some towns there is no article linked on Facebook despite that there are existing articles on Wikipedia. Example: Jeddayel, Lebanon!

Thank you in advance and kind regards. Georges, Georges A. —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015[edit]

Please add the following to the 'Criticisms and controversies' section:

Aggressive tax avoidance[edit]

Facebook uses a complicated series of shell companies and the [Double Irish arrangement|Double Irish]] and Dutch Sandwich tax avoidance schemes to avoid Corporate tax, routing billions of dollars in profits to accounts in the [{Cayman Islands]]Corporate tax.[1].

Relyiar (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's already mentioned in the section "Offices". Stickee (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverting Controversies section to older version[edit]

AmericanDad86 was permablocked for vandalism, so I've reverted the controversies section to its version before he had started editing the article. The main changes I made at [2] are:

  • Rearranging the sections to their previous arrangement
  • Removing one section that had been redundant (with the real name policy section) and was essentially a rant sourced with a conspiracy website
  • Returning neutral section headings

The section probably still has plenty of issues regarding which subset from Criticism of Facebook should be notable enough to mention here, but I shouldn't be the only one deciding this and I've already done a fair amount of NPOV stuff on these articles, should get a fresh look from someone else. My changes are based on this version of the page: [3] but I only touched the criticism and controversy section. ― Padenton|   21:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Why does the lede[edit]

…so poorly reflect, in scope and emphasis, the content of the actual article? Per WP policy, the lede for longer articles is suppose to be a reflection of well-sourced content within the whole of the article (all important and main points surveyed). The lede, as it stands, is almost purely focused on function, and then on business development and capitalization, to the exclusion of many important article components. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see this comment regarding discrepant historical statements[edit]

…between this main article, and the History of Facebook article. See Talk:History_of_Facebook#How_is_it_that. Discuss there. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2015[edit] (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)