Talk:List of social networking websites/Archive 2

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

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3


Does anybody mind if I do cleanup based on the notable criteria set out? I'm not good enough to write my own articles yet from the looks of it, but I wouldn't mind looking after this one. I've noticed more spam sliding in with nothing really to set these sites out. My current edits are in the diff. Mbhmirc 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's great that you want to take an interest in the maintainance of this article. It is certainly prone to spam, and you were absolutely right to remove MyCyberScene. I've reverted your removal of Downelink, however. Any social networking site which has an article on Wikipedia is considered sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in this link. If you think the notability of Downelink is questionable (with reference to our inclusion guidelines at WP:WEB) then that article should be nominated for deletion (see WP:AFD). If deleted, it can then be removed from this list. UkPaolo/talk 21:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok i wasn't sure with that last one I did hence the longer message I left, I'll keep this in mind in the future thanks. Mbhmirc 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly convinced with Downelinks notability however, and was tempted to nominate for deletion. Haven't got the time to check for references to it in the media at the moment, though. UkPaolo/talk 22:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK it's the only gay only community website i know of. Other than that I can only find blog entries and refrences to a party they had for one year of running. Mbhmirc 15:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Pending addition

From "Ultimate List of Social Networks":

  • Joga
  • Xianz

Both of these are new but will probably become notable soon. Others:

  • Piczo - A GeoCities clone laid out like a social networking site
  • Dogster - absolutely nn
  • Ryze - 250,000 members. somewhat borderline nevermind: Ryze
  • Mooble - Launched a few weeks ago. Personally, I hope to God this doesn't become notable.
  • Zorpia - no usercount

Ashibaka tock 14:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate that Piczo has no "social networking" functions, it's just a free webhost. Ashibaka tock 02:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

We need references for user counts. Shawnc 17:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of them are sourced in the article or on the website, should I give a reference anyway? Ashibaka tock 18:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, remarkably few of the user counts are cited in the articles and it's definitely something which would add encyclopedic value. I've added a few refs... UkPaolo/talk 19:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dating sites

Sites in here: Category:Online dating should be added. I can't help now - suffering from wiki-related RSI.

Some sites are pay, some free. Where can we put this info? What format? E.g. all free unless marked (pay) in last column?

btw, this page shows a lot of work has been put in - well done to all.

btw2, I know Wikipedia is not a web directory... but is there a good web directory of social networking websites? --Singkong2005 04:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I disagree, "online dating websites" are not necessarily social networking websites (or are they? correct me if I'm wrong). Regarding payment, I would have thought it should be specified in the "registration" (last) column. UkPaolo/talk 19:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought that dating is social networking, albeit a specific type... still, having them separate is not a bad idea. But certainly they're related, so I've added See also section, with "Online dating category - articles on a number of dating sites." --Singkong2005 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


For the benefit of anyone interested, I have started an AfD for People Fisher at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Fisher, and {{prod}}ed Campus Beaver, GROU.PS and Ryze. UkPaolo/talk 20:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

ZEBO is also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZEBO following de-{{prod}}ing. UkPaolo/talk 16:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
For anyone interested, Microsoft's Wallop (which interestingly was officially announced to be launched as a spin-off company from Microsoft Research today) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wallop (not by me, I've voted strongly to keep). UkPaolo/talk 11:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Shouldn't Multiply be added to the list? I'm not experienced enough at editing to add it myself though. --Alli4000 03:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Friend Circles and Ringo should be on the list too. - Nick C 14:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Multiply links to the mathematical concept. Is there an article on the social networking site? If so, please link to the article. If not, please create such an article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Would you mind adding, 13,000 members but all old members are deleted if they have not logged in for a period of two months so these are active members not just dead profiles, this is one of the oldest social sites on the web.

Find sources Ashibaka tock 22:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to this edit I think should be blacklisted from this page. It's hardly notable anyway. Please remove it if you see it. Ashibaka tock 22:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For another view, see User talk:Kharri04. She seems to have a case for notability, and a WP article backing up the listing. WP:AGF or WP:SPAM? I dunno. · rodii · 02:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess WP:AGF overrules here, although I'm not sure whether she should be able to insert her own website into the page anyway. Ashibaka tock 18:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


deviantart is also an online community not only for artists but for friends as well i think it should be included in the list 05:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it allow you to list your friends? Ashibaka tock 06:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. And I agree that DA should probably be included. DiamonDie 08:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

orkut users

orkut tells me: You are connected to 22,655,984 people through 1 friends. 18:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps we should rename this to "List of notable social networking websites" since that's what it really is. Czj 17:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely this would apply to every "List of" article on Wikipedia? I'd say it goes without saying. Mdwh 18:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I could go either way. Perhaps what is needed is a clear description of what notability means for this list, since people seem to have trouble with the concept. · rodii · 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe we've been working on the consensus that it needs to satisfy the same requirements of notability as needing an article (see Wikipedia:Notability_(web)) - which, in practice, means requiring that an entry actually has a Wikipedia article. This is already explained in the main article (as a comment), I don't think spammers are going to pay attention. Mdwh 18:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that those are the guidelines (I wrote that comment, I think). And I agree about spammers. I wonder if making the criteria more obvious might help, though. · rodii · 19:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Please add this article to your watchlist... it's a great list, but spam entries are frequently injected into it. If we band together to watch for this sort of thing, the article should stay nice and clean. 21:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


Does Orkut display the number of users connected once you are logged in? The stat given is from March, so the number is probably greater by now. Czj 20:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Today it tells me I'm connected to 24,359,314 people. Ashibaka tock 00:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please clean up and semi-protect this list

This is a very useful list of social networking sites. Unfortunately, spam from anonymous (and newly-registered) users is a huge problem, and was one reason why this article was listed on AfD. Therefore, I propose we end the spam problem once and for all.

Firstly, we must clean up the current list. Of the 72 (yes, I counted!) fansites in the list, I believe less than half deserve mention in this list. Some of the sites are definitely not notable, and some sites in the list are not social networking sites at all (they may be forums, blogging or tagging sites).

We must define the criteria for "notable" and "social networking site". Then we must look through all the entries to check which meet the criteria. Only sites which meet both the criteria will remain in the list. My criteria for "notable" would be "at least 1 million users unless it is famous for something else" and for "social networking site", my definition is "sites that allow you to build a social network of friends to communicate with". These are just my criteria, and we must find a criteria for which there is consensus.

Once the list is cleaned up, it is important to ensure that spam does not build up again. As an overwhelming majority of spam comes from anonymous users, and a reasonable percentage from newly-registered users, I suggest permanent semi-protection as the best method of dealing with spam. The more Wikipedians who have this article on their watchlist (I do, and have removed obvious spam), the better. Once the article is semi-protected, we should add a comment to the article, informing users who cannot edit the article due to the semi-protection that should they wish to add a site in the list, they should discuss on the talk page and get consensus first.

Hopefully my suggestions will be successful in getting rid of spam to this article, once and for all.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the criteira for "social networking site" could be better defined, but disagree with everything else. Semi-protection on an ongoing basis just isn't going to happen, see WP:SEMI. And if you think those sites are genuinely non-notable, they should be nominated for deletion. If they're notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, they're notable enough to be in this list, in my opinion. · rodii · 13:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of the social networking sites in this list currently have their articles on AfD. What I meant was that we should review all the sites and their articles, to verify they are notable. If any of the sites aren't notable, list their articles on AfD and remove them from the list. In Comparison of webmail providers, only the big four e-mail providers - Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail, Gmail and AIM Mail - are listed; however, many webmail providers, though not as notable and not in the list, are still notable enough to have their own articles. Runbox, and FastMail are three examples.
Many of the sites listed are notable, but are not social networking sites; these should be removed, or moved to another list. You agreed that "social networking site" should be better defined.
I know that permanent semi-protection is very rare, though there are cases, such as George W. Bush. I think that being afraid to permanently semi-protect articles is a huge mistake, that opens articles to massive amounts of vandalism and spam. For example, in the interests of allowing anonymous vandals to edit, some incompetent administrators don't want to keep the RuneScape article semi-protected. And that's why the article is a huge mess and full of vandalism. If it had been permanently semi-protected since I joined Wikipedia, RuneScape would pass Good Article by now. If you want this article to get spam until the day the anonymous vandals and spammers ruin Wikipedia, well, leave the article non-semi-protected. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone think is also a social site?----Always Gotta Keep It Real, Cute 1 4 u 02:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Maybe, not sure. There is a group of users who put out video blogs regularly and have thousands of subscribers. They respond to each other's videos with video responses. Some talk about their innermost secrets. Some have upwards of a hundred videoblog entries. I was totally unaware of this pocket of users until a few days ago. Not sure if it's sizable enough to be considered social networking, though. Czj 02:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone here think Zaadz is a valid social networking site? I know it is. I've added it a couple of times and have even included citations from third-party reviewers. But a certain user, named AcePuppy, kept deleting it. I've engaged AcePuppy in a discussion (, but I'm not getting a satisfactory reply. I don't want to play the "tag, you're it" game. So I'm elevating this discussion where more people can see this so that we can have a better consensus. -- coolmel 02:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Music composing communities

I noticed there's almost zero communities based on collaborative composing music (rather than based on recommendations, playlists, illegal sharing and so on). Does anyone knows one of these? I think it would be interesting!
I think maybe iCompositions (collaborative compositions with GarageBand) could meet these concept. Do you think it'll be appropriate in that list?