Talk:Facebook/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2017

Please change "A joint study by two German universities discovered that one out of three people were more dissatisfied with their lives after visiting Facebook, and another study by Utah Valley University found that college students felt worse about their own lives following an increase in the amount of time spent on Facebook.[409][410][411]" to " A joint study by two German universities discovered that one out of three people were more dissatisfied with their lives after visiting Facebook, and another study by Utah Valley University found that college students felt worse about their own lives following an increase in the amount of time spent on Facebook.[409][410][411] . According to professor Schwatrz (2010), the more frequently people go on Facebook and update their status the lower their self-esteem."

Please add the following new paragraph in the end of section "Emotional health impact": Dr Flores(2014) explains that social-media users usually split their time between Facebook and interacting in the real world. Sharing experiences with fiends on Facebook, or when something entertaining happens in real life, people feel the need to share it might seem harmless, however at some point people begin to substitute one reality with another. As a result people start to change their behaviour and even their assumptions about live, love and friendships, based on the Facebook reality. In psychological terms, people can experience cognitive dissonance, namely the anxiety that they feel from holding two conflicting ways of perceiving the world. Such a discrepancy between perceptions and beliefs can damage people’s emotional balance and lead them to experience identity confusion, relationship conflicts, changes in judgement, and even psychotic break.

Not done for now: The link you provided was an dead-link. Please re-request your semi-protection edit request when the correct links are provided. Thanks. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 20:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2017

Please change "A joint study by two German universities discovered that one out of three people were more dissatisfied with their lives after visiting Facebook, and another study by Utah Valley University found that college students felt worse about their own lives following an increase in the amount of time spent on Facebook.[409][410][411]" to " A joint study by two German universities discovered that one out of three people were more dissatisfied with their lives after visiting Facebook, and another study by Utah Valley University found that college students felt worse about their own lives following an increase in the amount of time spent on Facebook.[409][410][411] . According to professor Schwatrz, the more frequently people go on Facebook and update their status the lower their self-esteem."

Please add the following new paragraph in the end of section "Emotional health impact": Dr Flores explains that social-media users usually split their time between Facebook and interacting in the real world. Sharing experiences with fiends on Facebook, or when something entertaining happens in real life, people feel the need to share it might seem harmless, however at some point people begin to substitute one reality with another. As a result people start to change their behaviour and even their assumptions about live, love and friendships, based on the Facebook reality. In psychological terms, people can experience cognitive dissonance, namely the anxiety that they feel from holding two conflicting ways of perceiving the world. Such a discrepancy between perceptions and beliefs can damage people’s emotional balance and lead them to experience identity confusion, relationship conflicts, changes in judgement, and even psychotic break. Dntodorova (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (t • c) 15:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2017

Lama sima (talk) 15:57, 25 February 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. Cannolis (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Section

Not sure what section to put this in.

https://www.scribblrs.com/facebook-users-becoming-less-satisfied-new-research-shows/

Benjamin (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017

Can you change these source links back from:

• https://www.wsj.com/article/SB118539991204578084.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
• https://www.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120518-710783.html
• https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304019404577420093138995160.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs
• https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304821304577436873952633672.html
• https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304772804575558484075236968.html

To:

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118539991204578084.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
• http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120518-710783.html
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304019404577420093138995160.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304821304577436873952633672.html
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304772804575558484075236968.html

please? They redirect to the "sign up/subscribe" page. 103.199.137.190 (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! — IVORK _Discuss 03:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook#Impact -> Emotional health impact -> Last word of first paragraph -> esteeem -> esteem Cminusincplusplus (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done thanks for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017

{{sub×

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.}} 112.201.204.220 (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

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

• significant a ?!Facebook Fann2 (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Article length

@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???

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

Does Facebook supports open standards, such as OpenID, RSS, DNT ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.178.240 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017

please change Xinping to Jinping because Chinese president name is Xi Jinping. 202.248.49.37 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Done thanks for pointing this out, also wikilinked Xi Jinping for clarity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The new logo has no ®-symbol anymore

I think, it should be mentioned, that the new logo since 2014 does not contain the ®-symbol anymore. -- 19:17, 06.10.2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.5.202 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

New draft: tbh

Hi fellow Wikipedians! I am currently working on an article for Facebook-owned company, tbh. As always, help and feedback is always appreciated. The draft can be accessed at Draft:tbh (app). Cheers, Daylen (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141229120047/http://www.cnbc.com/id/47387334/Jim_Breyer_via_Accel_Partners to https://www.cnbc.com/id/47387334/Jim_Breyer_via_Accel_Partners
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.htbridge.com/news/social_networks_can_robots_violate_user_privacy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117012604/http://www.ft.lk/2012/09/21/seri-miss-sri-lanka-online-unveiled/ to http://www.ft.lk/2012/09/21/seri-miss-sri-lanka-online-unveiled/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2017

Hello, I am a registered user, but this would be my first edit. I want to add the following to the Facebook wikipedia article in the History of Facebook section, under the subheading 2013-Present.

In April 2016 at the F8 developer conference it was announced that Facebook would allow bots to be built into the Messenger platform. A moment in time that rattled and accelerated the rate of development of Artificial Intelligence. The world before that date is referred to as B.F8 and after as A.F8 by writer for ChatBots Magazine M. Dorsett. After 3 months the verge reported that 11,000 bots existed on the messenger By April 2017 that number grew to 100,000 reported by USA Today

}} Mdorsett3 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mdorsett3:  Not done. In the section "Instant Messaging," look in the third paragraph for the sentence starting "In April 2016." This seems to cover this but if you think the numbers (11,000 and 100,000) are important, please adjust your request accordingly because finding reliable sources can be tough for new users to find but you seem to have pulled it off with USA Today and The Verge.

That said, the middle of your message (from "A moment in time" to "M. Dorsett") seems to contain the substance most important to you and I'll caution you that it doesn't pass muster. The first half of this is a sentence fragment and the second contains a sweeping declaration claiming, apparently, that an entire historical epoch was named for a developer conference. That is a marginal idea that the vast majority of people don't even know about let alone believe, and it doesn't help that you're the author of that piece. See WP:FRNG and WP:PROMO. (And, possibly, our policy against adding original research but that might not apply because this wasn't first published on Wikipedia.) CityOfSilver 05:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Winklevoss twins

Having had a quick scan through the article I did not see anything about the Winklevoss twins. This should be in there, for these twins took legal against Zuckerberg for pinching their idea and a 2010 film - The Social Network - was made about this issue. Vorbee (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Vorbee: By searching for "Winklevoss", your web browser should be able to direct you to the information. It is currently covered in the History and Criticisms sections :) LocalNet (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

In all the social media websites, there must be login type added.

In all the social media websites, or the websites in which there is login, we must added proper description that how a user can login. like in some social media there is only login by phone number or in some email is only login or in some any of both are valid. There must be Login Type added in Infobox Software. Examples

Login Type - Only by Phone Number Login Type - Only by Email address(or Username) Login Type - Phone Number or Email address(or Username)(Any) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niharpatel123456 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a How-To guide - Arjayay (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Merging Express Wi-Fi

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.

---

As per the discussion on this page. Simranpreet singh (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose if it's to be merged then it should be merged into Free Basics.  samee  ^talk 17:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any merge to Facebook, per WP:UNDUE. Facebook is a huge scope, there's no room for this here as any more than a link. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2018 (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.

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—49.48.251.22 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If you think there is an error, you'll need to be more explicit about what it is and what the correct location should be. The coordinates currently in the article indicate a group of buildings that are labeled "Facebook HQ" on Google Maps, and the street view shows Facebook signage at the entrances to the complex. We'll need more information before we revise the coordinates. Deor (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

adding to "Total institution" category

could facebook be put into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Total_institutions ? There are no 'sources' for that but it just meets all criteria. 91.225.158.68 (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be WP:OR, without a source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

what is Facebook?

I came to this page to find out what Facebook is, but found no decent explanation. Clearly you assume too much.

why isn't "advertising" included in the first paragraph. Facebook is socially engineered media for advertising. Not really social media. But hey, who am I, right? Maybe it should be re classified as a marketing company, then they would be subject to regulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9D00:1FBF:497C:F3E6:483F:463C (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

Please change "for 1.2 million shares (worth $300 million at Facebook's IPO)" to "for 1.2 million shares at initial IPO which are now believed to be worth $300 million" because the initial text implies that the stocks were worth $300 million at initial IPO price. Mfawal (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The reference cited in the text makes it clear that the 1.2m shares the Winklevosses received were, in fact, valued at $300m at the time of the IPO and this is not the current estimated value. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

facebook was only found by mark zuckerburg . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.99.67.98 (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Any request for changing the founder needs to be accompanied by sources at least as reliable as the ones currently in the article describing the shared initial evolution. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Wired

change ((Wired)) to ((Wired (magazine)|Wired)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:218:8bff:fe74:fe4f (talk)

 Done Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Trimmed the lead

I have trimmed the lead to remove the mentions of the recent news of the Cambridge Analytica stuff. The lead should follow the body, which currently doesn't have enough details to justify such attention in the lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Bias line + speculation.

In the Criticisms and controversies section, the line reads "Blackberry used to dominate the smartphone market but it has now lost the market share and litigation over patent infringement seems to be the strategy for BlackBerry’s Chief Executive John Chen to make money for the company. According to the Facebook Deputy General Counsel, Paul Grewal, BlackBerry abandoned its effort to innovate and it is now looking to tax the innovation of others."

I propose that the first sentence be removed as it is not WP:NPOV, and violates WP:ASSERT & WP:OR.FusionLord (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --41.228.22.195 (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

In the criteria for speedy deletion it says: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.". I don't like Facebook one bit and don't use it, and can't judge how good, bad or promotional this article is. However it certainly isn't an obvious case, so I don't see why this tag is here. Theosch (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it's factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.99.164.51 (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Howdy folks, yeah, unsure why Prisencolin tagged it for CSD, I'm guessing a few to many beers perhaps? — IVORK _Discuss 09:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Facebook and Cambridge Analytica data breach

Please see Facebook and Cambridge Analytica data breach.

The data breach seems likely to become a narrative independent of Facebook and other players, but a large part of the story of each entity involved. I established the article with one sources but there is a flood of other information to sort to tell the story. Some of what is in this article could split into that one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Newest info should be added: There were actually up to 87 million Facebook users affected by the data breach see . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.141.107 (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Microblogging platform

The kind of business is properly speaking 'microblog hosting' or 'microblogging platform'. Social network is simply too broad a category.Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 06:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Yoandri Dominguez Garcia

Content about selling personal info as a revenue stream

Why is there nothing in the article about that? Isn't that one of they ways they make money?

If content talking about this is appropriate, should we also add content about each user's shadow profile?[1][2][3]

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay, the how they make money part was already there, and someone has now added the shadow profile content. Thanks.

Resolved.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Google Is Blaming Wikipedia for Linking the California GOP to Nazism

(SAN FRANCISCO) — Google is blaming “vandalism” at Wikipedia for search results that incorrectly said the ideology of the California Republican Party included “Nazism.”

The results appeared in a Google information box screen-captured by Vice Media on Thursday. Google quickly removed the section on ideology. Abbot Luigi (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

http://time.com/5298126/google-wikipedia-california-gop-nazism/

I'm not sure what this is supposed to have to do with Facebook. @Abbot Luigi: could you explain? power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It's yet another example of Godwin's law and it has led to California Republican Party being protected, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Facebook.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Instagram isn't listed as a subsidiary next to WhatsApp, Messenger, etc.

Shouldn't it be? 50.35.89.153 (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

hi mistake in the recent update

On July 26, 2018, Facebook became the first company to lose over $100 billion worth of stock in one day. It fell from nearly $630 billion to $510 billion, a 19% loss, after disappointing sales reports.

The stock actually fell about 25% from 219 to 164.3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3DE0:67D:541D:D299:8B9B:486C (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible removal from list

An entry in List of colors: A–F contained a link to this page.

The entry is :

• Facebook Blue

I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is original research or questionable sourcing. According to the colour picker software on my computer, the blue in the Facebook logo on the main page is not a fixed shade and varies from RGB 58, 89, 152 at the bottom to 78, 105, 162 at the top. The value for Facebook blue given at the article mentioned above is RGB 22%, 34%, 61% which corresponds to RGB 56, 87, 156 or thereabouts. Unless the colour values are officially sourced to Facebook itself, they are not of much use.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

New breach of 50 million users

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/technology/facebook-hack-data-breach.html

Should we include it under the History section? – numbermaniac 00:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Why does the most relevant and new comments get removed and can I get them back?

I know this is off topic! But, why do the most relevant and new comments removed from Facebook for me? I am so irritated about this, but if you have an answer then thank you! Bubba2018 (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Bubba2018

Please add the most recent coverage by Frontline

Some of the latest reliable secondary source coverage on Facebook was their most recent two hour program (full of interviews with former facebook employees, current facebook employees, archival footage, interviews with academics, interviews with former members of government, etc.) was by Frontline. I'm surprised, considering the importance of this coverage, that this hasn't been incorporated into this article yet. For your convenience here are some sources ready to copy and paste:

Takal, Pierre; Lee, Fanny, eds. (n.d.). "The Facebook Dilemma: A major, two-night investigation of the powerful social media platform's impact on privacy and democracy in the U.S. and around the world". Frontline. PBS. Retrieved November 6, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

{{Cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/facebook-dilemma/|title=The Facebook Dilemma: A major, two-night investigation of the powerful social media platform’s impact on privacy and democracy in the U.S. and around the world|date=n.d.|editor-last=Takal|editor-first=Pierre|editor2-last=Lee|editor2-first=Fanny|website=[[Frontline]]|publisher=[[PBS]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 6, 2018}}

• Aronson-Rath, Raney (October 30, 2018). "'The Facebook Dilemma' Continues Tonight: A Note From Our Executive Producer". Frontline. PBS. Retrieved November 6, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

{{Cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-facebook-dilemma-continues-tonight-a-note-from-our-executive-producer/|title='The Facebook Dilemma' Continues Tonight: A Note From Our Executive Producer|last=Aronson-Rath|first=Raney|date=October 30, 2018|website=[[Frontline]]|publisher=[[PBS]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 6, 2018}}

Our challenge, from the start, was how to distill such a sprawling and consequential story – and a year’s worth of deep investigative reporting – into a coherent, fair and well-told narrative.

What we came to see was that although Facebook has more than two billion users, on many levels the story was about leadership, and the decisions made by a man on a mission to make the world “more open and connected.” So while this two-hour special covers years and many topics, Mark Zuckerberg is central to it all.

Our team collected an extensive archive of Zuckerberg’s public comments, appearances, and interviews over the years. His rise from college student to leader of a more-than-$400-billion company has been uniquely public and richly documented, so we had extensive footage and his own words to draw on to tell this story.

— Raney Aronson-Rath

• "The Facebook Dilemma, Part One (full film) | FRONTLINE". YouTube. Frontline. October 29, 2018. Retrieved November 6, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T48KFiHwexM|title=The Facebook Dilemma, Part One (full film) {{!}} FRONTLINE|last=|first=|date=October 29, 2018|website=[[YouTube]]|publisher=[[Frontline]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 6, 2018}}

• "The Facebook Dilemma, Part Two (full film) | FRONTLINE". Frontline. October 31, 2018. Retrieved November 6, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuA4qxPbpQE|title=The Facebook Dilemma, Part Two (full film) {{!}} FRONTLINE|last=|first=|date=October 31, 2018|website=[[Frontline]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 6, 2018}}

I've included the YouTube links, since YouTube is more stable than websites like Frontline. Consequently, the program should be cited in both places because of link rot.

Below is tangential coverage that revolves around this program.

• Taddonio, Patrice (October 30, 2018). "Is Facebook Ready for the 2018 Midterms?". Frontline. PBS. Retrieved November 6, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

{{Cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/is-facebook-ready-for-the-2018-midterms/|title=Is Facebook Ready for the 2018 Midterms?|last=Taddonio|first=Patrice|date=October 30, 2018|website=[[Frontline]]|publisher=[[PBS]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 6, 2018}}

• Taddonio, Patrice (October 29, 2018). "WATCH: Facebook and 'The Data Dilemma'". Frontline. PBS. Retrieved November 6, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

{{Cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/watch-facebook-and-the-data-dilemma/|title=WATCH: Facebook and 'The Data Dilemma'|last=Taddonio|first=Patrice|date=October 29, 2018|website=[[Frontline]]|publisher=[[PBS]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=November 6, 2018}}

Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 02:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've got a couple new ones to add to this:

• Osnos, Evan (November 15, 2018). "Facebook and the Age of Manipulation". The New Yorker. Retrieved November 17, 2018.

<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/facebook-and-the-age-of-manipulation|title=Facebook and the Age of Manipulation|last=Osnos|first=Evan|date=November 15, 2018|work=[[The New Yorker]]|access-date=November 17, 2018}}</ref>

• Frenkel, Sheera; Confessore, Nicholas; Kang, Cecilia; Rosenberg, Matthew; Nicas, Jack (November 14, 2018). "Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook's Leaders Fought Through Crisis". The New York Times. Retrieved November 17, 2018.

<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-russia-election-racism.html|title=Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis|last=Frenkel|first=Sheera|date=November 14, 2018|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=November 17, 2018|last2=Confessore|first2=Nicholas|last3=Kang|first3=Cecilia|last4=Rosenberg|first4=Matthew|last5=Nicas|first5=Jack|author-link2=Nicholas Confessore|author-link4=Matthew Rosenberg}}</ref>

Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 03:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)William Thomas Ammons

Addition of BBC article into facebook criticism section? ThisPageIsTooClean (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)ThisPageIsTooClean

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/nigeria_fake_news

Above article was posted by the BBC, and describes the spread of fake information in Nigeria that uses facebook as a vector. Nigerian police and military criticized Facebook for not taking sufficient action to prevent harm. Should the article's contents be added to the criticism section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisPageIsTooClean (talk • contribs) 05:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, ThisPageIsTooClean. I think that this is absolutely worth including in the criticisms section. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 04:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that I've thought about it a bit more after skimming through the criticisms section, I propose that a new subsection under criticisms is created specifically for their irresponsible lack of involvement when their platform is misused internationally. These critiques are easy to find. If no one takes the initiative to find these in response to my comment, I'll do so myself later. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 04:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I just want to make my case stronger (working on this section right now actually). Adding this critique will help reduce wikipedia's known systemic bias. See more here WP:WORLDVIEW and here Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I realize, however, that I should thoroughly read Criticism of Facebook before I add that to facebook's main article. I will open a discussion there after I written a draft and ask for cross-article feedback. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2018

this article has missed some facts which i would like to add Bigdawg121 (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2018 (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. DannyS712 (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Bigdawg121. I'm pinging you in case you didn't see that reply. Confirmed editors can't make the changes for you unless you specify them. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 23:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Change date from February 2004 to August 2003, when the program was first created.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EwanHowe27 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: According to the article, "Facemash" was created in 2003, but the original version of Facebook was not launched until 2004, which is the date usually given by reliable sources, eg [4][5].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

181.118.255.24 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please specify the changes you want done. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Update Metrics

Facebook has recently published their Q4 results. This concludes all the information needed for the company's 2018 financial year.

Can somebody please update the Revenue, Profit, and Monthly Active User count?

(Maybe add a Daily Active User metric as well)

Source: https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2018/Q4/Q4-2018-Earnings-Presentation.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardyak (talk • contribs) 09:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Facebook Is Paying Teens to Install a 'Research' App That Lets It Monitor Their Phones

Not sure where to put this but seems important

• https://gizmodo.com/facebook-is-paying-teens-to-install-a-research-app-that-1832182370

John Cummings (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Added — Newslinger talk 11:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

On February 4, 2004, Zuckerberg launched " the service.

typo 129.69.140.138 (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

In May 2018 at F8, the company anno,unced it

typo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.140.138 (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2019

Does not include enough info about Mark Zucekrburg. 2600:1700:F3C0:B680:7845:3A87:274F:18ED (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg has his own article; he is not the primary subject of this article, which is about Facebook as a whole.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please mention in this article that the 14 year old multi-billion dollar company has no real customer support.

Please mention that the 14 year old multi-billion dollar company Facebook has no real user support. There is a FAQ which does not answer everything. Where it cannot find a solution, there may be automated forms which take centuries to email back. There is a phone number but it is all automated. The only place you can expect to mayyybe get a response from a fellow human is their Twitter page. It's quite bizarre, and disappointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassGg (talk • contribs) 10:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas 82 34 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2019

152.207.249.136 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: No actionable request.  Spintendo  18:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone needs to jump on documenting whether or not Facebook has shut itself down in response to the college admissions scandal. I mean, at least until Zuckerberg also hacks Wikipedia and shuts it down for permitting messages like this one. - Joshua Clement Broyles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.90.107 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Outages

Would a section with a history of outages (at least ones reported reported in the news) be appropriate? jrun (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. This has also happened at YouTube and Twitter. If the outage is brief, it isn't worth mentioning.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2019

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

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."[6] 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)

Possible Merge

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 11 April 2019

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

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)

 Done – Ammarpad (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

C. Marooney merge discussion

Copy of merge discussion from source page

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) 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." 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:[7] 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 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 ([8]) 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. [9] 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

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."

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. [10] 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

 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". 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

@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)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

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"?

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2019

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)