Talk:Facebook/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

GA Reassessment

And editor has suggested that this article does not meet GA standards. The Good Article Reassessment discussion can be found here. Majoreditor (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

May 2008: "Stalker" list feature

In May 2008, news surfaced through blog circles that hitting the down arrow key or entering a period in the search prompt would bring up a list of five "important people" according to Facebook's own release. The algorithm seems to have been based on both the number of views of those individuals profiles on behalf of the user and the number of times the user had viewed said individuals on their own. This, however, is in direct violation of Facebook's own commitment to total anonymity in their privacy policy. This effectively adds and element of exposure the end user cannot control.

This one actually has serious legal implications. We need more research. Gawker is good for getting publicity, but I agree with the criticism leveled against this source in the criticism of Facebook discussion. Gawker is dedicated to breaking stories, but we can get something with more credibility. I will continue to research. But the issue needs more coverage and awareness. Facebook has been flirting with breaching their privacy contract with Beacon and now this, and they just might have done it. We cannot allow this type of "opt out" breach of contract behavior to continue.

Disabled Facebook Accounts

post1

I consider the disabled accounts thing serious. I have paid for service on facebook and by being falsely accused and disabled I have been cut off from using those services and checking up on unreceived merchandise. They have inadequate support to prevent this as I immediate wrong that they mistaken in their accusations. I was cut off the next day. My attempts to get my account enabled again have been futile and I find this a gross violation of fair business practice and have accordingly filed a complaint with the FTC. I would suggest other users also file a complaint to the proper authorities.

This is a copy of my complaint:

Facebook has many businesses on it. I have used the business on it. Facebook has wrongly accused me of spamming and disabled my account, cutting me off from business that I have paid money to and they have collected a cut from.

When they warned me about my account I contacted them and told them they were mistaken and invited them to look over my usage of my account.

They wrongly accuse people of illegal activities and then, imho, illegally cut you off of businesses that you are dealing with through them. I have products I have ordered and yet gotten in the mail an I can not follow up on them. I have been away from home for 6 weeks and I will be home later today.

They have also cut me off from people at home that I only emailed through facebook, so I need to pick up keys and I was prevented from emailing ahead to arrange pick-up.

They completely lack a proper system to clear this kind of thing before they take drastic action of cutting off your account.

They also have in their system the way they monitor for abuse have enabled abuser to target legitimate user, which I have tried to inform them, but they have seemingly a total inability for a good client that contributes to their business financially to obtain contact in a timely manner. Personally I think I've been targeted by teenagers because I'm playing a game and winning. One way to improve your game is to knock out the competition by hitting "report this user," and then facebook disables your account.

I have spent a few hundred dollars on various facebook activities and I have been cut off without recourse and I find this reprehensible and needing of intervention as my attempts have proven to be futile.

I was also talking with a friend who just finished high school and he did a mass email to his classmate about an event and his account was disabled. He was never able to get it reinstated, so I am very concern about this abusive and wrongful business practice of facebook and the complete lack of timely and preventable recourse.

They do this to many, many people and as a business that take money and credit card information I really believe that intervention on the FTC's part is necessary.

Thank you for you time and assistance. I shall forward a copy of my complaint to facebook, but regardless of if this prompts them to look at my complaint sooner, I find their practices a gross violation of everything that I consider fair business practices.

What's your purpose in mentioning this here? Your account is interesting, but a single experience isn't that relevant to an article on facebook. If you can find a reliable source that says experiences like yours are common or notable there may be a place for it somewhere on Wikipedia. I have a strong suspicion that termination of service without process or recourse is not specific to facebook - probably all the social networking services are going to have this issue. So if it could be sourced as an encyclopedic topic it might make more sense as an article of its own that isn't tied to a specific company. Wikidemo (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

post2

Recently, there have been quite a few different Facebook accounts disabled by, "an administrator," with little to no reasons/warnings given, my account included. - I think it might be worthwhile mentioning this, as there may be something a little more specific that can be told about this. If you check Google for, "facebook + Your account has been disabled by an administrator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can visit our FAQ page here.," you will see quite a few different scenarios of people this has happened to for apparently no reason. Although Facebook's Terms of Use clearly state that they can disable an account for any, or no reason, it is still worth mentioning, as quite a few people almost see Facebook as being a completely free and open way to reacquaint themselves with old friends, etc., and manage to somehow get their accounts disabled for what appears to be no actual reason. 143.166.255.58 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC) - A Vigilante

Unless you could find a reliable source (not a blog, not a forum, a reputable third party), it is original research and we cannot accept it. Sorry. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind posting a link to the policy where it clearly states that a blog (or online journal, or even just journal) that cites sources of its own can't be used as a reference? For instance: If a blog cites e-mails sent directly from disabled@facebook.com, or appeals*@facebook.com, etc.? - If not, then I will be posting references such as that very shortly. If so, then I don't have an issue searching Google for a news source that references the blogs themselves. - Thank you very much. 143.166.255.42 (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC) - A Vigilante

Take a look at WP:RS. Gary King (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular Controversy?

In the introductory section, last paragraph, the article states: "Due to its popularity, Facebook has met with some controversy." Since when did sheer popularity cause controversy? Unless somebody can find a source that states that Facebook's popularity itself is causing some controversy, I think this should be changed. Thoughts? ~~ DaRkAgE7 (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Valuation - where is the dispute?

The article seems to incorrectly claim there is a dispute as to Facebook's valuation. I see no sources pointing to the existence of the dispute. What exists is a disparity between the post-money valuation established by Microsoft's venture financing of the company, and the company's internal valuation, metrics, etc. This is utterly normal for quite a few reasons, as anyone close to venture transactions can tell you: venture investors get preferred shares whereas other valuations are based on the value of common; companies like Microsoft invest for strategic reasons and not cash flow projections; dot com companies are typically not valued on current revenues, etc. I don't think the issue is notable at all, but if it is noted it's barely a mention or a footnote to an investment and funding section, hardly worth spending an entire heading on. Anyway, if there is a dispute and people want to call it that, could you please provide a reliable source? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does ConnectU redirct to Facebook?

I thought ConnectU was a separate project. The redirect indicates that ConnectU is an alias for Facebook but upon reading about the ConnectU controversy in the article it is not the case.

I think the redirect is misleading. Kristensson (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

ConnectU seems notable on its own. Why not write an article for it? That would solve the problem. Wikidemo (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

outdated employee count

the number of employees that work for facebook is out of date the number of employees has gone from 700+ in 2008 to 900+ in 2009 here is the referance 200.32.232.37 (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Gabe 24/8/09

Banned in Syria ?

Due to the open nature of Facebook, several countries have banned access to it including Syria, China and Iran? This information is incorrect.

Facebook is NOT banned in Syria, searches on Facebook will still show users, groups and pages for Syria and contact is still available. Furthermore the references are in fact 2 years old, this information should be updated. Delly54 (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

iPhone

Does this really merrit a reference? Facebook is available on many mobile platfroms such as Blackberry. If it is to be included should we not just blend it in to the Platform section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macutty (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of just blending it in the platform section. It's not very common for websites to have non-computer access that is both highly supported and regularly used so I think that it's still worth calling out the dual-use. But I completely agree that this doesn't warrant a whole section.Jopo sf (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that mobile use of Facebook is worth mentioning, but specific mention of the iPhone's app is unnecessary and unfair. Other platforms (WM, BB, Nokia) support Facebook apps and have high usage statistics. See last paragraph of [1] in which usage statistics indicate significant competition in this market. Anon user23 (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC) But isn't important about apple not letting facebook update the app? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.4.3 (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Just added a short section detailing Facebook on the BlackBerry, Nokia S60 and Android. Hopefully this goes at least some way to solving the discrepancy! Thecurran91 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is out-of-date: There is an app for Android: http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=74769995908 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.35.42 (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Separate articles for website and business

The article, and related articles, could be improved by creating separate articles about Facebook as a website, social networking mechanism, and internet phenominon; separate from an article about Facebook, Inc. as a business. Then, re-incorporate information from the article Criticism of Facebook into each article. It would be better to have balanced articles about narrower topics then to divide larger topics into pro and con articles. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreement with Iran and Syria

FACEBOOK WON'T LET PEOPLE LOG IN!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.154.2 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not usually find myself agreeing with the abovementioned states, but I will on this issue. Facebook, and all other applications like it, are iniquitous. They encourage self-promotion, egoism, abuse, scandal, prostitution and even public riot, as the girl who advertised her party on the site found out when over 100 gatecrashers turned up. I personally have no idea why someone would wish to advertised themselves in this way, and can only expect trouble if they do.

I understand the point you are making but the fact remains that free speech, which is what facebook for all intents and purposes is, should not be restricted. And while self-promotion and egoism can be seen as negative personality traits, no one has the right to say you can not practice them. The issue here is not whether the concept of facebook is "right" or wrong, rather the issue is people need to learn more personal responsibility. A knife can kill. But a knife can also cut you a nice piece of pie. Jersey John (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't people be satisfied by email, a letter or a telephone call? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.10.43 (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

People have the right to chose what satisfies them. Facebook satisfies a vast majority of people. Anyone who questions why could be seen as a snob. Jersey John (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Let's pick and chose our battles, folks. Facebook really isn't worth a cultural crusade...

The fact that you propose censorship because a website is not to your taste is shocking (158.223.169.40 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

CIA funding

Would anyone mind sorting out how exactly the CIA is linked to Facebook. What is true is that there are people who have sat both on the boards of CIA funded companies and on the board of Facebook. I think the interesting questions are : Who are these people? Are the tightly linked to the CIA? Or are the just rich people who have gotten in involved in many new companies? 141.150.252.200 (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• hehehe well the term 'CIA' doesn't appear at all on the article page, so I hope that answers your questions! hahahahahahaha -- Sdfijiuefh (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the page is locked. I think we have our final answer. -- Sdfijiuefh (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer a thing. Something tells me that the CIA has nothing to do with Facebook, unless you're talking about the spies that are hidden within Facebook management. DeathNomad 04:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Facebook becoming a paysite?

I've heard from various sources, that Facebook will no longer be free. Whats the status on this?--67.150.52.92 (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine a billion dollar company changing their MO at this point. I see nothing credible that indicates they will charge in the future. ^Law _shoot! 03:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Care to clarify "sources"? DeathNomad 04:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Facebook page language

My facebook signin page is coming up in Japanese and I don't know how to change it back to english. Can anyone give me a clue? Thanks, 97.90.55.36 (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Tom

use en.gb.facebook.com that should work it out Lukelouvon (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A discussion page is for the discussing of the article, not Facebook tech support. DeathNomad 04:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

face-book.com

"The company dropped The from its name after purchasing the domain name facebook.com in 2005 for $200,000."

That's not true and it's by your own reference. They already owned facebook.com and wrestled face-book.com away from a spammer. You might want to correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.213.91.220 (talk • contribs)

Banned in Iran?

I don't think that facebook is banned in Iran. I have many friends living in Iran using facebook without any problems. Even official statesmen are using this plattform. For instance, Mousavi used it in his election campaign and is still using it. www.facebook.com/mousavi Also former president Chatami has got an official account. Please correct it in the article.

New Alexa Rank

As of today it is not the third ranked site, as stated in the article and template, but the second follow here for proof: http://www.alexa.com/topsites

Facebook Owns You

Or at least they can without your permission for using your photographs from your personal profile. Facebook has changed their Terms of Service, and it now OWNS what was once your personal property. Check this out. In their Terms of Service -- which you agree to when you sign up for an account -- they say "Facebook members now release full control of their social networking content to the company including the right to copy, modify, distribute, use images and descriptions for commercial use or advertising." In a nutshell, this means that if you've uploaded images of yourself and/or your kids, Facebook may decide to use them in any way they choose: including putting them in one of their advertising campaigns without compensating you or maybe even letting you know about its use. Approximately 20,000 protest groups have formed on the site -- all strongly opposed to the new terms. One outraged member had this to say: "If I decide to close my account and have all associated data deleted, that should be my choice. If I want to yank a blog post, I have that ability. Why should Facebook be any different?" Prior to these changes, FB said it only had rights to use content while the user was a member of the service. Now, FB will hold those rights even if a user cancels their membership. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg posted a blog entry in an attempt to explain the new terms saying: "We wouldn't share your information in a way you wouldn't want," he said. "The change was designed to reassure users that account deactivation would not mean that data they had shared with friends would be wiped from the site." This is supposed to reassure users? It seems like it would be more of a concern to have lingering peronal property floating around the web. If you decide to close your account, shouldn't your information be yours and not theirs? BTW: Did you know Facebook can also share your information with lawyers, companies and government agencies?

Lamebook

This is not criticism--just satire/humor. Perhaps a new section should be added i.e. 6. Satire. Or just remove it. Buzzbo (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

New Facebook outage

{{editsemiprotected}}

The following issue could be placed under the existing heading "Downtime and outages."

Sometime on October 3, 2009, an unspecified number of Facebook users were unable to access their accounts. Simultaneously, these users' profiles were unavailable for others to view. Three days later, Facebook said the problem would be fixed in 24 hours. More than a week after that, the affected users were still unable to access the site. There was some speculation that one of Facebook's databases may have been corrupted.

a few sources: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10370788-36.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10372417-36.html http://facebooklogin.net/news/facebookaccount-unavailable/

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=facebook+site+maintenance&btnG=Search+Blogs

Xtian44 (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a cut-down version of this request, ie a single sentence "In October 2009, an unspecified number of Facebook users were unable to access their accounts for several days." - we need to take care to remain neutral, avoid Wikipedia:Recentism, and speculation/blogs have no place on Wikipedia. If you disagree with my rationale and my summarizing, please feel free to start a discussion below. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  07:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Why was it removed?

Wikipedia is not censored. As quoted from it, "omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available—however, when a cited quotation contains words that may be offensive, it should not be censored." I see clear indication of a source. So why was it removed? Children are our most vulnerable members of our society. Many children believe that if they use Facebook when they are under 13 they are violating the terms. However this is simply not true when Facebook does not actively enforce age limits. Therefore, children under 13 can use it if they do not disrupt the Facebook community in any way either by putting their profiles on private and not telling authority figures or parents about their account. Wikipedia's goal is to inform all readers by telling the truth verifying what is stated in reliable sources. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:V to start with. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a source which was [2]. How was this source not a reliable source? Facebook does not actively enforce the age limit which is why there are children under 13 using it. It says so clear in the source. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about this information. I have to disagree with Darrenhusted, BB is normally a reliable source and the information is verifiable to that reliable source. I do agree with Scythre, who removed the material with an edit summary of "nn". I take that "nn" to mean not-notable. Facebook has a policy but just because they don't or can't effectively enforce that policy doesn't make it notable. If the information is presented in a way in a location that explains why it is notable then I might feel differently. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

New York has investigated Facebook's Safety Rules. [3] Would this be able to support its notability? 198.38.10.1 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear on my thoughts. The way that text is worded and the proposed location is why I think the information is not notable. Adding additional sources does not help that situation. If the information is reworded to explain that it is a criticism of Facebook and the information is placed in the criticism section, it probably would be notable. This will depend on how it is written. As it currently stands I do not believe it is notable and will not fulfill the edit request below. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add the removed content?

{{editsemiprotected}} The following content "Facebook does not actively enforce the age limit resulting in children under the age of 13 to use it." should be readded. I think the NYtimes reference establishes notability. But if its not please comment in the above discussion. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not add that statement as it is a blanket statement that cannot be proven. One report by an NYT journalist and subsequently republished by others (such as the BBC) does not meet the bar for proof. The only way to test the hypothesis would be for all facebook users to change their age to 12 and see if they are blocked. Its removal was correct within the guidelines of Wikipedia, and most notably under WP:V. A section about the article and its investigation could be added provided it was not worded so loosely. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Celestra (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

update to "New Facebook outage" entry

{{editsemiprotected}}

The recent problem of Facebook users being unable to access their accounts seems to have been fixed yesterday.

For your consideration, an updated sentence at the end of "Downtime and outages" could read:

"In October 2009, approximately 150,000 Facebook users were unable to access their accounts for up to 10 days."

sources: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10373349-36.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/173550/facebook_outage_silences_150000_users.html http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139311/Facebook_deals_with_missing_accounts_150_000_angry_users

many thanks, Xtian44 (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one. That probably shouldn't have been in there in the first place, as I was under the impression that the fleeting goings-on, technical difficulties and whatnot on websites are not notable enough to be included, but apparently some news agencies do consider this important enough to warrant mention, or even an article. So, my answer is, Uncertain. Intelligentsium^review 01:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Already mostly done by someone else, but I rephrased slightly and added the additional refs. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The concept of Facebook

With its popularity, Facebook supports the socialization of national and global scientific communities that include students equally, so that together with the Wikipedia promotes advanced research projects such as, for example, the case of one universal scientific project, of which, it is best for you be informed via the portal "Croatian scientific bibliography-CROSBI; Project S-III-158; link - http://bib.irb.hr/"

Sicronet (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Facebook for Android(OS)

{{editsemiprotected}}

"Google's Android OS does not as yet have an official Facebook application due to apparent disputes between the two companies."

This is no longer true as an official Facebook app has been released for the Android OS and has been fully functional since September 08, 2009. This app is comparable to the iPhone platform version as there are many similarity's between the two. Please make this correction as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.16.138 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source. Tim Song (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about a source which can be found on the internet but from any android phone you can see it in the market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.168.52 (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the source. Could someone please change it now? http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=74769995908 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkmaster 6 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, facebook is not an RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Misspelled word / Please fix

In the paragraph below, the word "filed" in the sentence "Jack Thompson filed a law suit" has been misspelled as "filled". Hopefully someone can address/fix this. Thanks!--Soundcomm (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jack Thompson See also: Jack Thompson (activist)#Facebook_lawsuit On 29th of September 2009, Jack Thompson filled a law suit for $40 million against Facebook at U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He said that the social networking site had harmed him by not removing angry postings made by Facebook users. He said that several groups caused him great harm and distress.[204]

All fixed. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! GlassCobra 19:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a mistake in the opening line: ...ted and privately owned by Facebook, Inc.[1] Facebook is a private company but it is also a corporation. Therefore, it is not owned entirely by Facebook, but it is predominantly owned by investors. I suggest rewording the opening line to: Facebook is a global social networking website that operated by Facebook, Inc. and is privately held. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianstuckey (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Under "Privacy", there is a spelling mistake in the following sentence: "Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, had hundreds of personal photos and his events calander exposed in the transition." "Calander" should be spelled "calendar". Hopefully someone can fix this as well. Thanks! Snowysquirrels (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Facebook ready to become a featured article?

The following discussion is a debate of the proposed proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on a new section of the discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was no. Clearly there is no reason for it to become a featured article unless there is a peer review. Robert9673 (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am proposing that Facebook be nominated for featured article. Robert9673 (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• It's been more than a year since it was last assessed. A WP:Peer review might be advisable before going for a FAC. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as a failed proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on a new section of the discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No mention of the upcoming facebook movie, The Social Network?

Why isn't this mentioned?24.190.34.219 (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Facebook joins with XBox live

Is wiki going to post that effective some time in November that Facebook will be a new application on xbox live? I signed up for the early release on www.msn.com/xboxliveupdate and its pretty sweet. if you dont believe me heres the link http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/features/facebook.htm Jonathanmbarnes (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, 'cause it's not notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Child Safety

Are profiles of people under 18 private even if they're in the same network as you? I know kids' profiles are private by default on MySpace (if their age is set to 13-17). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.232.7 (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is not the CIA connection mentioned on wikipedia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMWz3G_gPhU For me it was instinctivley obvious. /MrPerfect72 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.53.162.34 (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Add this law review article about social networking and employment privacy

Donald Carrington Davis, "MySpace Isn't Your Space: Expanding the Fair Credit Reporting Act to Ensure Accountability and Fairness in Employer Searches of Online Social Networking Services", 16 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 237 (2007).

The URL to link directly to the law review's online PDF of this article is http://www.law.ku.edu/publications/journal/pdf/v16n2/davis.pdf

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcdavis2 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think we will, Mr Davis. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See also section

I do not feel that the Konami Code is an important enough part of Facebook to warrant being given special mention in the see also section. The only relation Facebook has to this code is that it is usable to add a temporary lens flare effect, the site is not designed around the code, nor is understanding of the code essential to better understanding of Facebook 128.54.244.125 (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Konami Code?

Maybe I missed something, but why is Konami Code in the See Also section? --70.103.74.8 (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You can actually access a hidden page on Facebook by entering the Konami Code. At one point the Konami Code article referenced this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Group Hijacking

There has been several incidents last year where Facebooks groups been hijacked due to lacking administrators or created solely to be subverted at a later stage. These links are in Swedish but they are from wellestablished newssources in Sweden [4] [5] While the small number of people being affected by this might not warrent any editing of the main article at this point I'm pretty sure that if we see groups like this: [6] we will hear more on an international scale soon. I just got the link viraled to me today (seems it happened very recently and not yet been moderated upon). If it's moderated away before you see it I can say it's basicly a 180 000 member group formerly called "30 reasons a girl should call it a night" or something to that effect that been hijacked into "30 Reasons I Joined Al Qaida" with inflamatory missionstatement and filled with offensive postings. As long as the abuse of groups isn't a problem for Facebook as a whole I can't see any edits beeing warrented since the newspaper reports still only focuses on the singular incidents and not as a trend or problem for Facebook operations. (too much Original Research at this point). So why did I comment? Because I wanted more experienced editors too keep an eye on news flow in case this do become the problem I suspect it might. --83.249.214.37 (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Lamebook?

What makes Lamebook so special that it deserves a place in the article? There are PLENTY of other similar websites with similar style and content. If there is no proper justification, then DOWN it goes. 121.7.241.218 (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

would like to submit a new link to facebook about their similiarities with peopls string, a new social media website that pays 70%of its avertising revenue back to its members and why facebooks day may be numbered —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justincha (talk • contribs) 16:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Facebook Statistics

This is just to invite attention to the page Facebook statistics just created; of all interested editors. I have just placed a mergeto tag in it. Thanks. Arjun#talk 17:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should, as the numbers will change on quite a regular basis (if you look at the trend, its going up like 5 - 15% per month. So someone has to update it regularly, and since the Facebook article is closed, I can't see that happening there. Jan Jan.rezab (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2009 (CET)

klinik 1 MALAYSIA di buka oleh PM 7 jan 2010

Kami sebagai warga kota berpendapatan rendah amat mengalu-alukan pembukaan rasmi klinik ini yang akan di buka pada masa 10.00 pagi-10.00malam untuk menentukan semua pesakit akan mendapat rawatan dengan bayaran yang amat rendah. Usaha ini juga akan dapat menyelamatkan nyawa pesakit yang merasakan sakit nya tidak serius dan mengabaikan ke klinik kerana perlu membayar kos yang tingi jika ke klinik swasta. Namun begitu klinik swasta ada menyediakan perhidmatan 24 jam dengan bayaran yang lebih tingi.Apa yang saya ingin tekankan disini mutu perhidmatan KLINIK PERGIGIAN kerajaan di Kuala Lumpur Khas nya yang terlalu padat.....jika tuan-tuan mahu membuat gigi palsu , tempahan di buat hari ini akan siap di masa yang sama pada tahun hadapan....oleh itu perhidmatan ini hendaklah di buat naiktaraf perhidmatan dengan kajian menyeluruh pada kadar yang amat segera. BERILAH PELUANG PADA WARGA RONGAK TERSENYUM DENGAN BERSERI-SERI........1 MALAYSIA RAKYAT DI DAHULUKAN ,PENCAPAIAN DI UTAMAKAN....TAHNIAH DATO SRI NAJIB.!!!!!!Kerana telah dapat menjuruskan semula dan menarik semula tali layang-layang yang telah putus.,,,,SAMA-SAMA KITA DOAKAN AGAR MALAYSIA BERJAYA.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.19.169 (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you will notice, this is the English Wikipedia. Irish Techno Zombie (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Currency

Reason as to why the price in US$ is present "to pay GBP £22,000 (about USD $43,700 at the then-current exchange rate)" Why is the conversion there? He paid £22, 000, not $43, 700, I don't see £ coversions when $ is used, if an american wants to know how much it is in his own currency then he can darn well go on google and check like everyone else from every other country has to when pretty much every wikipedia article has specific info just for america. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevemev (talk • contribs) 00:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:CURRENCY, I'd say it's appropriate. -FeralDruid (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Groups

What are the largest groups? Maybe we should do a topic on the groups and put the record breaking ones in! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithyhead1000 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Guinness World Records have made no such endorsements of any Facebook groups. Ergo, there are no official record breaking Facebook groups. Georgebrown92 (talk) 01:04, 06 Febuary 2010 (UTC)

Add this to Server_infrastructure section

{{edit-semiprotected}}

Please add the following as the second paragraph of Facebook#Server_infrastructure:

In January 2010, Facebook confirmed it is building the company's first custom data center in Prineville, Oregon.<ref>{{cite web| title= Breaking Ground on Our First Custom Data Center |url= http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=262655797130 | publisher=[[Facebook]] | author= Jonathan Heilige | date= January 21. 2010 | accessdate=2010-01-22}}</ref> When completed in June 2011, the 147,000-square-foot (13,700 m²) building will occupy 30 acres (12 ha) of the 124-acre (50 ha) site they purchased, and will house 35 employees.<ref>{{cite web| title= Facebook picks Prineville for its first data center | url= http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/01/facebook_picks_prineville_for.html | publisher=[[The Oregonian]] | author= Mike Rogoway| date= January 21. 2010 | accessdate=2010-01-22}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| title= Facebook said to be building in Prineville | url= http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100121/NEWS0107/1210414 | publisher=[[The Bulletin (Bend)|Bend Bulletin]] | author= David Holley | date= January 21. 2010 | accessdate=2010-01-22}}</ref>

Thanks. 72.244.203.96 (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section

The controversy section appears to have been mostly deleted recently. -128.61.82.232 (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No it hasn't. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

New layout

{{editsemiprotected}}

At approximately 3:45 GMT, Feb 4, Facebook implemented a new layout.

Do you have a source for that? Thanks! Samwb123^{Please read} 03:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.facebook.com/#!/sitetour/homepage.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by PurelyAtomic (talk • contribs) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Welcome and thanks for the information. The editsemiprotected template is meant to allow non-autoconfirmed users to edit the article using a volunteer as a proxy. The request needs to be specifc to a 'Please change X to Y" or 'Please add X after Z" level of detail. Information, like you provided, is useful to an editor interested in the article and no template is needed to get their attention. Also, the source you provided describes a layout, but doesn't support the details about the date or even that it is new. You might want to look for a news article about the change. Celestra (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Article errors

This paragraph is wrong... "The original concept for Facebook was borrowed from a product produced by Zuckerberg's prep school Phillips Exeter Academy which for decades published and distributed a printed manual of all students and faculty, unofficially called the "face book"."

Facebooks were published by a score or more colleges and universities, (some officially called that), for decades. It is not a Phillips Exeter phenomenon, (as much as the inmates of that institution might like to believe). Harvard itself had a facebook since the 70's. As it stands, the paragraph is an unsubstantiated rumor anyway.

I'd make the correction, but the page is locked, so screw it. I get far more amusement from wikipedia's obvious failings than I would otherwise anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.58.132 (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That paragraph is not necessarily wrong as Zuckerberg likely got the idea of calling his site the "face book" because of his experience using Exeter's facebook and the pervasiveness of that term around campus.

See the following links as sources: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/mark_zuckerberg_inspiration_for_facebook_before_harvard.php http://pulse2.com/2009/05/13/the-facebook-might-have-been-named-after-student-directory-at-phillips-exeter-academy/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.32.167 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The University of Chicago was also one of the first schools along with Stanford, Columbia, and Yale to get Facebook back in March 2004. The school is not mentioned and needs to be added, both in the summary section at the top of the article and section 1.2 thefacebook next to the other schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noutbounde (talk • contribs) 19:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC) hi bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.235.81 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"In his Harvard dorm room"

Surely, Mark Zuckerberg did not create Facebook "in his Harvard dorm room", did he? Predecessors of Facebook, maybe, but "creating Facebook in his dorm room" is surely Facebook-lore? I suggest rephrasing to something less tabloidesque, and will rephrase in a while, if there are no objections. 89.27.124.152 (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Facebook patent

Facebook was just issued US patent 7669123 on some aspects of their News Feed. I put a link in the article. Many think the patent is clearly invalid since it appears to cover all News Feeds. That's not true. It only covers news feeds where a link is provided so that one user can participate in the "same activity" as another user. If this still sounds like something old, feel free to provide a link to a reference here. It only takes one reference in any language in any country before December 14, 2004 to raise a substantial new question of validity.--Nowa (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with history flow Visualizations discusses wikipedia watchlists April 24, 2004, did they have hyperlinks then, or were they just email notices?--173.2.23.126 (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Raitner, Marcus "Open Problems Wiki", 12th International Graph Drawing Symposium, October 2004 Confirmed wikipedia Watchlists had hyperlinks in October 2004. Courtesy EdCollins. --Nowa (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The inventor of this patent has failed to define what a social networking environment is. This is enough to make the claims indefinte as the patented subject-matter is old and obvious.

Claim 17 defines social networking environment as a "segmented community". However this claim has no support from the specification which is supposed to define what a segmented community is or, consists of. Without the defintion nobody knows whether a segmented community referes to Facebook only or any community of the internet...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Where people live

I have fact tagged "and not residing in one of the countries where it is banned can become a Facebook user". Are we claiming that facebook bans users in countries where it is banned, or what precisely are we saying. Whatever it is we are saying should be sourced. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 01:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And removed. If you reside in a country where facebook is banned and you go somewhere else visiting are we claiming you still cannot have a facebook account. No? hence the removal, let alone the fact that this law is not enforceable whereas the statement assumes it is enforced. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 14:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

This section is way to long considering there is an entire separate article on the subject and a lot of the info is duplicated. A short paragraph explaining that criticism exists and citing a couple of examples is sufficient for this article, anything extra should be moved to Criticism of Facebook. Any comments? raseaC^{talk to me} 15:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Due to the lack of take-up on this note I've gone ahead and removed all non-notable and duplicated material (there was a lot). If anyone objects to something that was removed without appearing on Criticism of Facebook article then I would recommend adding it in that article. I decided against a summarising paragraph in place of the deleted content but wouldn't object if someone wanted to write a short one. raseaC^{talk to me} 00:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There was quite a lot of sourced, detailed info you deleted. You did a terrible job of merging it into the criticisms article. Or rather, you completely failed to. Please make an effort next time. —Pengo 00:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Add in "Reception" please...

Add in "Reception" please:

In Chile, according to studies by prestigious universities, 73% of the Chilean youth between 18 and 19 years has a Facebook account.

Ref: http://www.latercera.com/contenido/659_192936_9.shtml (in spanish).

←– — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.86.13.216 (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Traviscunningham, 1 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under server infrastructure, Nginx is also used for Facebook CDN for image delivery (fbcdn.net)

Traviscunningham (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means. Care to elaborate?  f o x  11:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, however, 'edit semi-protected' requests need to be something like, "Please change THIS to THAT", along with a reference to a reliable source. Please could you make a more specific request, and ask again. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  13:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Criticism Merge

I've had a stab at the criticism merge again. There is a lot of non-notable, repeated info but deleting that last time was met with whinging last time. The summary paragraph on this page could probably do with a little work, it's possible slightly too brief at the moment. The refs below were just dumped in the article with no context so I've put them here incase they can be any use in the future. raseaC^{talk to me} 11:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Crowdsourcing

I heard that facebook was used as a form of crowdsourcing for businesses in which businesses gain knowledge about facebook users interested in their products. I also heard that facebook monitors people and sells information about them to companies. How do you feel about this, and do you think it is something worth noting on the wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracothejuggler (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that's sort of pointing out the obvious. I see no reason for details to be included given that this is standard practice. If Facebook's practices made it into the press for some reason there may be basis for inclusion, until then I don't see it. raseaC^{talk to me} 08:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"become a fan" is now "become a like"

Perhaps someone should mention this highly criticized change?--ILoveSky (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems fairly non-notable to me and the criticism would be WP:POV. raseaC^{talk to me} 08:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The OP said 'we should mention', not 'we should criticise'! Toby Douglass (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

'this highly criticized change' = WP:POV. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Applications

games and useful stuff--Brahms33 (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to elaborate here. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Present tense writing

It might be wise to write this article within a historical framework rather than present tense. Such as for example, "[...]changed security settings again in 2009 and twice in 2010. Following [...], in 2011..." or " by the end of 2007[...]"

This might be valuable so the article does not need constant rewriting simply to preserve a present-tense form of writing which is of dubious value in the first place. Mydogtrouble (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

McKeon on Facebook's privacy study

• Cleff Kuang (2010, May 10). "Infographic of the Day: Privacy on Facebook Is Vanishing". Fastcompany.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Note: the image seems to be CC-by-sa, and thus, may be upload to commons. Yug (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

SocialPlus

Perhaps a paragraph or a section could be made for SocialPlus which is a heavily used add-on for facebook. I persnally can't edit the article to add it on but if anyone thinks its of relevance to be added to the article then, if you know nothing of it already, you could use the website for information.

Teesideeeee (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2010 (GMT)

Crimes facilitated by facebook

There seems to me a need for something about the dangers of facebook (as opposed to criticism per se). Where would that go? Has there been discussion about this before? The page on online safety should probably also cover some of this, but there should be a link from here Here's an example: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/man-charged-with-facebook-teens-murder-20100515-v4uo.html There is some information on the criticism page, but it's not really about criticism. What do others think? peterl (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing censorship

We need to add a section about the fact that Facebook deletes users just for disagreeing with right-wing groups and fan sites. Facebook is full of fascist groups, and nobody is allowed to disagree with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.86.250 (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you've got good refs for them, feel free to add the info. peterl (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversies link , information unverified and appears to be false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook#Controversies information posted here does not have any verifiable link,appears to be false in reaction to the forementioned page.For which there is no proof that FB was involved. I request that this information is highly controversial in nature, it should be immediately verified, tested for accuracy and if found false (which according to my research it is) be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaleel5000 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The claim is correct but is in the wrong section, there is a verified mention of it in the article Criticism of Facebook. I've removed it from this article as there's no need for repetition. Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 11:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation on Facebook being banned in Countries

I don't know why but it is just bothering me that it has no citation. I mean, it was in the news that Pakistan banned Facebook. I even have a load of links you can use to fill the citation..

It is banned in Pakistan and temporarily blocked in Bangladesh several times...

http://www.stockwatch.in/facebook-banned-pakistan-26182 http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/05/20/pakistan-follows-facebook-ban-with-youtube-ban/ http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/811422--facebook-banned-in-pakistan

Choose one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.2.7 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

origin of the name facebook

Facebook's name stems from a "House" face book , a collection of a university's students and a little info about each person.

a) this should be referenced to in the history or name section.

b) there should be an article on one of those things explaining what that is

b1) if there is one, then it should be easier to find than currently is, as all variations of facebook etc. redirect here.

c) there should be a disambiguation page link at the top, or at least an "if you meant____then click here"

d) in the place where (abov a)) is there should be a link to such an article 69.114.174.64 (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. The term "facebook" was in general use in the 1980s and 1990s in American colleges to denote a printed book of students' head-shots, sold to students as a sort of incoming yearbook and way to identify and remember each other. Perhaps it was more general than that, and could also stand for company personnel books and the like. If we could get some more sources, there would be enough to create an article. Unfortunately I've found it difficult to search google for these sources because the word "Facebook" appears in most archived news pages as a link, and even if I get beyond that, the number of new articles mis-dated to the pre-Facebook era swamps the number of articles that were really from that era and mention a facebook. If anyone has any good sources or can think of how to do this search, I'd love to know. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I found a second source, so I've created a stub article at Face book. It needs a lot of work still, so we'll see where it goes from here. The search term +"face book" seems to weed out most references to Facebook. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They are typically known as "facebook"s, FYI, without the space. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you wikipedians for your quick help and understanding. I have been previously intimidated by veteran users and found them a bit snooty and unwelcoming to new contributers. so thank you for disavowing me of the notion that this is across all wikipedia, and allowing me to contribute in a meaningful way to wikipedia, my n00b-ishness notwithstanding. (i forgot to sign in b4) Seeasea (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The article should probably be moved to Facebook (directory) or something similar, since they are typically known without the space (as I mentioned above). I'm not too picky on the disambiguating term, but I think it should be renamed and disambiguated. Thoughts? Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Go for it! - Wikidemon (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay done. Gary King (talk · scripts) 04:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WTF is a "House" - is the average user supposed to know it is not a brothel or aristocratic dynasty? - or was just written for Harvard alums?71.31.152.112 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

a house is a group of students within a school and is used very widely worldwide, i was house captain at a highschool in scotland -ross616- (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section currently has a link to a substantial article detailing the wide range of criticism FB faces, along with sources and what not. The information on this page (i.e. the 2 sentence paragraph) is meant to simply draw attention to the fact that there is extensive criticism and if readers so wish they can navigate to Criticism of Facebook to find out more. The paragraph is written generally and does not need specific examples, otherwise the whole point in a larger, separate article is completely redundant. If users want to add coverage of any FB criticism they are more than welcome to do so (in accordance with relevant policies) on the correct article. This is not the correct article. If any user thinks the current offering is too vague, please add to it but remember it is a summary and therefore specific cases should not be noted. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

RaseaC, just a note that I agree with you. Facebook has (and deserves) so much criticism, it has to be in another article. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan bans Facebook

See sources available, at Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day#Pakistan_bans_Facebook. -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed they do. There is coverage on Criticism of Facebook. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This should be represented in this main article. It has gotten quite a significant amount of coverage in secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Every now and then a Facebook controversy gets some major coverage, it's happened before and it'll happen again. I see no reason to lend this any preference here. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Facebook banned in Pakistan

Pakistan’s government ordered Internet service providers to block Facebook on 19th May 2010 amid anger over a page that encourages users to post images of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.

The page on the social networking site has generated criticism in Pakistan and elsewhere because Islam prohibits any images of the prophet. The government took action after a group of Islamic lawyers won a court order Wednesday requiring officials to block Facebook until May 31.

By Wednesday evening, access to the site was sporadic, apparently because Internet providers were implementing the order.

The Facebook page at the centre of the dispute — “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!” — encourages users to post images of the prophet on May 20 to protest threats made by a radical Muslim group against the creators of “South Park” for depicting Muhammad in a bear suit during an episode earlier this year.

In the southern city of Karachi, some 2,000 female students rallied demanding that Facebook be banned for tolerating the controversial web page. Several dozen male students held a rally nearby, with some holding signs that urged Islamic holy war against those who blaspheme the prophet.

“We are not trying to slander the average Muslim,” said the information section of the Facebook page, which was still accessible Wednesday morning. “We simply want to show the extremists that threaten to harm people because of their Mohammad depictions that we’re not afraid of them. That they can’t take away our right to freedom of speech by trying to scare us into silence.”

A series of cartoons of the prophet published in a Danish newspaper in 2005 sparked violent protests by Muslims around the world, including Pakistan, and death threats against the cartoonists.

In an attempt to respond to public anger over the Facebook controversy, the Pakistani government ordered Internet service providers in the country to block the page Tuesday, said Khurram Ali, a spokesman for the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, which regulates the telecommunications network in the country.

But the Islamic Lawyers Forum asked the Lahore High Court on Wednesday to order the government to fully block Facebook because the site had allowed the page to be posted in the first place, said the deputy attorney general of Punjab province, Naveed Inayat Malik.

The court complied with the request and ordered the government to block the site until the end of May, Malik said.

Lawyers outside the courtroom hailed the ruling, chanting “down with Facebook.”

Later in the day, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority ordered all Internet service providers to block Facebook, it said in a press release.

Pakistan is not the only country to ban access to Web sites. China routinely controls users’ access to many sites, and it was locked for months in a battle with Google over censorship controls. This year, Google relocated its Chinese-language search engine to Hong Kong. In Turkey, authorities have imposed a sweeping ban for months at a time on YouTube because of what they described as material offensive to the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The authorities in Thailand also blocked YouTube in 2007 over video content that officials said was disrespectful to the king.

References

• Facebook banned in Pakistan

• Pakistani court orders Facebook blocked in prophet row

Engineer online123 (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is already extensively covered. And we have a much more reliable source than The Sun. raseaC^{talk to me} 12:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of two Notes sections? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not everybody can access Facebook

The main page of this article could be improved by adding a paragraph how Facebook cannot be accessed by everyone. For instance, people with a very slow baud rate are not likely to get much farther than a few fragments of its opening page before getting slogged down into a frozen screen. For instance, this happens to me quite a bit. There really is no practical way for a person with a poor connection to get anything out of Facebook. Part of this problem may lie with the deficiencies inherent in point to point protocol, and it may lie with intermediaries who have a duty to resist in transit editing, and to pass data on to the next point in the line without deliberately injurying, obstructing, or interfering with the data path. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Originally "know" as TheFacebook

Originally "know" as Facebook should surely be Originally known as Facebook! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.34.252 (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it completely, it's not notable enough for the lede given that the site has been known simply as 'Facebook' for since before it became so well known. raseaC^{talk to me} 18:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Many corrections and additions

Main Sidebar:

Matt Cohler no longer works for Facebook. The current VP of Product at Facebook is Chris Cox, per http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?execbios

Website:

Microsoft no longer runs banner ads on Facebook, but is instead a search partner through Bing. Really the whole advertising section should be reworded as facebook no longer runs any banner ads, only their own display ads.

Features:

Is it still relevant to say "The media often compares Facebook to MySpace"?

Platform:

HipHop references should be moved under "Server Infrastructure" along with other open source software.

The platform section contains no mention of the Open Graph API or other products announced at Facebook's developer conference in April 2010.

The only third-party platform app mentioned is "Chess", but there's no reference to hugely successful apps like Farmville, which currently has over 80 million monthly active users.

Effect on politics - Saint Anselm College presidential debates:

"Saint Anselm College presidential debates" can be removed from this subheading, and instead this section should be expanded to cover political candidates use of Facebook. It's now used for more than just the 2008 election in the US, and this section doesn't give weight to the rest of the world.

Reception:

Quantcast now ranks Facebook #2 in both the US and world, not #4 (via http://www.quantcast.com/top-sites-1 and http://www.quantcast.com/facebook.com)

>100 million photos are uploaded daily, not 14 million I will like to add ( under the political impact of Facebook) that the current Nigerian president - Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan announced his candidacy/bid for reelection in the on going presidential race on facebook. Please see the CNN story on this for details- http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-01/tech/goodluck.jonathan.facebook.profile_1_facebook-fans-popular-social-networking-site-nigerian-president?_s=PM:TECH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.132.227 (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture:

Books section doesn't mention the new book "The Facebook Effect", which was written with the cooperation of Facebook http://www.amazon.com/Facebook-Effect-Inside-Company-Connecting/dp/1439102112

Huwa (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Facebook traffic

"More people visited Facebook than Google for the week ending March 13, 2010."

According to the citation, this is for the US, not necessarily worldwide.

Facebook on smartphones

Section quotes iPhone app as having 1.5 million users

The Facebook iPhone app was launched August 2007 and as of July 2008 over 1.5 million people use it regularly

However, the reference cited refers to the mobile web app not the iPhone app. http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=22389032130 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.26.250 (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Un semi protected

Facebook is filling my related changes page since it got unprotected earlier; I give it less than another day before it gets moved back; how many IP edits to an article on Facebook are gonna be constructive? Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha!! I was absolutely right! Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Facebook/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The following concerns contribute to my belief that this article does not currently meet the GA criteria:

• Several very short sections:
  • "Growth", a subsection of "History", consists of only a table.
  • The "Criticism" section should be expanded to cover the kinds of criticism that have been leveled, and by whom.
    • "Criticism" is purposely short because it previously overpowered the article, so it was moved to its own page and shortened here so that the section had the proper weight. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The "Reception" section as a whole contains only short paragraphs and sections; I suggest they be merged and/or more substance be found.
  • The "Popular culture" section contains several headings that are unlikely to expand much. They should be removed as they, along with the "uncited" template, make the section appear bigger than it really is.

• More sourcing necessary:
  • The last sentence of "Facebook Lite". It shouldn't be hard to find a source for such an announcement.
  • "This patent is controversial in that it appears to cover all types of News Feeds." Especially needs a source because, how else can we be sure it's controversial?
    • Reworded and cited Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of "Platform". Another announcement thing.
  • "In December 2009, the New Oxford American Dictionary declared their word of the year to be the verb 'unfriend':" Another announcement thing.
    • Sourced. Merged into the paragraph as I don't think it should stand out as much. Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The entire "Criticism" section.
  • The thing about the Facebook book. The book itself can act as a source, even.
• Also, the rest of "Popular culture" is uncited, except for the television stuff.
• The gallery immediately under the "Website" header contains five fair-use images, none of which show descriptions for why they are necessary in that context. I think the only necessary one is possibly the 2009 one, since that shows a user's page rather than just the homepage.
  • They all show a profile. I don't like the 2009 one as it shows Lite, but Lite doesn't even exist anymore. I kept the 2004 since that shows how Facebook looked in the first year—a very crucial stage. And I kept the 2007 since it's the only one of the remaining two that had a feed. Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• In the Growth table, is the last row of cells necessary? It only implies that the site has not yet reached 500 million active users.
  • I think it should be kept since it's useful to compare the number of days count for 500 million members compared to the other ones. As you can see, for instance, it's taking longer to get to 500 million than it is to 400 million. Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Minor thing, but in "and have even been known to fire them over posts they've made" it should be "they have", not "they've".
• Another thing, You Have 0 Friends should be "You Have 0 Friends" per episode title standards.
• Criticism of Facebook and Facebook features should not be in "See also" as they are already highlighted as related articles in the prose.

Be aware that I am not out to get anyone; I want to see this article kept. However, I cannot do that in good conscience unless my concerns are addressed. Tezero (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I probably won't have time to get to most of this. The site has changed substantially since I last did major work on the article, too. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Try to get to what you can. I notified the Internet Culture project. Tezero (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article until just now, is it ok if I strike off the stuff I did? I'd appreciate a confirmation under what i strike with your approval that it is completed to your satisfaction.--Iankap99 (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Just try to put the strike tags to the right of the asterisks so it doesn't screw up the bullet points. But it looks like these have been satisfactorily done. Tezero (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article by shuffling things around and moving some excessive info to sub-articles so that this article is more focused. I'll continue cleaning up the article, and probably add it back to my watchlist again, after it was gone for a few years since things were changing too quickly. One thing that I still need help with from others is the "Company" section, which I do believe needs to exist and expanded as Facebook is fire and foremost a business that needs to make money. Maybe in 2008 when I was working on the article, there wasn't much information about that part of the website. Now, though, there is plenty, so we should add to that what we can. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm pretty much done for now. I've marked everything else that needs to be done with maintenance templates. As I said, "Company" needs expanding. "Website" should not be a history lesson and instead should simply discuss the major features of the website. "Impact" needs to be expanded for sure, as Facebook has surely had a major impact on real-world events up to now. Facebook, and therefore this article, has growth considerably since I first started working on it in 2008. Back then, there was only one article on Facebook. I still remember creating some of the sub-articles so that the main one would be more focused. We still need to keep that goal in mind, so anything that's not absolutely essential should be moved to sub-articles. Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The article's gotten better. I've looked for articles relating to Facebook as a corporation, and found a few things: [7] [8] [9] [10] Might any of them be useful? Tezero (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead and add those. There will undoubtedly be enough information to split off a new article about Facebook's business, eventually. The I4U website looks a bit sketchy, though. The other websites I know are reliable enough to use. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I added them. The Company section probably doesn't need to be that big. My only gripes that remain with the article are the ones above that aren't crossed out. Tezero (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I assure you there is enough information on Facebook's business—the most talked about online company right now—to create a separate article for that. That'll be in due time, though. I see that you renamed some of the sections. I don't think that they should be merged together. I understand that the current "Impact" section only focuses on the 2008 elections, but there is definitely more out there to add to there, so I'd rather not want to have a section with such a narrow scope which is why I just name it "Impact". Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay all points done and/or commented on. Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The article looks better. The features section could use some cleanup but it's not a huge issue. I'm interested to see how an article strictly about the company policies/practices will do. Result of this reassessment: "Kept". Tezero (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ceedaley26, 2 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please insert information about Causes in 2.3 Platform section of the Facebook page. We would like an explanation that the Causes application was one of the first applications to utilize the Facebook platform and today supports over 150 million of Facebook's users for online advocacy.

Ceedaley26 (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Any thing in particular that has a reliable source? -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 00:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Alleged links with the CIA

I would find interesting to add some lines about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.227.57.123 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll be honest. I actually chuckled when I saw this in the contents. God bless the IPs, they make Wikipedia what it is today.raseaC^{talk to me} 23:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am 100% certain that the CIA uses Facebook as an information source. If it didn't, it would not be doing its job all that well. Perhaps our IP editor could provide a little more on this conspiracy theory. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Previously, I had come across sources claiming that Facebook was started by the CIA to gather intel on people around the world. I have also heard that the CIA uses Facebook to recruit people. The CIA probably does use Facebook to gather intel, but I have not yet come across an article discussing this without discussing the fact that Facebook was in fact started by the CIA. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Colinkeenan, 18 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under the "Company" section, in the second sentence of the third paragraph, it is obvious that the year referred to should be changed as follows:

"Involver, a social marketing platform, announced in July 2080 that it managed to attain a CTR of 0.7% on Facebook" should be changed to "Involver, a social marketing platform, announced in July 2008 that it managed to attain a CTR of 0.7% on Facebook"

I have not checked the source but whatever source was used for that sentence can be checked to verify it was July 2008. Obviously it could not be July 2080 as currently listed in the article. Colinkeenan (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not banned in Iran

its not, and dont post a smarta** response. the data posted is old.

Congratulations! Wikipedia's one-billionth user. Click to collect your prize!

What is this? I've seen this on quite a few pages now. I thought this was an uneditable page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senorerik (talk • contribs) 01:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Only autoconfirmed users can edit this article. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senorerik (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 60.53.239.75, 20 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

60.53.239.75 (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a specific change in mind? Gary King (talk · scripts) 04:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Member Count

I think the number of facebook members, nearing 500 million or something, is very important and should be in the article header. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.165.225 (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair request; I've added 400 million. 500 million is a number that is commonly cited but Facebook has yet to make an official announcement on that; they are expected to do so within the week. Gary King (talk · scripts) 16:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reliable indication available of the geographic spread of those members? Which countries have the highest uptake, etc? HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes; you can find that information from the ad creation page, if you use the Advance option and then type in which country you want to know about. It will tell you the exact number of Facebook users in that country. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello all. Doesn't it seem a bit over-presumptuous to have a row in the member count table in the 'History' section with the figure of '600 million active users on Facebook' before it's actually reached that number? Moreover, there isn't even a reference given to validate the high probability of it reaching that number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemony123 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The age for joining Facebook

The article tells me "Anyone age 13 or older can become a Facebook user." I teach that age group at high school. Most become members before they turn 13, simply because they can, by "lying" about their age when signing up. They do it when their peers become members. And that's an issue with Facebook to some parents. While that is WP:OR, It should come as no surprise to most editors. it would be more accurate to say something like "Anyone who declares they are aged 13 or older can become a Facebook user." HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your example sounds too convoluted; I think this is more accurate. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the point I'm making is that anyone who DECLARES they are aged 13 or over can become a member. I will make a minor change to reflect this. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks to some twists and turns of Amricna law, kids under 13 are supposed to be offered extra privacy protections, which are not commercially feasible for websites to implement, so the sites won't let them join. Instead they impose a requirement that people be over 13 to join and rely on members' own declarations of age. That's no different than plenty of other self-reported stuff, and Facebook is no different than any other site here. If we want to be super-correct we should say that Facebook is open to all persons who declare that they are 13 years of age and older. Fair enough? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

History

Are the legal ownership challenges not notable ? Maybe once cases have been through court (& appeals ...)

Paul Ceglia http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/facebook-attempts-to-get-ny-mans-claim-of-ownership-thrown-out/
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/07/21/the-massive-hole-in-facebooks-latest-legal-challenge/?section=magazines_fortune

ConnectU http://techcrunch.com/2007/07/16/the-ghost-of-zuckerbergs-past-may-haunt-facebook-ipo/

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The article still needs a lot of work in general. It was filled with too much information just a month ago; most of that has since been moved to satellite articles so that this article can focus on summarizing those. What you're looking for can be found at Criticism_of_Facebook#Intellectual_property_rights; that section should be summarized in a single paragraph in this article, I'd say. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Privacy Policy recommendation

Hello, I was wondering about the privacy policy criticism lately and if anybody could put that under reception, that would be nice. Luibsasocer (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Spam filter

Hi. For some reason a spam filter is preventing me fixing a ref error on the bottom seciton. Can somebody fix it? Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 20:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No mention of massive information leak to BitTorrent?

It's been in the news for two days, now. http://gizmodo.com/5599970/major-corporations-are-downloading-those-100-million-facebook-profiles-off-bittorrent 174.23.201.221 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a leak, it's the scraping of publicly available information. It's not obviously noteworthy or relevant vis-a-vis an overview of what Facebook is. If we do cover it we need to avoid the hype of the tech blogs or the relatively uninformed positions of random journalism blogs. Are there many significant reliable sources on this? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

BBC, The Economic Times, to name a few. I believe companies are downloading the database so they can refer to it any time they are about to hire someone. Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would they want to do that? The list won't help them. The Economic Times (an Indian English language business daily) piece clearly got it wrong - the information was not leaked so the premise of their story is inaccurate. The BBC story lends some weight to the issue but it covers it as a relative non-event. A guy gathers some publicly-available information and promotes it to make a point about privacy. Some people say it illustrates something, others say it doesn't. Again, it is not obvious that this is much of a revelation about Facebook, and as far as Facebook privacy issues go it seems to have a lot less to it (and probably less legs as a news story) than quite a few other incidents and issues. Perhaps there are some child articles, maybe it fits in the criticism of facebook article. Is there an article specifically about Facebook privacy? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's probably best to put all this under Criticism of Facebook. The child articles of Facebook are essentially where things go when they don't belong in an overview of Facebook, which is what this particular article is for. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There should be an update Facebook article to include reference of leaked contact details of Facebook users. RJW Times (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Date 4th August 2010, RJW Times

As mentioned earlier, you can put that here: Criticism of Facebook. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from {{subst:CURRENTUSER}}, 8 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} You can now have the same kinda pages on Fb as you have on myspace using pagerage

98.20.227.19 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It only works if the user viewing the profile also has the extension installed. Feel free to add it to Facebook features; it doesn't belong in this main article, though, which should only contain the most essential information. Gary King (talk · scripts) 23:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Facebook and defamation

There's an interesting article here about how the law sees defamation on Facebook, and how it might differ from defamation eg in a newspaper. I don't see the issue discussed here or in the Criticism article, and I think it's worth mentioning somewhere. Perhaps there's a specific article on legal issues in social media? (Although the article focusses on Facebook, the issue applies elsewhere too.) Rd232 ^talk 13:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Importance rating in WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area banner

The abovementioned banner current lists the article as having "mid-importance" to its project. I just want to point out that the article isn't directly related to geography nor places, so it should be marked as "low-importance" instead no? I also made some relevant changes at Talk:Playfish, you may wish to take a look there as well. Cheers, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 03:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Low for California is fine. I left it Mid for SF, though, as it's a large employer there and influences a lot of the other companies there. Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pro facebookers wrote this article - where are the anti's?? 86.153.161.143 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Blocked in Bangladesh By Government

Facebook has been locally blocked by Bangladeshi Government for a temporary period. Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) said part of the reason is the posting of some anti-religious and anti-social contents across the globe.

Article Resource - TheTechJournal.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asif2bd (talk • contribs) 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

500 million users?

"...with more than 500 million active users in July 2010, which is about one person for every fourteen in the world."

It should be noted that Facebook has 500 million active accounts. The above sentence, found in the first paragraph in the article, should be revised for political correctness and accuracy. There's probably about 250 million users, depending on how many of them have more than one account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forever Dusk (talk • contribs) 00:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Facebook always refers to these 500 million as individual "people". And I believe that third-party traffic statistics companies have numbers that generally agree with Facebook's (of course, they aren't as accurate as Facebook's themself, but they are still very similar numbers), meaning that about 500 million unique IP addresses with unique cookies visits Facebook at least once a month. I don't think that many people have more than one account (I'm talking about soccer moms and the like here; i.e. people who think "the Internet" is the blue "e" on their desktop), and even if they did, many go dormant or are not used every month. Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's untrue. Siblings and such share the same computer or the same network, and therefore would be counted separately to the figure. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 13:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you mean it's true then. Because siblings would each have unique cookies. Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There are IPS out there who use revolving ip addresses...like that of aol. I happen to know several people who have multiple accounts and it depends on when they log in as to what their ip address is at that time...my ex girl friend has 2 unique ip addesss when she loggs on...64 and 205...mind you that this is an aol thing...and she clears her cookies before she loggs off her pc every night...so having said that...im sure that their are more people who do this in the world and that the 500 million users is an over statement. 63.3.3.2 (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i meant what the other person said was untrue. I think 500 million IS an accurate figure. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 04:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Facebook's Russian friend

See Hempel, Jessi. "Facebook's friend in Russia." Fortune. October 4, 2010. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.199.117.105, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Grammar fixup: History section, last paragraph, change "eight of individual markets" to "eight individual markets". 24.199.117.105 (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.199.117.105, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In Media, 3rd paragraph: - Change "Armie Hammer as Cameron Winklevoss" to "Armie Hammer as Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss". - Change "Ben Mezrich's 2009 book The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook, A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius, and Betrayal" to "the Mezrich book" (long title already mentioned previously, seems redundant and clunky here). 24.199.117.105 (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Active users

'"Total active users" is defined by Facebook as a user who has visited the website in the last 30 days.' Strange wording. How about: 'An "active user" is defined by Facebook as a user who has visited the website in the last 30 days.' Jujutacular ^talk 02:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Deanybabeh (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. David Biddulph (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Social Network

Should this part of the article not be summarised in a shorter way than a whole paragraph? It just seems to contain too much information which could be better read via a link to the actual The Social Network article. Deanybabeh (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fine. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 04:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Social Network: A comedy-drama film?

The wiki page for The Social Network calls the film a drama film, not a comedy-drama film. Either the "comedy" part should be deleted, or the page for The Social Network should add the "comedy" part to its description for consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.116.121 (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a comedy. I removed that part. Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad Grammar

the sentence at the beginning: "Facebook allows anyone who declares to be at least 13 years old" really needs to be fixed for grammar. please fix. (my account can't edit locked articles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestbook (talk • contribs) 09:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with the grammar in that sentence? I see no grammar improprieties.

yeah that seems completely fine to me, declares to be..." would be correct as well but it makes perfect sense gramatically as it is -ross616- (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Facebook's access to network passwords

Hi, I've just been wondering if anyone knows how it is that Facebook can verify whether or not a user's university/school/corporation email address and password match up? How is it that they have access to this information? And did all these institutions agree to this? Thanks very much to anyone with any answers. --TyrS (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

They don't verify your password. What they do is they send a verification email to your university email address. Gary King (talk · scripts) 05:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gary. (I actually realised that after I posted. Having a senior moment.)--TyrS (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Two new sections added

I have added two new sections: 'Link to Wikipedia' and 'Future Developments'. No links for either sorry but a simple FB search will confirm the first and the second I read in the British newspaper The Observer recently. Both fairly uncontroversial I would have thought. Of course other editors may disagree but I would appreciate discussion before deletion of these sections. Thanks. SmokeyTheCat 11:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The two new sections seem inappropriately short and would work better if integrated into other sections. Also, anything uncited is unencyclopedic and should be removed promptly. If it is so simple to confirm these with reliable sources, then do so! 76.204.127.175 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The bulleted list is unnecessary. I understand that it may be unwieldy to read a paragraph that is a structured list of facts and therefore tempting to convert to a list, but a list brings unnecessary attention to the information, in my opinion. It could also perhaps be shortened down so that the owners with less than 5% are removed, but I think that would be removing information that is sourced and could be useful to some people. With regards to the two new sections you added, they are ultimately not crucial to Facebook overall and I have therefore moved them to Facebook features so that they don't give undue weight in this article. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Facebook not blocked in Uzbekistan

The information on the blocking of Facebook in Uzbekistan is incorrect:

Quote: It has been blocked intermittently in several countries including Pakistan,[9] Syria,[10] the People's Republic of China,[11] Vietnam,[12] Iran,[13], Uzbekistan[14] and North Korea.

Reference: (Russian) "Uzbek authorities have blocked access to Facebook". Retrieved 21 October 2010.

The site was unaccessible in the country for some time on 21 October 2010, which made people think it was blocked. Source: http://gazeta.uz/2010/10/22/fb/

Edit Request

In the last few days, a 12-year-old girl went missing in Renton, Washington. Her family set up a Facebook page titled "Bring Riley Bunch Home" and spread the word around the community to look for Riley. Hundreds of flyers were printed and more than 4,000 people joined the group in less than 48 hours. The UW head football coach, Coach Sark, and the Seahawks head coach, Pete Carroll, both tweeted about it and put in on their Facebook pages as well. Riley was eventually found miles away in a Safeway by the store manager; the manager had no relation to the family, but had heard about Riley because of all the buzz on Facebook. I think this might be good to go into the "impact" section--a paragraph about how Facebook has saved lives.

Other states have been mentioning it as well (I don't have any references for that though) and it was on the news in Washington. It became a really big deal and united the community. I think it deserves to be mentioned.

References: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bring-Riley-Bunch-Home/141510132564153?v=wall http://www.issaquahpress.com/2010/10/26/police-parents-search-for-missing-maywood-student/ http://www.king5.com/your-news/105799473.html http://community.livejournal.com/seattle/6359813.html http://renton.komonews.com/content/bring-riley-bunch-home http://zmarter.com/twitter-toptweets/coachsark-please-help-find-missing-12-year-old-riley-bunch-last-seen-yesterday-in-renton-wa-http/ow.ly/2zzx1.html http://topsy.com/renton.komonews.com/content/riley-bunch-found-safe http://issaquah.komonews.com/content/riley-bunch-found-safe http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dx0tc/12_year_old_missing_girl_riley_bunch_has_been/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.0.216 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems fairly un-notable to me. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

contradiction in information

In Facebook says that Chris Hughes owns 1% of shares:

a small group of current and former employees and celebrities own less than 1% each, including Matt Cohler, Jeff Rothschild, California U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, Chris Hughes, and Owen Van Natta,

But in Chris Hughes wiki page says he owns 12%:

Chris R. Hughes (born November 26, 1983(1983-11-26)) is a United States entrepreneur who co-founded and served as spokesman for the online social directory and networking site, Facebook, with Harvard roommates Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz and Eduardo Saverin. He owns 12% of Facebook, giving him a net worth of $2.8 billion.

92.231.128.92 (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

He owns less than 1%. If he was a billionaire, he'd be on Forbes list of billionaires, at the very least, just like Dustin Moskovitz is. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)