Talk:Facebook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Facebook has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Maintained The following user(s) is/are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: This in no way implies page "ownership"; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Agreement with Iran and Syria

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...

[edit] Banned in Iran?

Is that really such an amazing fact to put on the first paragraph? I bet loads of websites are banned there! Cls14 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is really not amazing but Iran and Syria are probably the only countries that banned facebook, so it is mentioned there.Lilied1 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not blocked in Iran. My friends are using it right now without any proxy. The sentence smells anti-Iranian. Without citing anything, even an old report, or even putting a question mark, it just broadcasts opinions.

I added a citation. As with any internet filtering, it's spotty and intermittent, and in some areas it will be easier to access (maybe some internet cafes). That's the case with Syria, I would assume it's similar in Iran. Joshuagross (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

depends on your internet provider in iran Lilied1 (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facebook Wikipedia network

Anybody knows anything about that? It is impossible to join (requires "work email", which is NOT the email one has registered at Wikipedia).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is a network for Wikimedia members (members with a Wikimedia email address)? Strange that it is called Wikipedia though - I don't think WP people specifically have WP email address. ~~ [Jam][talk] 19:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe it is for Foundation employees/board members that have an @wikimedia.org email address. I could be wrong, however. Greeves (talk • contribs) 02:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facebook is not banned in Iran, I am in Iran and can use it easily

i think face book was founded by aliens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.0.243 (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have many contacts based in Iran too, they all use facebook without "filter breakers".--92.3.103.205 (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Facebook Redesign Controversy

The Wikipedia article on "Facebook" should mention the current controversy about Facebook's 2008 redesign, which has caused a major outcry in the user community. Facebook is planning to make the new design compulsory to all users within the next few weeks.[1] Many users would prefer the option to keep the old design or reject the new design alltogether. Major points of criticsm include a greater focus on intrusive news/communication features and the loss of the more "personalized" look of the old design as the new design bans personal info and application boxes from the profile page, so that visitors have to klick themselves through to find them.[2]

see: http://www.insidefacebook.com/2008/08/25/facebook-redesign-may-not-go-live-to-all-users-for-a-month http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=21195574231 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.39.235.97 (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a tempest in a teacup. The tech community is always up in arms about something. Growing web companies redesign their website yearly at least. Any reliable sources to show that either the redesign itself, its effect on users, or the user reaction is notable to the company?

A blog and FB group are not RS. If it signalled the beginning of the end then next year add something, otherwise it is 273,000 moaners out of how many millions members? Darrenhusted (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds just like the whole issue that came up when last.fm changed their website design - see what I mean here. ~~ [Jam][talk] 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually the biggest group against the redesign has 1,094,438 members. I think that is enough to be considered a controversy. http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=21195574231&ref=ts Tyler John (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm still wondering which bit of FB groups are not reliable sources people are struggling with? ~~ [Jam][talk] 09:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm still using the old Facebook client, I didnt change to the new one. The article is incorrect in saying that the new version is the only version available! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.105.83 (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot more than 273,000 moaners as of today. At least 1.7 million in only one of the many anti new Facebook groups, and counting. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
That number referred directly to the FB group listed. Doesn't change RS rules though. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1053525/Facebook-fury-One-million-users-protest-design-social-networking-site.html - that reliable enough? 83.100.161.252 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Needs more than one ref. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, now I think you're being overly picky. There's really no reason why this information can't be included in the article, and one reference is fine for a small section like this would be. The largest English language group is now at just below 2 million members: easy to link to, and with the reference provided above, more than good enough. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Overly picky for wanting WP:RS and WP:V. In the grand scheme of things a bunch of people joining a group on facebook is not a major event. The redesign is permanent, out of 100m users so far around 2% object. In the grand scheme of things this may not end up being significant. As the forced adoption of the new design is only a week old I suggest waiting for a few months. If this causes 50 million people to leave then it is significant, otherwise a passing reference, not a whole section, will be enough. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Darrenhusted I respectfully suggest that it is you that is being at bit arbitrary here. 2,000,000 people doing anything is noteworthy! 2,000,000 people voting in a general election is a landslide. 2,000,000 people marching on Washington is frontpage news. Indeed, there is more than one group on FB that has over 1,000,000 members (there is at least two more), 2,000,000 members opposed to the new format (http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=27233634858) is the largest.
The great thing about a wiki is that if you are correct and the whole thing blows over, then delete the passage relating to it. But for now it is news that relates to this wiki page and should be on here. Just for transparency do you work at Facebook? I will take a no reply to be a yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.24.146 (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your definition of noteworthy, but it is not me that you will need to satisfy. Let me give you an example, there is a website and it has 100,000 members, they redesign it and 10,000 members leave and start complaining in a rival forum, it that newsworthy? No. If Facebook's financial future comes under some kind of problem because 2 million users leave (and is they are in an FB group they are still on FB) then it is worth noting, as it is they are just a group of users complaining about something (and there are hundreds of FB groups where large amounts of people complain about something). Note noteworthy. And on this But for now it is news note, read WP:NOT#NEWS. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Darren's evaluation of the situation. As I said before, this is exactly the same as with last.fm when they redesigned their site - loads of groups sprung up "complaining" about it, but nothing of note except for a few "fringe" (in my opinion) news sites. Also, it is impossible to know over the however many groups there are how many users are duplicated across them - I know of a few friends of mine who are members of many different "hate the new look" groups. The numbers aren't verifiable! ~~ [Jam][talk] 09:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Darren - We are not talking about 10,000 people here, it is over 2,000,000 (0.03% of the world's population). The 'something' that people in other groups are protesting about may well relate to random topics (so what!), I not asking for the wiki Space_Raiders wiki page to be edited to reflect the group protesting about the price of their crisps compared to the 80's, that is a discussion for that page. In the over 2,000,000 group the 'something' relates to the substance of this wiki page, and these FB users are protesting about FB and the format of FB, that is important to this page, it relates to the core of this page.
I read WP:NOT#NEWS, and this seems to me to relate to making new wiki pages about current events. We are not talking about making a new page, we are talking about editing this one. It also says that the coverage should be proportional. I think few lines about this protest is more than proportional to the rest of the size of this wiki page.
I also note you didn't answer the question if you work at Facebook. It seems to me that you do and that makes you far from impartial on this ... I have to ask, do you actually get paid to 'mind' this page for FB, are you 'cleaning up' it up for FB? I think you should do the honourable thing and not edit here if you are not impartial (I'm sure there must be a WP-style note about this somewhere). Please advise if I am wrong and you don't work at facebook, I would be pleased to hear it.
Yes, I work at Facebook. In fact, I'm Mark Zuckerberg, and I am so concerned I am editing the Wikipedia page to stop people leaving Facebook. Don't be silly, if you want to know anything about me then look through my contribs, I don't work for Facebook, but I do understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, and so far your arguments for adding in trivia to this article have not persuaded me, nor three or four other editors. Throwing around number about 0.03% of the world's population does nothing to help your cause, because we are not a democracy. We rule by consensus, and consensus is not for adding in trivial information about an FB group. If in six months time this is shown to have some long term impact then it will get significant coverage, and then it can be added. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Jam - In reply, these 2,000,000 are just the people on FB who can be bothered to protest, there will no doubt be many more out there, but I do take your point that you can not merely sum separate groups as they may share some users. But in the over 2,000,000 group unless these people have created multiple accounts on FB just to protest, I think this must be a reasonably reliable a number. For example in the world population page it says there is 6.721 billion people on this planet, can this be checked, seems grossly rounded off to me ...?, but this number is still on wikipedia as it is good enough). I ask can your average FB user really be so bothered by the changes made to new FB so as to conspire to create thousands of fake accounts each, just so that they can have a protest about the one account that they actually want to use untroubled ... hrmmm. JAM - same question to you, please confirm you don't work at Facebook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.24.146 (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've condensed and consolidated the material. There was a lot of duplication, unsourced speculation, weasel words, etc. It all ought to be verifiable, so please either come up with solid citations or take it out. Also, we have no source that it was a significant event. We cannot infer that anything is significant merely because several million people sign an online petition or join a group "protesting" (a very loose description for someone who clicks a button on a virally spread invitation) something. As they say, that plus two fifty will get you a cup of coffee. Tech consumers and bloggers rant all the time about every subject under the sun - we don't have enough space in the encyclopedia to repeat every complaint we can source. It's just not encyclopedic. Every time a car, clothing, piece of software, building, phone, or sack of flower gets a face lift somebody isn't going to like it. The approval rate on everything is below 100%. So what? Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


JAM - I think my question was a fair question, and I believe it only right that anyone with a conflict of interest should declare it. Note - I stated that I would be please to hear that Darren is not in the pay of Facebook. I’m sure many big companies have “minders” on wikipages to sanitize them – I would! Also, I would have clicked on your profile, but I didn't because it is in a red font, which normally on Wikipedia means that it is dead link. Bit harsh to hold that against me!

To address your points in turn: Well it isn't a little protest it is a big protest (at least 0.03% of the earth's population are protesting!). Also, it is not just a protest “somewhere online", it is a protest on Facebook about Facebook which is the subject of this wikipage! You mention the guidelines in regard to verifiable numbers Wikipedia:V which reads:

  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
Thus it is a twofold test (1) can it be found and checked (2) is the source “reliable”.
(1): If anyone goes to Facebook they can very easily find a group with 2.4 million members protesting about FB new format.
(2): I find it incomprehensible that anyone could doubt the "reliability" of Facebook as a source of information about Facebook!!!!
--> Thus it seems that the test for “verifiability” by wiki’s rules has been met.

I can also see why you are happy to let “the matter rest”, I would be happy to “let it rest” if there was a single line on this page which mentions that 2.4 million members of Facebook currently dislike/hate the new page format. In 6 months, if it as you predict, this fuss has blown over, then remove this single statement. I really think it is you who is being arbitrary here, why do you fear this so much? Is the truth so hard to bear! You really can’t believe that the protest is some sort of fabrication!


Wikidemon - (to address your points mostly in turn) - I think there can be no more solid a citation about Facebook than a number actually published by Facebook. No one other than FB collates the numbers in these groups and publishes them. Again you like the others anti-protest editors seem very keen to liken 2.4 million people to a few (meaning maybe a handful or so) disgruntled people complaining about 'a bag of flower'. Again, it not a few it is many many many many (so on) people, and this protest is not about flower it is the subject of this wikipage.

You said "The approval rate on everything is below 100%. So What" - I say to this to you "Water is wet, so what". You statement whilst being true, is meaningless. In things like elections, it is often more important what a few % of people dislike, than what the greater % of people simply just don't care about.

On Facebook there is not other way to vote or express dissatisfaction than by joining a group. I think you debase the views of people by saying that a “click” has less value than a tick in a box on a ballot paper, in fact, I think it is quite rude, you don’t have a place to disrespect the views of others simply by the medium used to communicate it, disagree with others views by all means, but to say someone else’s view is worthless is going too far. After all, a well organised internet based click campaign can be very effective, it only took 1,811,424 UK citerzens to bring a halt to a Governement road pricing policy see: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/traveltax/.


Darren (to address your points mostly in turn) - I didn't cite “0.03% of the earth's population” in reference to wiki being a democracy. I think you deliberately mischaracterized the reason I cited this number. I cited this number to prove that 2.4 million (as it is now) is not a small number of people - 2 million is a big number of people.

I would agree that a reference to “2.4 million members protesting about Facebook” placed on a page related to “human rights in China” would indeed be trivial (and should be deleted). However, we are talking about adding this number to a page about Facebook, where it is not trivial at all, it is quite important and goes to the very fabric of social networking – if people hate the format, who is going to want to use it. You mention consensus, do I need consensus from you to edit this page, seems like I do, funny it ... sounds like you are "out-voting" me ... sounds kind of democratic …


To summarise, this wikipage is about Facebook. Facebook is a social networking website. Social networking relies on users logging in and using the interface to network with each other. If such users hate the interface, they wont use it, if they won’t use it, it is damaging to very purpose of the social networking site. At present these users have invested a lot of time building this network and are not willing to just cease using it, but if they feel so undervalued by the provider (Farcebook) then they will start to leave. At least 2.4 million users have joined these protest groups (by Facebook’s own calculations). These people are certainly active users and not dormant unused accounts. This is a verifiable number (by Wiki rules) as it is published and can be readily checked (i.e. just go to Facebook). It is also published by the most reliable source about Facebook that there could be, it is published by Facebook itself. It seems that the above editors have simply closed their mind to 2.4 million Facebook users views, deciding that these people’s views are trivial, without justifying why they think their views are trivial. There is no rational given for why these editors have taken this view, other than some sort of “gut” instinct that they are correct.

Here's a few sources with quotes that I found using Factiva:

  • Wong, Wailin (September 12, 2008). "Revamped Facebook site giving users grief; Effort to de-clutter social network has led to minor online revolt". Edmonton Journal. p. E2. "In the last month of testing, thousands of users have joined online groups and signed petitions asking Facebook to either dump the new site or continue giving them a choice between versions." 
  • Liedke, Michael (September 13, 2008). "Facebook creator prepared for facelift backlash". Guelph Mercury. p. C3. "But Zuckerberg, still only 24, is hoping he has found a way to ease the journey down a different road so he won't have to issue public apologies like he did in each of the previous two years after springing new products on users." 
  • Staff writer (September 19, 2008). "REDESIGN BACKLASH Face in our bad books". MX (Australia). p. 5. "A Facebook group created to protest changes to the social networking website has attracted one million members and is growing by up to 200,000 each day. ... Stanborough said many users were upset Facebook hadn't sought their approval before redesigning the website. However, the group may be outnumbered by the silent majority of users not bothered by the new look." 

-- Mark 14:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it that an admin was arguing to place original research in an article? What a sorry state of affairs Wikipedia has found itself in... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.236.85 (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What Happened?

I don't know what happened to this page, but it used to be so much better. This page tlls me nothing about the history of facebook since it's launch until now, and the controversies glosses over some major controversies that happened in the sites ongoing development. How about the introduction of the newsfeed and the outcry among users about its privacy. How about college campuses looking through pages and giving students violations based on pictures. There is so much more meat and substance than what exists now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.98.125 (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that backs you up and you can add whatever you want. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a sub-article (linked to the main article) devoted entirely to criticism and controversies. I have shipped the bulk of the ConnectU lawsuit to that article, and I think much of the rest of the controversies section should be mentioned briefly in summary style. Another section to summarize is the features section. This article really ought to concentrate more on the company history, direction, events, make-up, context, etc. There are a number of things to clean up. Wikidemon (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2008

[edit] Facebook is a 'Social Utility' rather than a Social Network

{{editsemiprotected}}Facebook has recently clarified that it isn't a social network but a 'Social Utility' for re-connecting with real world friends and relationships.Kindly mention the reference which is a TechPluto,A Technology Weblog

[1]—Preceding unsigned comment added by prashantkandwal (talk • contribs)

A quick Google search would indicate that you are a writer for this site or you own the site.[3] Please don't use Wikipedia as an advertisement. And regarding the "social utility" thing, Facebook has tried to advance that marketing speak before and the previous consensus was that it's a PR campaign and not a well known/defined concept.--William Graham talk 06:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
N Not done per William Graham's point. Additionally, regardless of what Facebook may have said on a weblog, they are still referred to as a "social network" in most of the reliable sources in the article, making that still the correct term to use in the article. ~ mazca t | c 14:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Facebook's claim that it is a "social utility" was widely reported, and has some interesting implications. The claim isn't reliable as to whether Facebook is or is not a utility, and Facebook does not seem to be substantially different than other networks in this regard. It's still a social network, but the fact that Zuckerberg sees it as a utility as well and it became part of their policy is notable and sourceable. That would belong somewhere in a section about marketing, strategy, corporate positioning, etc., if we ever create one.Wikidemon (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "hew facebook"

In the article, the section titled "The New Facebook" has only one sentence under it. no one likes it is an unfair generalization. If there is going to be a section on the redesigned facebook layout, shouldn't it cover both pro's and con's and legitimate points?Chaoswolf313 (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I know there's already a section about the redesign, but it seems to have become polluted with arguments. I just figured someone could clear up the actual article and remove the generalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoswolf313 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pirate language

they have added a pirate language to facebook.

So? ~~ [Jam][talk] 08:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

it is awesome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.10.171 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New HQ

"Social networking website Facebook is to set up its international headquarters in Dublin, it announced today." Story here. GeneralBelly (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Needs change

When i read this article, I get the vibe that its written by a Facebook user for a Facebook user, or a young teenager exclaiming that facebook is finally open for anybody their age

"It later expanded further to include any university student, then high school students, and, finally, to anyone aged 13 and over. The website currently has more than 100 million active users worldwide.[5]" 71.215.210.217 (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You get a vibe? I think you'll find the statement above is the easiest away of describing how the age range was gradually expanded over time, and not the excited ranting of a 13 year old. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing with this: the whole article needs to be more "encyclopedic" otherwise it will resemble what the Facebook PR department would produce----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Zuckerberg's preceding project?

Apparently Zuckerberg, in 2003, was messing around with the harvard college facebooks...maybe this was what sparked facebook? should we include it?

See: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349855 and: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=350143

RideABicycle | Talk | 03:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Redesign

Is there a way to mention the reaction of the users to the new facebook? I think there are plenty of news articles discussing it. Iamcoolerthanyouyepthatsright (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

nevermind, missed the above section Iamcoolerthanyouyepthatsright (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Languages

Someone who can, please put this in it operates in the Irish language also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.102.54 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that, as someone involved in the translation project is only on stage 2 of 3... when the project is complete Irish will be added to the list.--JJ was here (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AboutFace Ads

What's this paragraph advertising AboutFace/Atlantic Media doing in the first part of the history section? It's way too long, advertises their stuff and doesn't really belong into the facebook article anyway... 217.162.84.17 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I removed it. Corwinlw (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs simple copy editing

76.102.119.92 (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC) The long piece on the dates when new features were introduced should be copy-edited into some kind of logical order. Some ideas:

 -  chronological order
 -  categories such as 'privacy,' 'multi-media,' 'interactive'...

Or another sequence that has some logical flow to it.

can someone change the 120 million users to 130 million users (source: link for the 120 million...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.223.66 (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Net Income of Facebook

It says in the article that the net income of Facebook is -$50 million. I have checked the reference and the article and no where I could find phrases which identify the net income of Facebook. Can anyone confirm on whether the figure is credible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.192.160 (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Over-referencing

Does this sentence:

On February 5, 2008, Fouad Mourtada, a citizen of Morocco, was arrested for the alleged creation of a faked Facebook profile of Prince Moulay Rachid of Morocco.[97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106]

really need ten references? --SVTCobra (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, but it may need a few depending on a) The reliability of the references and b) What they're referencing. Majorly talk 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate History - Original Schools

Someone needs to reassess the history portion of this article, in which it says that Facebook was expanded to Ivy League schools after being restricted to just Harvard. Not entirely true. It began at Harvard, and then it was opened up to Boston University (not an Ivy League) and another school with an acronym I can't quite remember (RIT, RPI, RTI, something like that.)

I went to BU and remember that it was so for a few months, until it rapidly expanded to other Boston-area schools, like Ivy League Boston College. Only then were the other Ivy Leagues, like Yale, Columbia, etc., brought on board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VanessaLC25 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was a freshman at BU when the site first opened up to include Boston Uni., Boston Coll., Northeastern University, and Emerson College--none of which are Ivy League. It expanded locally to keep with the site's original purpose--a dating site--and the intention of allowing members to connect with members from other schools (which followed several weeks later).

  • I remember it being advertised as a way to "find out the name of that cute girl in your Chem lab or that stud in your Poli Sci lecture," and Zuckerberg's own profile was originally under the name "Cupid." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memoriesxnvrxdie (talk • contribs) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Open Source and Linux

I'm surprised to see that, with all of Facebook's open source developments and mirrors for projects like Apache, Linux, Mozilla, GNU and MySQL, there is no mention of it on the Wikipedia page. It is also of interest since Microsoft owns a 5% controlling stake in Facebook and they use entirely open source/competing products. They even host patches for projects like Apache and PHP which they use on their servers. Moreover, they also host mirrors for the Fedora and CentOS operating systems and host a couple of their open source developments using SourceForge.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.94.160 (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive citations

In the 'controversies' section, there is a sentence with 10 citations! This looks ridiculous:

On February 5, 2008, Fouad Mourtada, a citizen of Morocco, was arrested for the alleged creation of a faked Facebook profile of Prince Moulay Rachid of Morocco.[99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108]

I can't edit this, but someone should. What is the point of 10 different sources for a single comment? 24.143.69.109 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Friend facts

facebook allowed a new application to be included. one of the last is the real annoying "Friend facts". which is conected with lost of strange questions about your friends and keeps informing wrongly about other contact which are alleged members of this aplikation without beeing so. what a mess. there are already several memebers which vote to close this application : e,g: Against Friend Facts but no official reaction from facebbok. has anyone similar expirieneces? is this notable enought to be added to the WP-page?

http://www.new.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=51254684277 --Stefanbcn (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Facebook allowed in Iran

Since the end of January 2009, Facebook access has been opened in Iran. This is somewhat strange since it was blocked prior to this date. The number of users accessing from Iran has increased dramatically. The article should be updated accoringly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.94.123.198 (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Myspace vs Facebook

Unlike myspace facebook is completly parent friendly. In a pole of 20 19 preffered facebook due to safty regulations. Facebook is one of the safest social networking systems. Its not perfect but near it.


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Facebook"
Personal tools