Talk:Facebook

Revision request, trolling information is misleading

The following sentence should be revised as it implies that all internet trolling is about harassing dead people.

"Facebook has become a target for internet trolling where, when a person passes away and someone makes a memorial page for them, they would upload grotesque photos of mutilated bodies and poke fun at the deceased. Recently, a Delta, British Columbia teenager was attacked and killed, and the trolls pounced on the memorial page, disturbing friends and bringing grief to the family. [129]"

Suggested revision:

"Facebook has become a target for internet trolling. One such example is uploading grotesque images of mutilated bodies or poking fun of the deceased on someone's memorial page. Recently..."

Or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeslaine (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section entirely. It didn't have anything to do with the section it was in, the "reception" of Facebook. Further, it does not seem terribly relevant or important to the subject matter. This article is supposed to tell interested readers about Facebook - its history, operations, success, how it works, the societal impact, etc. I don't think the reader needs to know about one of the many random trolling things that happens - if we went into trolling in that level of details there must be dozens of other things to cover that are equally important. We don't have room and this isn't really the place. Is there anything unique about Facebook that makes it the subject of trolling, where other sites don't? That would have to be sourced but I don't think so. The content is real and sourced, so it might belong somewhere, perhaps in an article about trolling. Or we could create a new article about the various and sundry interesting things that happen on Facebook - there's a companion article for Craigslist that describes things that happen on Craigslist but aren't part of Craigslist itself. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the information about trolling should be included though not to a great extent only brielfy, so that people are aware about it. If people would read this page they would want to know everything about facebook. Therefore I think it should be mentioned briefly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisstudent09 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This information is completely irrelevent about Facebook, it looks like a biased opinion to me and useless for the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisstudent10 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving of controversy

I moved the controversy part of the article to the body, because the intro was getting to be too long. Also other pages in thesocial network services have controversies in the body of the article.NCSS (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What do others think of this? To me it seems odd to not mention controversy at all when there's a 9000+ word article on Criticism of Facebook. I note WP:LEAD explicitly states that notable controversies should be summarized in the lead. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Adrian J. Hunter. Good job looking up the rules for this in WP:LEAD, too. It is very odd to not mention it. It would be a much stronger article with some mention of controversy in the lead. Would you like to re-add it? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SusanLesch! Though I'd like to give others time to respond first, just to be sure consensus is clear. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it should be mentioned in brief in the lede.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've restored the section to the lead with minor tweaks for prose and to clarify the target of the privacy wikilink. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it back to the body. Controversy sections are not encyclopedic to begin with, and this is a hodgepodge (albeit short) of unrelated things that are incorrectly labeled a controversy. Being banned in Pakistan, PRC, Vietnam, etc., does not make an American-based social media site controversial. Nor does being blocked in workplaces as a time-waster. There are indeed controversies over privacy, but the notable thing is that they are privacy issues, not that there is a controversy over them. Any website, or other enterprise, as large as Facebook is going to have a number of instances of disputes and controversies. Unless there is something particularly and fundamentally controversial about facebook, this stuff is better covered in the body of the article as it applies to the various topics. The job is to inform the reader about the subject. It's not particularly informative to have pro and con sections about different subjects, just for the sake of pointing out controversies and criticisms. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rebecca Javeleau Story

There has been an article made on the Rebecca Javeleau news piece, in which a 14 year old girl managed to attract 21000 people to "myy birthdayy partyy". Although in occasions slanderous, it is sourced and verified and with some clean-up (or preferably none; Javva the Hutt is hilarious) it would be suitable, I believe as an anon, to link to in Controversies or otherwise. Leavin' dis heah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Javeleau_Birthday_Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.38.135 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Employee count growth

Please include a box displaying employee count growth RichardBond (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A new book related to Facebook

I present a very important work which is about two books on experiences of Facebook by Amitabh Thakur. I would request this work to be incorporated in the title Facebook in Media. Here is the addition requested-

• Amitabh Thakur, an officer of the Indian Police Service in UP, India has taken up the project of writing one book each in Hindi and English based on his inputs from the social networking site Facebook, which is underway.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutanthakurlko (talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Shareholders

1. Mark Zuckerberg: 24% , $5.3 billion

2. Accel Partners: 10% , $2.2 billion

3. Digital Sky Technologies: 10% , $2.2 billion

4. Dustin Moskovitz: 6% , $1.3 billion

5. Eduardo Saverin: 5% , $1.1 billion

6. Sean Parker: 4% , $880 million

7. Peter Thiel: 3% , $660 million

8. Greylock Partners: 1.5% , $330 million

9. Meritech Capital Ventures: 1.5% , $330 million

10. Microsoft: 1.3% , $286 million

11. Li Ka-Shing: 0.75% , $165 million

12. Interpublic Group: 0.5%, $110 million

13. Early Facebook Employees (Adam D'Angelo, Matt Cohler, Jeff Rothschild, Chris Hughes and Owen Van Natta): 1%

14. Mark Pincus and Reid Hoffman: own a chunk of Facebook stock

15. Western Technology Investments: Own a % of Facebook stock

16. Facebook employees and investors coming in through secondary markets own the rest

REFRENCE - http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-facebooks-soon-to-be-billionaire-shareholders-2010-5#mark-zuckerberg-owns-24-of-facebook-worth-53-billion-1

BOOK - The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World ; AUTHOR - David Kirkpatrick

Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Grammar

Source (17/12/2010)

In September 2009, Facebook said that it had turned cash flow positive for the first time. In November 2010, based on SecondMarket Inc., an exchange for share of privately held companies, Facebook value was $41 billion (surpassing eBay's slightly), and it became the third-largest US Web Company after Google and Amazon.

Correction

In September 2009 Facebook said that it had turned cash flow positive for the first time. In November 2010, based on SecondMarket Inc., an exchange for shares of privately held companies, Facebook's value was $41 billion (surpassing eBay's slightly) and it became the third-largest US Web Company after Google and Amazon.

There's more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.203.147 (talk)

 Done except for the first comma. Correct grammar would require that comma to be there. Stickee (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please add Canada to the political impact section

Facebook and Prorogation Why did more than 200,000 people join the Facebook group “Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament,” and why should anybody care?

http://www.rideauinstitute.ca/file-library/Facebook-and-Prorogation.pdf

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.124.116 (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

rumor that FACEBOOK WILL END ON MARCH 15th!

anyone seen this? FACEBOOK WILL END ON MARCH 15th! http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/27321/facebook-will-end-on-march-15th/ comments, James Michael DuPont (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/01/09/facebook-will-not-end-on-march-15th-hoax-news-story-spreads-like-wildfire/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelzeng7 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There's only one problem with the story. It's not true. Facebook is not going to end on March 15th, and Mark Zuckerberg never said any such thing. James Michael DuPont (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and also Google and Wikipedia. No of course not! That's just silly. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to include that in the article, after all, it's a rumor, not a fact. Case closed. --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

financial figures for 2009 and 2010

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebooks-profitability-tops-youthful-googles-2011-01-20?pagenumber=1 http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/05/report-facebook-revenue-was-777-million-in-2009-net-income-200-million/

might want to integrate this into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.176.247 (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

International Headquarters - Wellington, New Zealand specifically

The page lists Wellington, New Zealand, as the headquarters for the Oceania region, but I can't find any evidence of this. The bottom of the Facebook factsheet lists its nearest international office as Sydney: http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet. Anskrev (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tencent_QQ: 636.6 million active users as of 2010 - bigger than Facebook

The article mentions a source that claims that Facebook is the most used social network service, but that's at odds with other data: As of September 30, 2010, there were 636.6 million active QQ IM user accounts of the Chinese company Tencent. This is enough to make Tencent_QQ the world's largest online community. (The number of simultaneous online QQ accounts exceeded 100 million.) Quiname (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. The Tencent numbers may be accurate, but there's one problem. The Facebook numbers are independently sourced (i.e., from a reliable source other than Facebook). To change the article, please provide independent sourcing for the Tencent data. Cresix (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the {{notdone}} is doing there, I can't see the OP making any request whatsoever, just a somewhat vague observation. I think the Tencent_QQ numbers are a bit irrelevant given that it refers to the IM service users, not necessarily the social networking aspect of the site, which is what is being referred to in this article. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let me add WSJ and Bloomberg. And surely that's part of the social networking aspect of the site. I guess this contrarian data should be mentioned in the article. Quiname (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

RaseaC, since the article is semi-protected, I thought Quiname was requesting an edit to the article. In any event, you are right if the Tencent figures include IM. If there's no specific data on the social networking part of Tencent, the Facebook article should stay as it is. Cresix (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the precise difference, if there is any? This source of 2 years ago already mentions 200 million for Qzone (out of date by now) and says: "... we’re not sure where QQ the communication (IM) service ends and where QZone the social network begins.": http://techcrunch.com/2009/02/24/chinas-social-network-qzone-is-big-but-is-it-really-the-biggest/ Quiname (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

RaseaC, you deleted my statement: "making Facebook the second largest online community after Tencent QQ with 636.6 million as of November 2010". Why? You said I should contribute to the talk page, but I did - see above. The statement is backed by WSJ and Bloomberg. It's not clear "where IM ends and the social network begins" (see above), but I circumvent this issue by writing "online community" instead of social network. Quiname (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This section is about a social networking site, not an online community. 'Online community' is too vague a phrase. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

600 Million Users

Facebook hit 600 million users according to these sources [1][2]. Can we update the table on the page to represent this? DanielDPeterson (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook and Wiki?

Is it valid for a facebook page/ group to be included as an alternate "see also link" on a wikipedia page? cheers Bankhallbretherton (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh? raseaC^{talk to me} 21:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be allowed under WP:NOADS.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:SEEALSO, the "see also" section is specifically intended for internal wikilinks. A link to another site that can meet the inclusion criteria of WP:EL and WP:NOT would be more appropriate in the "External links" section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't call Wikipedia "Wiki"! --Cybercobra (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So in the "External Links" area i would be allowed to link in a facebook group for reference? Bankhallbretherton (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.194.201.107, 7 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The sentence, "To accomplish this, Zuckerberg hacked into the protected areas of Harvard's computer network, and copied the houses' private dormitory ID images." has a misplaced comma. The comma between "network" and "and copied" does not divide independent clauses and thus is ungrammatical. 67.194.201.107 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Done. 123Hedgehog456 07:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Canadians Are Online On Facebook Than any Other Country

{{edit semi-protected}} Canadians spend more time online than users in any other country, and and while they’re surfing the web, many visit Facebook.

Facebook had been the most trafficked site in all of Canada in 2007 according to Alexa, although though there was speculation that something might have been wrong with Alexa’s tracking numbers.

But according to Socialbakers.com, Canada is no longer dominating Facebook. The country has more than 17 million users on the site and is coming in 9th to 10th place, either in front of or behind India. More impressive and relevant: 51.2 percent of Canada’s total population, or 65.9 percent of the country’s online population, uses Facebook, which makes it one of the most significant demographic groups on the social network.

Reference http://techbebo.com/canadians-online-longer-other-country/ 120.56.205.172 (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The statement does not state that Canada has the most Facebook users. It states that Facebook is the most trafficked site in Canada (in other words, the site that is visited most often within Canada) and that Canada also happens to be the most active country on the internet. Whether India has more users on the site is irrelevant to time spent on it. I won't decline or accept this as I am not familiar enough with this information, but I did want to clarify that point. --ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 02:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: The part about it being the most popular site in Canada is already in the article. The rest is not done per above. -Atmoz (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, etc.

The revolutions going on in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen, etc. were all organized on Facebook, perhaps that should go in the "political impact" section of the page?--68.186.160.22 (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all there aren't any revolutions in Saudi Arabia, at least not yet. Since uprisings became contagious after Mubarark stepped down. Tunisia uprising was not organized on Facebook, since number of Facebook and Twitter users in Tunisia are too little. I can say the Egyptian Revolution was organized by Facebook, Since Egypt has Multi-Million Facebook users. That's why on the first day of Revolution the Egyptian Government blocked Facebook and Twitter,which didn't happen in Tunisia. The 25th of Feb youth movement,who called the Egyptian people to revolt at 25th of Feb ,was the mastermind of the Egyptian Revolution ,was actually a Facebook Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.238.173.169 (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats exatly what i wanted to post and you already posted it. This issue must be put in the plitical impact for sure. --68.68.11.243 (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Hey could an etsablished editor please add something about how registered names with fake names get their accounts suspended? here are links about it : BBC, Fox news 84.13.59.203 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think it's a notable feature of Facebook. Wikipedia does pretty much the same thing, albeit with a different "list" of unacceptable names. The Fox article states "Once the site disables an account it deems fake, its holder has to contact Facebook to prove it is real". Surely there is no issue. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Facebook paragraph

The criticism section which is supposed to summarize the main article of Criticism of Facebook is hardly doing so. 89.139.7.56 (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

What's missing? raseaC^{talk to me} 16:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Facebook (disambiguation)

The name of an Egyptian female who was named in honor of the role the social network played in the 2011 revolution in Egypt. Sp07019 (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to buy facebook

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia Mark Zuckerberg $150-billion to buy Facebook. The stated motivation being to stem the rising tide of pro-democracy demonstrations in Saudi. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to an article, not general discussion about a subject. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If the question is whether to include this in the article, the rumors got wide reportage (according to the source), but are untrue. Under the circumstances I would argue that this factoid is by far too irrelevant and unimportant to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article about the company as a whole. Given the extent of reportage, perhaps there is a place for the information somewhere if it can overcome WP:NOT#NEWS, but offhand I cannot think of where that would be. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it a rumor but its funny as hell and it did get a lot coverage. if we add it, i think in goes in media -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Facemash

I propose add in this article reference to the today's implementation of service Facemash ( http://www.atenwood.com/facemash/ ), which is a precursor of Facebook. Anwer2011 (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{edit semi-protected}}

Hello, i believe this page could be improved if the "website" section was cleaned up a bit. I specifically wanted to add the subheading 'privacy' and consolidate the little info there concerning privacy settings and then add my own. For example:

Privacy settings To allay concerns about privacy, Facebook enables users to choose their own privacy settings and choose who can see specific parts of their profile. The website is free to users, and generates revenue from advertising, such as banner ads. Facebook requires a user’s name and profile picture (if applicable) to be accessible by everyone. Users can control who sees other information they have shared, as well as who can find them in searches, through their privacy settings.

Facebook is constantly updating and adding new kinds of privacy settings for its users.

• You can set your profile where you can be unsearchable or where only friends of your friends can search you.
• You can select what you want available to people that aren’t your friend
• You can block your pictures from anyone or pick and choose who can see them.
• You can block some of your statuses from being seen by some people
• If you need to you can take your wall away or block it from being seen
• If you don’t want people commenting on your pictures you can take that ability away from them

 Not done:I don't think such a list is necessary. The section already elaborates on a number of the issues your list raises in a way that reads less like an advertisment. A bulleted list isn't really appropriate because it's too brief. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Total active users table

In the table "Total active users", the "(in millions)" should go in the "Users" column title and not in the table title. Maybe it would be even better adding the zeros in the table itself, as it is such as small table, and it would be far less confusing that way. 46.116.176.5 (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed I went with the former suggestion, as the latter might imply too many significant digits. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 46.116.176.5 (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

History of Facebook

I would have to agree with the 2004 date.

I remember the original facebook was launched much earlier than 2003 maybe sometime between 1997-2002 even. The first generation of facebook was a real hookup website for college kids, and you had to have a real email address with a college domain address ".edu" to join. There was a pretty lengthy detailed page that was probably the key to how folks could find each other, because it covered sexual preference stuff in detail. It was later extended to high school students with school email addresses probably after myspace and other sites appeared.

Did Zuckerberg steal the facebook site from someone else in addition to his classmates?

I think the history of f-book needs to be researched more thoroughly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.67.226 (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You may want to provide some sources...raseaC^{talk to me} 20:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Any idea when Fb started pulling from Wikipedia?

If you find a certain article on Wikipedia and then put that same name in the search bar of Facebook one (or more) of the results you get back will be that same Wikipedia article with an option to "LIKE" it. Does anyone know around when did Wikipedia start pulling Wikipedia pages? I noticed this when I did a search for "Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation" and saw the article I mostly wrote and upon testing my theory I looked up "Barbados", "Barbados National Trust", and "Grantley Adams International Airport", with all having text I wrote to a large degree. CaribDigita (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Around the end of last year I believe. raseaC^{talk to me} 11:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Australia is mentioned as if it were a country in Asia. That is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.181.240 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)  Done -SusanLesch (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The part of the article stating "It soon opened to the other Ivy League schools, Boston University, New York University, MIT", should be edited to include Georgia Tech in that list as Georgia Tech was the 8th school added to face book, and was part of the face book network before MIT and also before several Ivy League schools.121.96.163.29 (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources would be needed to grant the request. Can you provide some?--Rollins83 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The newly launched Facebook Questions are dealing with 100,000 weekly active users! :)

fb software

facebook is made in which computer language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.248.95.35 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mostly PCP. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would seriously dispute revenue and users

I would seriously dispute revenue and user estimates, they are hyper inflated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.11.51 (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Company section

Forgive me if this has been covered and rejected before.

I suggest that the Company section contains subsections: "Revenue", "Management" (or something like that), and "Ownership".

I went to the page as a visitor looking for who owns it and it took me a while. It would have been helpful to see "Ownership" in the Table of contents. Just my two cents. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

889 users watching this talk and no comment? Odd. Ordinarily I would just go ahead and change it, but I've never edited this article, and it is a major one, so I thought I'd mention it here first. Maybe I'll just go ahead and do it if there are not objections. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the subheadings. I suspect that it has remained the way it was because there are those who wanted the table of contents to look as clean as possible. Well, in my opinion, the table of contents is now more useful. Feel free to revert. I'm just one voice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Eduardo Saverin is not a Computer Science student.

The page says "Facebook was founded by Mark Zuckerberg with his college roommates and fellow computer science students Eduardo Saverin, Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes."

But the Eduardo Saverin page says "In 2006, Saverin graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University with a Bachelor of Economics."

This would mean the page contains an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karan.kbm (talk • contribs) 01:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

--78.178.166.87 (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Spam in the article - Should be removed

This section somehow made it in:

FaceTag

FaceTag is a social networking site and was launched in 28th April 2011, Owned by Areeb Majeed (Student of Class 5th). Areeb Majeed is the founder of the FaceTag.Users may create a personal profile, add other users as friends, and exchange messages, including automatic notifications when they update their profile. Additionally, users may join common interest user groups, organized by workplace, school or college, or other characteristics. FaceTag allows anyone who declares themselves to be at least 11 years old to become a registered user of the website. The social network is very similar to Facebook because the techonlogy is same. [http://www.eitofb.x10.mx

212.2.172.151 (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC) skut

Spam reverted. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Facebook/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

1a.) Compared with the latest reviewed version of the article, the prose is very choppy and unclear. In some sections, every sentence seems to function as its own paragraph, while in other sections there are random paragraph separations where there shouldn't be. The entire Website section is a mass conglomeration of Facebook features that needs to be sorted out in some way. Also, the section hierarchy is absurd. The Media impact, Social impact, and Political impact sections are stubs that should be merged together or even into the Reception section.

4.) From an organizational standpoint, putting criticism of a topic in a separate Criticism section makes sense, but in terms of neutrality it just drives the article down a path of POV. Notice how the entire Reception section is entirely positive. Not a single negative review is documented. Furthermore, the Criticism section, which seems to be the only place where negative criticism exists, is a mere five or six sentences, and judging from the massive size of the Criticism of Facebook article, I'm sure that's not all that can be said. IMHO, criticism should not be concentrated in one section, but rather distributed throughout the entire article, as it gives the reader a better representation of the topic while their reading a given section (I recently made this change in the Google article as an example). Regardless, even with the separate Criticism section, there is not much coverage of the other side of Facebook. (Also, it should be noted that the lead section makes no mention of Facebook criticism, a vital hole in what is supposed to be a summary of the entire article.)

6.) I know images are usually a good thing, but there seems to be an overload of images here. No reader is going to want to see the 2005, 2007, current, and mobile screenshots of Facebook one on top of the other. The 2005 and current screenshots should suffice.

In my opinion, this article needs a really good copy-edit in order to meet GA criteria again, and the criticism of Facebook needs to be better distributed throughout the article so that readers do not get a one-sided view of the topic. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of the Media section?

It seems to have little to do with what I understand as media, and is largely just a list of trivial facts somehow associated with Facebook. It adds little to the article. I think it should be deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Email or postal address to facebook?

Is there any email address or even postal address to facebook? I haven't found any. So if there is a one, please write it here. Btw. Is it normal, that so huge company, a "social network", dosen't want to communicate with poeple? rmh