Jump to content

Talk:Facebook/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

add Carter Simon Jr As a founder 174.118.172.240 (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please list a reliable source for this information. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Table on the right - Number of workers(Worldwide):6337 (to December 2013) [1] Source is treated generally as reliable about media companies and newspapers. Worldwide is a must because hq in internet companies can mistake people(that all work there), and most workers are Worldwide based.

 Done but I'll source FB's SEC Filing which lists the same number of employees. Funandtrvl (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

[http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2014/02/facebook-at-10-hip-been-201424135722145602.html >> Facebook at 10: Hip or Has-been(Lihaas (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)).

Mention Heml.is

Perhaps heml.is should be mentioned in see also section ? See Peter_Sunde#Hemlis KVDP (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have an article, and the three-sentence description in the Peter Sunde article doesn't seem particularly relevant to Facebook. Is there more to it than that? --McGeddon (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

dating

is this free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.56.75 (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Messaging

Can the following be added to the messaging section ?: Facebook chat can also be used with 3rd party, multi-protocol [[instant messenger]s, like Pidgin, Miranda IM, ... [2][3] To do this, it is necessairy however to have a username, which itself requires a verified account. A verification for your facebook account can only be done with users that have a mobile phone, and an active subscription with this mobile phone.[4][5] 109.131.244.18 (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Written in Hack?

Some sources from Facebook: [1] ("we have migrated nearly our entire PHP codebase to Hack"), [2]. Wired: [3] ("the new language is called Hack, and it already drives almost all of the company’s website"). I don't really edit articles, so I'll let someone else decide if these are sufficient references to add it to the infobox (etc.). πr2 (t • c) 19:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Arjayay: is this ok to add? πr2 (t • c) 17:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Bump. πr2 (t • c) 21:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Comparison with MySpace is dated

The comparison with MySpace section is only interesting now from a historical perspective. It might be good to include a few sentences in the History section giving features that made Facebook distinct from MySpace, but there's no reason to have such a large section on it anymore than there is to have a similarly sized comparison of Facebook with Friendster or Classmates.com.—140.153.24.26 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Correction to title of Chris Cox

Chris Cox was selected as Chief Product Officer(CPO) of Facebook, but the article still mentions him as VP of product. - Sagar Chordia [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chordiasagar14 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Grammar Mistake ?

In March 2012, Facebook announced App Center, an store selling applications that operate via the site.

Thanks for pointing it out. I have fixed the mistake. Bilorv (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Details about Facebook Bug Bounty program

This article must contain more details and records about Facebook Bug Bounty program and so requesting to grant permission to edit this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Premcharan2011 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 3 June 2014

  •  Not done: Raising an issue for attention is fine, but when making a formal edit request you should provide "a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." --McGeddon (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be more informative if a new section on "Facebook Bug Bounty Program" is added to this article with the below content:

<content> "Facebook started paying researchers who find and report security bugs by issuing them custom branded “White Hat” debit cards that can be reloaded with funds each time the researchers discover new flaws. “Researchers who find bugs and security improvements are rare, and we value them and have to find ways to reward them,” Ryan McGeehan, former manager of Facebook’s security response team, told CNET in an interview. “Having this exclusive black card is another way to recognize them. They can show up at a conference and show this card and say ‘I did special work for Facebook.’” India, which has the second largest number of bug hunters in the world, tops the Facebook Bug Bounty Program with the largest number of valid bugs. "Researchers in Russia earned the highest amount per report in 2013, receiving an average of $3,961 for 38 bugs. India contributed the largest number of valid bugs at 136, with an average reward of $1,353. The USA reported 92 issues and averaged $2,272 in rewards. Brazil and the UK were third and fourth by volume, with 53 bugs and 40 bugs, respectively, and average rewards of $3,792 and $2,950", Facebook quoted in a post. </content>

I could make a better editing with reference to this article page on the above mentioned topic if editing permission is granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premcharan2011 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2014

I want to add a new sub topic's on facebook. W32TAA (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Request to add the latest controversy surrounding Facebook's acceptance of payment to run advertisements promoting Syrian president Bashar al-Assad under the "Criticisms and Controversies" section

On June 2, 2014, Facebook was criticised for accepting money to advertise the election campaign page of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/02/facebook-criticized-after-bashar-al-assad-sponsored-election-posts/</ref> Facebook responded to attacks saying that the ad campaigns had been taken down. <ref>http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/02/facebook-bashar-al-assad-campaign-syria-election</ref> Activists called on Facebook to donate any revenue they received for the advertisements to organisations helping Syrian children. Facebook declined to comment on whether it had any intention of donating any money made off the ads.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/facebook-syria-ads-assad_n_5437952.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business</ref>

Bissan89 (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Censorship in Facebook

I have seen that there exists an article about censorship of Facebook. I think we should also write something about censorship in Facebook, that is, that Facebook for example blocks certain links in posts. When for example trying to post a message with a link to this video in it, Facebook won't let you post it, and displays the message

You can't post this because it has a blocked link
The content you're trying to share includes a link that our security systems detected to be unsafe:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4

Please remove this link to continue.

If you think you're seeing this by mistake, please let us know.

which is suppression of speech (since this specific video is a podcast), hence a form of censorship.

If Facebook is censoring more than this we could write about that too. —Kri (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw that there already was a similar section here: Criticism of Facebook#Censorship controversies. We should probably write about this kind of censorship there. I still feel that something about censorship should also be written in the section Facebook#Criticisms and controversies, though. —Kri (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Grammar Error

Hi!

Great article! Here's a grammatical error I found in the section "Political Impact":

become the primary tool for connecting all protesters, which lead the Egyptian government of Prime Minister Nazif to ban Facebook

  • It should be "led"

OCMomma (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)OCMomma

checkY Fixed. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 20:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2014

112.215.66.78 (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I revised these two subsections today, as they were being used as promotional tools for celebrities in the lists and were not encyclopedic presentations of data. I will keep a continual eye on this, as the section is being updated in an ongoing manner—any help is of course appreciated.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Date Founded and Image Caption

The article mentions the founding date as being February 4th, 2004 in the article, but lists the "Date Founded" as May 25th 1956. Image caption is also misleading - 'Facebook, Inc is giving away free lapt0p'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.132.183 (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

ID REQUIRED

Facebook does require proof of age and Identity after failed attempts to login. This is done by asking for a government (Student or license) ID with a photo.[6] Matthew AdamFrancis (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.wirtualnemedia.pl/artykul/facebook-konczy-10-lat-jak-zmienil-internautow-i-e-marketing
  2. ^ https://www.facebook.com/sitetour/chat.php
  3. ^ http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/12527/easily-add-facebook-chat-to-pidgin/
  4. ^ http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/12527/easily-add-facebook-chat-to-pidgin/
  5. ^ http://allfacebook.com/create-facebook-username_b17137
  6. ^ http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/facebook-still-asking-for-government-ids/

does 'service' equal 'company'?

Small point perhaps but the first line says Facebook is a social networking service, then the last line of the lede starts talking about Facebook Inc. and much of the article is about the company. Is there a significant difference? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2014

41.83.121.84 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2014

how do u exit facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.253.55 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Such questions are beyond the scope of this page, the purpose of which to discuss improvements to the article. It is not for general discussion of the subject. Perhaps you can find a "help" page on Facebook?--Rollins83 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I love this article

This article is amazing; nothing out of place, no clear white-washing. Good on you. IPUpfficia (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Facebook hacked? Security Issue?

I got one of those spam, scammer emails recently. You know "Someone of your surname has died leaving a $10 million etc". As this email address is anonymous I wrote back to the hacker asking what the surname was, just winding up the scammer. S/he wrote back giving the surname from my FaceBook account associated with that email addy. (Not my real name.) Now we all know that FaceBook knows our email addys but it seems easy enough for scammers/hackers to get our FaceBook usernames from our email addys too. Probably not worth a mention in the article but I thought people might be interested. I am also curious to know if FaceBook were aware of this and if so are they interested? SmokeyTheCat 13:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Email Facebook then. Wikipedia has nothing to do with their policies. Two different sites yo. IPUpfficia (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2014

197.149.194.98 (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 23:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Games

There is no mention of the large variety of games available. There is no information of the price and payment method for the games.

There is no information about the browser specifications to play games. Info : Adobe Flashplayer is required. - As of September 2014, it needs Flashplayer 11.5 or higher.

46.115.135.182 (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

CPU usage

On an average PC the CPU load while on facebook is about 10 to 20 percent, but jumping up to 80 percent while playing games, making the PC vulnerable to overheating. There is no information in the article about minimum requirements like Ghz or RAM or OS.

46.115.135.182 (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

JAVA

There is no information in the article, if facebook reqires JAVA, and if so, what version?

46.115.135.182 (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Encryption

the start site http://www.facebook.com handles only the handshake for encryted transmission under httpS://www.facebook.com. As of September 2014 SSL 1.0 and SSL 2.0 were sufficient. As of October 2014 TSL 1.0 is required. Otherwise the transfer is not established and the page renders totally blank, leaving many users cut off. There is no information in this article about the encryption and its requirements.

46.115.135.182 (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2014

46.19.230.3 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No request has been made; be sure to specify what exactly you'd like changed, otherwise, nothing can be done. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Official Tor service URL

Regarding the discussion on Village pump, I ask you to support addition of the official URL of Facebook's hidden service – www .facebookcorewwwi.onion. See Facebook#Tor hidden service. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 15:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:IGNORE. This official URL is very important in the entire history of Facebook. We need it. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 19:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
No, we don't. Please provide sources that say, the URL "...is very important in the entire history of Facebook." --NeilN talk to me 20:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Here are some good ones:
--Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 23:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN:? --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 19:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rezonansowy: All these talk about a new option. None of them say, this "is very important in the entire history of Facebook." --NeilN talk to me 19:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
All this is about adding this .onion URL to the article. The problem is that Wikipedia is blocking all .onion links and regarding the talk on Village pump, every case should be considered separately on the topic's talk. I don't see any reason to blacklist this URL, many readers would found it useful. It doesn't contain anything prohibited on Wikipedia, it's just a normal, official website of Facebook, Inc.
Do you support adding including this URL to the corresponding article section – Facebook#Tor hidden service? This section is about this .onion URL and without it, is just not complete. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 19:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
No, external links don't belong in article bodies (readers can get it from the cites, anyways) and one link to the official website at the bottom is enough. --NeilN talk to me 19:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • IMO, putting the .onion link directly in the article text is gaudy and unencyclopedic. I added the citation (referred to as "the [211] link" in Johnuniq's comment above) to the blog post in which the link was announced to make the URL as easy as possible to find for those who want it; I think that should suffice. I also feel that the addition of a pull quote just for this one minor point in the article is excessive, and I suggest it be removed. For a related editing guideline, please see WP:BALASPS. (Having said that, I'd be willing to consider including the explicit .onion link in a footnote.) — Jaydiem (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Jaydiem and Tony Tan 98: I put this link because of a new reason. I's needed for analysis of the origin of this backronym. Now there're two reasons for placing it in such form. I think it shouldn't be only mentioned in the footnote, while it's a main subject of the entire section. An towards the pull quote, I changed it because previous the form inside the text was a little hard to read. This quotation has been there already and now it's in a separate box, it's rather a common use. And there's nothing wrong with placing anything anywhere, if it only has sense, like on Wikipedia article itself. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 11:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes It is unencyclopedic to put the link in the text, but I think the ONION link is significant enough to be included in the website section of the infobox. We should have this specific URL whitelisted, as well as that of other legal services, such as DuckDuckGo. Tony Tan98 · talk 01:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Facebook – facebookcorewwwi.onion
  • WikiLeaks – suw74isz7wqzpmgu.onion
  • GlobaLeaks – See GlobaLeaks#Implementations
  • DuckDuckGo – 3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion
  • SecureDrop – l7rt5kabupal7eo7.onion
@Tony Tan 98: There are a lot of .onion URLs which are normal websites, like these above. I think the better way is to create a blacklist for some websites which are censored on Wikipedia (like Silk Road) instead of creating a growing and growing whitelist. Basically, it has more sense to me – .onion is the same domain as .com or .net. What do you think? --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 11:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Chronological event out of place

Near the end of the History...college only service section, there is a bit from 2009 right between May 2005 and September 2005. It's totally out of place there.


In May 2005, Accel partners invested $12.7 million in Facebook, and Jim Breyer[26] added $1 million of his own money. A January 2009 Compete.com study ranked Facebook the most used social networking service by worldwide monthly active users.[27] Entertainment Weekly included the site on its end-of-the-decade "best-of" list, saying, "How on earth did we stalk our exes, remember our co-workers' birthdays, bug our friends, and play a rousing game of Scrabulous before Facebook?"[28] A high-school version of the site was launched in September 2005, which Zuckerberg called the next logical step.[29] (At the time, high-school networks required an invitation to join.)[30] Facebook also expanded membership eligibility to employees of several companies, including Apple Inc. and Microsoft.[31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.119.54 (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

New monthly user statistic to add.

As of Sept 30, 2014 1.35 Billion monthly active users used Facebook. https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/ with a monthly growth rate of 1.44% over 273 days. I was wondering if someone could add this because I cant seem to find it when editing this article. Lightspeed2012 19:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2015

Please change Walsh, Mark (June 15, 2010). "Study: Video Ads On Facebook More Engaging Than Outside Sites" то Walsh, Mark (June 15, 2010). "Study: Video Ads On Facebook More Engaging Than Outside Sites". MediaPost (New York) because link is dead. Merphy88 (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Merphy88:  Fixed with a valid link here. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Old data and charts

The data and charts on membership and activity are several years old--not that informative anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:22FF:1EF0:0:0:0:3D (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Technical aspects" section should be updated

The technical aspects section contains old information. For example, HipHop for PHP was retired in 2013 in favor of HipHop Virtual Machine. Other technical information may be out of date as well, so everything should be checked and updated if necessary. --Veikk0.ma 08:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Veikk0.ma:Hi. Is "2013" that old? I don't think technical data from year 2013 could be considered as outdated. If nothing has happened so far there is none to update right? Did something happen after HipHop for PHP was retired in 2013?--Chamith (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Minor edit

I think "reaching a peak market capitalization of $104 billion"

Should be "reaching an original peak market capitalization of $104 billion"

Currently it now has a market cap of $175.3b so $104b was not the peak market cap.

Requested Changes completed Jacquelyntwiki (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2015

Can someone please update the financial information in the box on the right hand side to reflect 2014? Link to the relevant information can be found here - http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/viewer?action=view&cik=1326801&accession_number=0001326801-15-000006&xbrl_type=v#

(If you click on Financial Statements and then Consolidated statements of income) Cardyak (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Done by Cgx8253. Stickee (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

age policy edit

My contention is that this edit is neither reliably sourced nor neutral. [5] The source provided states that Facebook's policy is that users under the age of 13 are not allowed at the site, in fact, it lists a way to report users who are under the age of 13. So it does not matter whether a user claims to be at least 13, they are not allowed at the website unless they are >=13. From the source provided: "Facebook requires everyone to be at least 13 years old before they can create an account (in some jurisdictions, this age limit may be higher). Creating an account with false info is a violation of our terms. This includes accounts registered on the behalf of someone under 13." The existence of users in violation of this policy (For which the claim is still unsourced and OR) does not change what Facebook's policy actually is. --Padenton (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton: @Qed237:, Lots of users on Facebook are in fact under 13, so if they are on Facebook it is because they have entered a false date of birth so therefore they are claiming to be 13 even though they are not TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 20:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This is unsourced original research, and they are still not 'allowed' by Facebook policy, whether they exist or not, as stated at the source provided for that sentence, and as I stated above. --Padenton (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I was pinged so felt I should answer. The rules are what they are, are you under 13 you are not allowed account. Writing "claims to be" feels wrong, it sounds like you can say "I am over 13" and then it is allowed which you are not, it is still an invalid account against the rules. QED237 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Qed237: @Padenton: Any thoughts to discuss further ? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 03:19, March 2015 (UTC)
Not particularly. --Padenton (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2015

Hi , I am Anas from Kurdistan-Iraq . I want to be a established registred user to edit more articles , sure I will be like you . Thanks AnasWK (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 14:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose merging Criticism of Facebook with Facebook to create a better wikipedia with a more NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Facebook is way too large to merge into Facebook; it's actually larger, with 14,210 words as compared to Facebook's 11,303. You can check it yourself with [6]. Origamiteⓣⓒ 21:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that it would be easy, but it is for the best. it is true that the merge might make Facebook longer than what is ideal according to the policy Wikipedia:Article size but that is only a guideline. Neutral point of view is one of 5 core pillars of Wikipedia. Once we merge the two articles we can split Facebook into small articles (History of Facebook, etc) and get it down to a more managable size. Splitting it solely on Point of view ( criticism and non criticism ) is a bad idea. the Criticism article will have to chose to 1- duplicate information in the main article , or 2 - make no sense and be a low quality article. neither of which is good for Wikipedia. I know it's not easy to get to a NPOV but that is why Wikipedia is great. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose (for now): I agree it should probably be merged (eventually). For now, I would certainly move the current criticism section items off to the criticism article, I haven't gotten around to it. E.g. the real name section disgusts me. There is a separate article just for it, it's in the Facebook article, it's in the criticism article, it was given a place of honor in the template before I re-organized it. It's in enough places begging for as much attention as it can get. History of Facebook and Timeline of Facebook should also be refreshed with the current content of these sections in Facebook, and probably merged into one. Do other articles have separate 'History of' and 'Timeline of' articles? As I mentioned in the Criticism of Facebook talk page, however, it has considerable issues that would be significantly WP:UNDUE if merged now. I think there's probably a small enough number that should be there that we could give it due weight, but you're talking about a lot of work. The page has become essentially a cesspool of any random person with a gripe or complaint adding random crap to it. Facebook is one of the most popular sites on the internet, and as such, pretty much any complaint that any user might have has a news source that talks about it. The problem is very few of these have any business being in a 'Criticism of Facebook' article, and those that do are written by people with an agenda.

Theres:
  • users having gripes about changes to a website's user interface (I'm sure if I tried I could make a gripe about the interface of any website on the internet. It's not difficult. You get a billion active users on a website, there will be a large-sounding number making every complaint you can imagine)
  • frivolous lawsuits (Diff Countries have their own legal systems, in the US, anyone can pretty much file a lawsuit against anyone, and many go after large corporations)
  • People complaining about the activities of other users, groups, pages (Not sure who thought those was Criticism of Facebook, that's like me having a bad experience with another editor here and complaining about it on the Criticism of Wikipedia page)
  • probably a dozen other things, I still haven't read it all the way through.

I tried to start a discussion on some of these but while waiting for responses, I got sidetracked editing other articles, so I haven't gotten back to trying to fix/tag all the problems in the page. Oh, and I like what you're trying to do elsewhere, but slow down. A LOT of criticism articles aren't watched closely, and I'll bet the vast majority have sections with serious issues just like this one. If even 1/2 of the articles you proposed mergers for are approved, you're looking at a fuck-ton of work for yourself. Are you sure you want that? Sorry for any hostility in tone that came across in my vote, none of it is directed at you, articles like that one annoy me and I haven't slept. --Padenton (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Padenton, no hard feelings at all I understand you're not being hostile you are just passionate about Wikipedia I respect that. I agree that it would be an incredible workload, however it is a workload that grows the longer we do nothing. When source material conflicts, instead of creating a single narrative it is easily to say "we'll make a criticism section at the bottom to stick it there out of the way" but that grows and grows until it becomes big enough to make its own article. The "Criticism of" tends to become very low quality. and it leaves us with 2 articles treating the same subject. one critical ( and usually poorly written ) and one that is suspiciously free of any criticism. that's not NPOV we shouldn't leave it to our readers to read 2 articles about the same exact same topic and then tell them to put it all together. we should create 1 article for 1 topic presenting as neutrally as possible the verifiable sources. I know it won't be easy but it is work that I am passionate about. working closely with what I feel is very important to NPOV is rewarding. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment The answer to both questions on the Wikipedia:Merge Test is "yes". Origamiteⓣⓒ 20:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that the segregation of "Criticism" and "Non Criticism" creates 1 of 2 possibilities.
  • Possibility 1 - The topics are the same - if the topics are the same then having two articles for the same topic is a violation of NPOV by creating a Content Fork
  • Possibility 2 - The topics are different - If the two topics are different then the topic Facebook Violates NPOV by not fairly and proportionately representing all reliable sources ( since the content in the criticism article is reliable, notable, and verifiable or else it would not be in the criticism article )
Either of these posibilities leads us to a NPOV conflict. WP:NPOV contains a supremacy clause that means Wikipedia:Merge test is negated by it. If you feel that banning criticism of facebook makes the facebook article NPOV please post that. all other arguments about merge test or Article size are not sufficient to trump NPOV. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bryce Carmony: Thank you for the removal of the proposal. It may work on some articles, but probably not on this one. Origamiteⓣⓒ 00:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem, a merge right now is unrealistic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Dividing this article

I would think, it is more logical to divide this article in two : (1) about the company "Facebook Inc" (2) about the product "facebook.com"

46.114.43.142 (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. It's a very long article, and there are already a number of spin-off articles on various Facebook topics. --Michael K SmithTalk 14:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree as well, because Facebook owns many assets including WhatsApp. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Split proposal

There is a clear consensus for the proposed split. @CookieMonster755: Armbrust The Homunculus 09:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am proposing to split Facebook, Inc. (the company) and the service (facebook.com). The company owns many new assets including WhatsApp, and Facebook is a company with more than one service. It would be easier to identify the service and the company by splitting the article into the company and the service. Vote with Support or Oppose below, with a good explanation why you support or are against it. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support facebook the company has a ton of information on it and facebook.com the website has lots of information too. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support While Facebook began as just a social network, I agree it has become much more than that. In addition to WhatsApp, there's also Oculus VR, Instagram of course. For precedent, there's Google, which I'm sure originally contained the info of the Google Search article. It may also be good to consider whether it would be appropriate to merge some of the Facebook-related articles (there's dozens) into either of these split pages. I also think that we should rename Criticism of Facebook as part of this to Criticism of Facebook, Inc. (or whatever name is decided for the company article). There's still plenty of work to be done to cleanup the criticism page into less of a cesspool, but all similar criticism pages are about companies as a whole, it would be inappropriate to have a separate one for the website. ― Padenton |☎  17:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Think we'll get anyone else?― Padenton|✉   15:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Yes split the article. And the controversies section was split off into a new article so that it wouldn't bog down this article, but it seems like that has failed. Gary (talk · scripts) 19:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerning the "formerly thefacebook" in lead

I have used Facebook for a very long time, and I can't remember it being called "thefacebook". Except it is against Wikipedia norms, I'd prefer its former name be limited to the history subsection. I am still new to Wikipedia so don't be offended if my view is off-point. I just don't seem to see the importance or popularity in its former name. Isakaba (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It was originally (stylized as "[thefacebook]"), but you're right, it doesn't really need to be in the lead. I think it was changed in 2005, even before it was opened up to non-students, that's when they bought the 'facebook.com' domain name. It's trivia now. It should remain in the history section (or article(s)) to allow people to find information on it from back then (has anyone else tried searching google for any specific information about facebook? Not easy), but it's not important enough for the lead I don't think. That being said, I'm relatively new myself, and I think there might be some MOS guideline saying former names should be in the lead, in which case, oh well. ― Padenton|✉   05:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2015

training and development

Carcar418 (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done See Wikipedia:Edit_requests― Padenton|✉   08:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2015

As of April 22, Facebook now reports 1.44 billion monthly active users for Q3 (March 31 2015). http://investor.fb.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=908022 Shibbyshamous (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

 Doing... Kharkiv07Talk 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Done Kharkiv07Talk 17:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I was wondering if it should be protected also. TrainsOnTime (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Study of abandonment of SNS

It is possible to include a reference to a study of the trend of facebook?. "Epidemiological modeling of online social network dynamics" http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4208v1.pdf

Thanks!

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} I am in new Orleans louisana not Washington or Alaska … The following coordinate fixes are needed for —199.120.252.122 (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • You are at Wikipedia, not Facebook; this is an encyclopedia article about Facebook. The only geographic coordinates that appear in the article are those of Facebook's corporate headquarters in California, not those of any place in Washington or Alaska (or New Orleans). If Facebook somehow has misidentified your location, you'll have to take the matter up with them. We have no connection with Facebook and thus can do nothing about the matter. Deor (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Faster Than a Speeding Bullet

Under the early history of the site, it says, "Zuckerberg wrote a program called Facemash on October 28, 2003 while attending Harvard…" Really? He wrote the whole program on one day? I know he's talented, but somehow I doubt this. 2601:9:A80:7CE:74D1:52C7:C4A:2987 (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Usually that wording indicates it was released on that day, but in Facemash's case, it's fairly doable. Facemash was essentially something along the lines of this: [7] Nothing too fancy/difficult. I would argue most experienced web developers familiar with PHP and databases could probably do the same. Really only requires a single page and pictures in a database. Couple hours even if you already have a script for scraping the pictures into the database. ― Padenton|✉   08:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like original research to me.--88.104.132.1 (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It was not creaded in one day....I remember an article... an interview with zuckerberg where he talks about how he started it on Wednesday, worked on it on Thursday and the laptop that was hosting it eventually broke because it was right by the shower. If anyone could find this and cite that'd be awesome!Jakesyl (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC) updating now

Note & Request

  • There are many Wikipedia articles concerning cities linked to Facebook pages. Example: Antwerp, Belgium... Can you please explain in this article, how Facebook links the Wikipedia articles to the convenient Facebook pages? Because for some towns there is no article linked on Facebook despite that there are existing articles on Wikipedia. Example: Jeddayel, Lebanon!

Thank you in advance and kind regards. Georges, Georges A. —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

Please add the following to the 'Criticisms and controversies' section:

Aggressive tax avoidance

Facebook uses a complicated series of shell companies and the [Double Irish arrangement|Double Irish]] and Dutch Sandwich tax avoidance schemes to avoid Corporate tax, routing billions of dollars in profits to accounts in the [{Cayman Islands]]Corporate tax.[1].

  1. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/23/facebook-tax-profits-outside-us

Relyiar (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: It's already mentioned in the section "Offices". Stickee (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverting Controversies section to older version

AmericanDad86 was permablocked for vandalism, so I've reverted the controversies section to its version before he had started editing the article. The main changes I made at [8] are:

  • Rearranging the sections to their previous arrangement
  • Removing one section that had been redundant (with the real name policy section) and was essentially a rant sourced with a conspiracy website
  • Returning neutral section headings

The section probably still has plenty of issues regarding which subset from Criticism of Facebook should be notable enough to mention here, but I shouldn't be the only one deciding this and I've already done a fair amount of NPOV stuff on these articles, should get a fresh look from someone else. My changes are based on this version of the page: [9] but I only touched the criticism and controversy section. ― Padenton|✉   21:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Why does the lede

…so poorly reflect, in scope and emphasis, the content of the actual article? Per WP policy, the lede for longer articles is suppose to be a reflection of well-sourced content within the whole of the article (all important and main points surveyed). The lede, as it stands, is almost purely focused on function, and then on business development and capitalization, to the exclusion of many important article components. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see this comment regarding discrepant historical statements

…between this main article, and the History of Facebook article. See Talk:History_of_Facebook#How_is_it_that. Discuss there. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2015

41.137.69.32 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article was the fourth most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 1,057,020 views for the week November 29 to December 5, 2015. The attention was probably related to Mark and Chan Zuckerberg's announcement that they plan to donate 99% of their Facebook shares to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Facebook video bug

Facebook video has a bug and its been a long time. I am using Facebook in Firefox currently im using version 42.0b8 all other websites including YouTube working fine using flash plugin and HTML5,but Facebook video is giving bugs. Tlmyasirs (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC) — Tlmyasirs (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

FB Changes the real name policy ... Condense?

I have updated the relevant section. But I wonder if we should condense that in this article, keeping the full information in the other one, Facebook real-name policy controversy. If so, I can do this, unless some other editor does it first. Peter K Burian 15:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Peter_K_Burian

P.S. That begs the question, Why is the previous paragraph on this topic so long too? Peter K Burian 15:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


Original name “Facemash” NOT “FaceSmash”

The “Facebook#2003–2005: Thefacebook, Thiel investment and name change” section began on 2015-12-27 with “Zuckerberg wrote a program called FaceSmash on October 28, 2003”. This cited three articles:

  1. Locke, Laura (July 17, 2007). "The Future of Facebook". Time. New York. Retrieved November 13, 2009.
  2. Tabak, Alan J. (February 9, 2004). "Hundreds Register for New Facebook Website". The Harvard Crimson. Cambridge, MA. Archived from the original on April 3, 2005. Retrieved November 7, 2008.
  3. "Facemash Creator Survives Ad Board | News | The Harvard Crimson". www.thecrimson.com. Retrieved 2015-09-17.

Not one of these mention “FaceSmash”, but the latter two mention “Facemash”. Also, the latter but not the former appears elsewhere in the article. Therefore, I'm changing “FaceSmash” to “Facemash”. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Comparison with Myspace

Could someone who knows both Facebook and Myspace please revise the section on "Comparison with Myspace"?

I think the current one paragraph (as of 2015-12-27) should be split into three with the second starting with "Facebook has a number of features with which users may interact", and the third beginning, "Facebook also differs from Myspace in the form of advertising used." This middle section describes features of Facebook without mentioning Myspace and how it's different.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"Lane v. Facebook, Inc." too terse

On 2015-12-27 this section mentioned the "Lane v. Facebook, Inc." U.S. Supreme Court decision without enough information for a reader to have any idea what it was about. It reads like a Public Relations firm employed by Facebook decided they could NOT delete the section but could change the verbiage to make it uninformative and innocuous. I'm adding a few words to state concisely the issue in this case -- and simultaneously make it more interesting and informative for readers. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hiphop

Since Hiphop is discontinued, didn't Facebook switch to HHVM yet? If the section isn't outdated, it should be expanded with an explanation of why they use their own discontinued software. --Ysangkok (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Heavily biased info about photo uploads

In the section 'News Feed': Facebook allows users to upload an unlimited number of photos, compared with other image hosting services such as Photobucket and Flickr, which apply limits to the number of photos that a user is allowed to upload.

This is a heavily biased statement. It's like saying 'ISIS is a group that stands up for their beliefs' and failing to mention they do this using terrorism.

Flickr and Photobucket let you upload uncompressed photos and offer (using the free plan) 1 terabyte and 2 gigabyte storage space respectively.[1] Flickr's photo's can have a maximum file size of 200 megabyte, Facebook has a limit of 100 kilobyte![2] Even a photo of 5 KB is compressed to 4 KB.[3] Bertenvdb (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Flickr upload limitations". Retrieved 2 February 2016.
  2. ^ https://www.facebook.com/help/266520536764594. Retrieved 2 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ "Avoiding Facebook Image Compression". freedigitalphotos.net. Retrieved 2 February 2016.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Bazj (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2016

As Facebook has recently published their financial results for 2015, could someone please update the financial information that is found on the right hand side accordingly? An official source can be found here: http://investor.fb.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=952040

Seems to me that revenue is $17.93 Billion and profit is $6.22 Billion for the 2015 calendar year. Cardyak (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Already done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Nudity policy

I just noticed this 16 March 2015 claim this is a message from FB:

We also allow photographs of paintings, sculptures and other art that depicts nude figures.

Does this basically mean that people can upload adult comics or hentai (be it a manga page or an anime or eroge or visual novel screenshot) on accounts, or would Facebook disqualify comics/games/cartoons as art?

Also I am wondering if we should discuss notable policy incidents which inspired news coverage such as this one.184.145.18.50 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Unqualified medical practitioners

Undocumented and Unqualified medical practitioners are rife on Facebook where they even have a reporting process designed to assist the undocumented and unqualified in making their public diagnosis over the internet via FB of course.

May explain why FB pays little or no tax, considering many of the reporters happen to be political party members or considered members of the community (that has a non-public reporting policy funny enough). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.73.202 (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Labour market

With respect to social impact, it would be interesting to mention research about the way Facebook is used by employers to recruit and screen job applicants. See, for instance, http://ftp.iza.org/dp9584.pdf. I am willing to write something about this, being a PhD student in labour economics, but the page is protected so I am not able to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.240.210 (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

where's a good place for this note? (the Black Lives Matter/All Lives Matter memo)

Can't find a section that discusses internal company management or company politics. I originally wrote this section on Black Lives Matter#All Lives Matter, then adapted it for Mark Zuckerberg#Politics, but I thought it would be relevant for this article too? Can someone help? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


On February 24, 2016, Zuckerberg sent out a company-wide internal memo to employees formally rebuking employees who had crossed out handwritten "Black Lives Matter" phrases on the company walls and had written "All Lives Matter" in their place. Facebook allows employees to free-write thoughts and phrases on company walls. The memo was then leaked by several employees. As Zuckerberg had previously condemned this practice at previous company meetings, and other similar requests had been issued by other leaders at Facebook, Zuckerberg wrote in the memo that he would now consider this overwriting practice not only disrespectful, but "malicious as well." According to Zuckerberg's memo, "Black Lives Matter doesn't mean other lives don't -- it's simply asking that the black community also achieves the justice they deserve." The memo also noted that the act of crossing something out in itself, "means silencing speech, or that one person's speech is more important than another's."[1][2][3]

  1. ^ King, Shaun (February 25, 2016). "Mark Zuckerberg forced to address racism among Facebook staff after vandals target Black Lives Matter phrases". New York Daily News. Retrieved 26 February 2016.
  2. ^ Jessica, Guynn (February 25, 2016). "Zuckerberg reprimands Facebook staff defacing 'Black Lives Matter' slogan". USA Today. Retrieved 26 February 2016.
  3. ^ Snyder, Benjamin (February 25, 2016). "Mark Zuckerberg Takes Facebook Workers to Task Over "All Lives Matter" Graffiti". Fortune (magazine). Retrieved 26 February 2016.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016

The section "active users" has a misspelling "Dec 31, 2015" with "Dic 31, 2015". Jshailesh256 (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Done @Jshailesh256: Thank you for pointing this out. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2016

Revenues chart (in millions US$) --> info for 2015

Facebook's revenue for 2015 was $17,928 million dollars. This represented an approximately 44% growth y/y. Link to the info: http://investor.fb.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=952040 Renvox (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Done The information in question is actually over on Template:Facebook revenue. I will update it there. Done in this edit EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the operating income of the company.

The operating income is $6.225 billion. It is written as $6,225 billion. Admin please edit it. I am a new member, so i am not able to edit it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navaneeth33 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Answer required

I guess FB means facebook, doesnt it? Then why is it removed while i was adding reference Ishanbull (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

What is this? Ishanbull (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Re this edit: I reverted it because the WP:LEAD is a summary and FB is not the WP:COMMONNAME of the site. If you read a typical news story, it refers to Facebook, not FB. It is giving undue weight in the opening sentence to imply that FB is in common use when it is not. FB is the stock exchange quotation and fb.com redirects to facebook.com. However, Facebook is the most commonly used name for the site and FB is at best an abbreviation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I do find ur answer reasonable. Thanks Ishanbull (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2016

Under the heading Corporate Affairs/Number of Advertisers, the number of advertisers on Facebook is stated to be two million. This could be updated to the figure given on the company's Business Page. I therefore propose a change to all the content under this heading to: "In March 2016, Facebook announced that it has reached three million active advertisers with more than 70% from outside the US. An active advertiser is an advertiser that has advertised on the Facebook platform in the last 28 days.[10] --Benjihm (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Facebook ownership citation

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

I added and Updated the ownership with Citation with little success so I took off the Citation and just add the ownership instead.Any help will be welcome.

Thanks, BBM@Blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBMatBlood (talk • contribs) 09:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—109.92.112.243 (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You haven't specified in what way you think the coordinates in the article are erroneous, and they appear to me to be correct. If you think that there is an error, please give a clear explanation of what you think needs to be corrected, and someone will be along to evaluate your request. Deor (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016

I want to add a few important informative sentences at a proper place to the article. I want to add these lines: "Hundreds of free and paid apps and services are also used to get the most out of facebook such as Facebook Dating Guide, Facebook Advertising Guide, Facebook Like Page Builder and Jump Start Your FB Marketing etc." Mildgrim (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If you could exactly specify where you want this placed, that would bring more clarity to this request and make it easier to act on. As of now, there's not much to do. Also, please be wary what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTADVERTISING. The wording of your proposal would need to be tweaked a bit to make it sound less promotional in tone. Keep in mind that edit requests do not open up access to editing semiprotected articles. I'm closing the request as Not done for now. Re-open by changing "answered=yes" to "answered=no" if you can specify exactly where you want this (with tweaks) added. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Spins Smocke of Faceboock Seit's

Make the one ciber-program or the manuel, handmade?Hydrokortison Cortisol (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Would probably be a good idea to include pokes and reactions in the website section

Also, maybe a note on the controversy surrounding Facebook video hosting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubletriplereversepsychology (talk • contribs) 17:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC) >"Free basics" controversy in India >Safety Check bug >U.S. federal tax examination >Support for terrorism lawsuit >Social impact/Emotional health impact/Political impact >United States/U.S. /USA... not a single word <FSB> or <KGB>. I see plainly bad. (Perhaps because of a drug poisoning?) Federally Intiligent Servise Russia is, indeed, no terrorist's or hacker's. Where to be ashamed? Face Boock User's are well covered by Moskwa. which is a positive momentHydrokortison Cortisol (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Racy screenshot of the website?

I think the screenshot of a user profile looks a bit racy and inappropriate for the article. Could I replace it with a different picture? Simplyianm (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2016


may i edit.?? 197.218.200.206 (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

no Declined This page is protected so that anonymous users can't edit it. If you want someone to make a change for you, a specific request is required. agtx 21:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2016

Facebook has introduced a new mask feature for live video, which is becoming a big platform for them. Masks is a feature that overlays certain designs on the user's face. I do not know if this is important enough to include in the article.

Sources: https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/27/facebook-masks/ http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-live-masks-snapchat-like-selfie-video-filters-2016-10http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3879266/Trick-Treat-Facebook-Live-gets-ghoulish-Snapchat-style-Halloween-masks-reaction-icons.html

Techanchor (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016

The numbers in the description section are dating from June 30, 2016. However, if you follow the reference link (in its "Stats" section), new numbers have been published by Facebook, dating from September 30, 2016. I suggest that these numbers are updated so the article can be as accurate as possible. Babolivier (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing that out! I've updated the number of employees to 15,724 and the number of active mostly users to 1.79 billion in the infobox per http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/. Mz7 (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2016

Saurabh Bhatnagar (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Facebook Advertisers often make a mistake and fail to comply with the Facebook Advertisement Policies, which results in their Ad Accounts getting Shut Down. This is the reason Banned Marketers are always seen crying for their Banned Facebook Accounts. This is a Compiled list of all the Facebook Policies which will help Facebook Advertisers in learning the Best Practices of Facebook Advertising.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016

"organization" is misspelled twice as "organisation" Fmiyata (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done See WP:ENGVAR. This is not a misspelling per se, but the spelling natural to speakers of British English and other variants. Nevertheless, this article is about an American company and should use the American variant consistently. Will change. General Ization Talk

Leak of internal rules for deletion

Facebook's internal rules for deleting content have been leaked to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung yesterday. Maybe someone wants to incorporate information from this report (English) into the article. I don't know where it would fit best. AxelBoldt (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Facebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017

hi, let me edit this please. bye 117.214.178.173 (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Live streaming crimes

A new article users here may want to look at/help create.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Update Financial Figures

Can someone please update the finance statistics on the right hand side of the screen?

The financial figures for 2016 are:

Revenue: $17.928 Billion Operating Income: $12.43 Billion Net Income: $10.22 Billion

Sources can be found here: https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2017/Facebook-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2016-Results/default.aspx

Cardyak (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Cardyak

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2017

Please change "A joint study by two German universities discovered that one out of three people were more dissatisfied with their lives after visiting Facebook, and another study by Utah Valley University found that college students felt worse about their own lives following an increase in the amount of time spent on Facebook.[409][410][411]" to " A joint study by two German universities discovered that one out of three people were more dissatisfied with their lives after visiting Facebook, and another study by Utah Valley University found that college students felt worse about their own lives following an increase in the amount of time spent on Facebook.[409][410][411] . According to professor Schwatrz, the more frequently people go on Facebook and update their status the lower their self-esteem."[1]

Please add the following new paragraph in the end of section "Emotional health impact": Dr Flores explains that social-media users usually split their time between Facebook and interacting in the real world. Sharing experiences with fiends on Facebook, or when something entertaining happens in real life, people feel the need to share it might seem harmless, however at some point people begin to substitute one reality with another. As a result people start to change their behaviour and even their assumptions about live, love and friendships, based on the Facebook reality. In psychological terms, people can experience cognitive dissonance, namely the anxiety that they feel from holding two conflicting ways of perceiving the world. Such a discrepancy between perceptions and beliefs can damage people’s emotional balance and lead them to experience identity confusion, relationship conflicts, changes in judgement, and even psychotic break.[2] Dntodorova (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide the sources in the form of an inline citation. Thank you. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball 12:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schwartz, Madeline (January 1 2010). "The usage of Facebook as it relates to narcissism, self-esteem and loneliness". 1 (1). PMID AAI3415681. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check |pmid= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ Flores, S (2014). How Facebook Affects Our Emotions, Relationaships, and Lives (1 ed.). London: Reputation Books. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Facebook/Archive_10&oldid=1090395914"