Talk:Facebook/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Launch Date is obviously wrong

Check the internet archive... from April of 2005, and you will see the old about face site that launched in the 1990s... clearly this is NOT the facebook site.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050408055255/http://www.facebook.com/

Checking the internet archive for august of 2005, however, shows the facebook site in its current manifestation. It is plainly obvious from recorded history at archive.org that Facebook, in its current manifestation, did *not* launch facebook.com at any point in the year 2004, as is currently asserted in the main article.

If there is some reason otherwise to believe it was in 2004, I'd like to read the source on it so that a correction could be made. For example, did the site originally launch under a different domain or without a dedicated domain? As it stands now, the launch date looks to pretty much be made up... maybe its when the current domain name owners started coding the project? Either way, its wrong by at least 14 months. Zaphraud (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Facebook originally started at www.thefacebook.com before moving to www.facebook.com after it could afford to pay the $200,000 for the domain name. Gary King (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And, at the very least, read the reference next to the first sentence in the History section to learn the launch date. It gets under my skin when you have edit summaries such as "This is just plain wrong." when this article has several dedicated editors. At the very least, write down "I think this is incorrect" rather than stating that the editors of this article are incompetent. Gary King (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That may very well be when www.thefacebook.com launched, but that is not when the website www.facebook.com launched under its current ownership. To say so is completely absurd and every bit as wrong-headed as to suggest that since the California State University has been around since 1862 the ground-breaking for CSUCI must have also been in 1862. It wasn't, of course, it was less than a decade ago.

A web-site launch is the digital equivalent of a ground-breaking, it is site specific. Like a groundbreaking, it can be construction of something new where something else once was, but the key thing is that it is in that location! It is not directly tied to the founding of some entity regardless of where that entity may reside and as such, to say that facebook launched in 2004 is verifiably incorrect.

Also, since was archive.org not regarded as a reliable source, and who the hell made that decision? Last I checked it is, hands down, the single most complete index of historic web content, and I have not been aware of any instance where it contained false information - only instances where information was missing entirely. Zaphraud (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Same question I posted on your talk page: "If MSN started at http://msn.microsoft.com/ in 2000 and then later moved to http://www.msn.com/ while redirecting traffic from http://msn.microsoft.com/ to http://www.msn.com/ in 2005 , does that mean that MSN started in 2005 or 2000?" This article talks about the Facebook company, not just the website located at http://www.facebook.com/ Gary King (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Zaphraud, relax. It's not the end of the world if this specific sentence is wrong, and there's no reason you can't discuss this in a calm and civil manner. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the article discusses the company, but the sentence uses terminology that refers to a website's launch. Where is the problem in sticking to what is factual? Zaphraud (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The website DID launch on that date. The website changed domains sometime in 2005, but the website is the same - even the layout, the database, etc. was the same, unless you can prove otherwise that the entire website was completely different. Gary King (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding your response to my MSN question (response found here: User_talk:Zaphraud#March_2008), it was just hypothetical, so there was no need to fact check it for accuracy. Again, it is beyond me as to why you would consider an established website's launch date to be the date when it first began operating on its most recent domain name. For instance, http://www.googlemaps.com/ points to http://maps.google.com/ right now, but if Google decided to make http://maps.google.com/ point to http://www.googlemaps.com/ instead, then functionality would not change. Most users would not notice the difference. And the website would be the same - only the domain name would have changed. Gary King (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, Internet_Archive is actually referenced in the reference guide. Just a heads up.. LOL.Zaphraud (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's used when a website cannot be accessed. Gary King (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Facebook Chat

Facebook has released a Chat feature to some of its networks. (See http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=12811122130 ). Although this hasn't been released to all of Facebook, it will release to all of Facebook in the coming days or weeks. I believe it is in the spirit of Wikipedia to mention the Chat feature in the Facebook wikipedia article. This is a big development in Facebook and is very relevant. Gary King undid my changes to the Facebook page when I added that a few sentences on Chat on f--Geo19 4 (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)eatures. I'm interested in other people's opinions on whether or not the Chat section should be in the Facebook article. -- Geo19_4 —Preceding comment was added at 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am against adding this—for now, because it is still in beta. Within a week, a long will change, and by then, it will most likely become proseline. I am willing to have it added when, say, mainstream media reports on it, such as The New York Times, which consistently reports on major Facebook developments. Gary King (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Geo19 - this feature does exist, and we know it's coming more broadly. Waiting for NYT to validate seems against the spirit of WP, as WP can publish more quickly & flexibly. What's the harm in putting it up there? --Jajasoon (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with both Geo19 and Jajasoon. Facebook Chat marks a significant release\added functionality to the Facebook ecosystem. Even if only in beta release, it deserves mention as such. Why wait for NYT? --Bellross (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm with Gary King-- wikipedia isn't the place for beta's. It's meant for documented and well sourced information. Facebook has announced many plans for future features- and as the beta doesn't seem to have a set release date to Facebook as a whole, it shouldn't be included until either reported on or up and running. ~~ DaRkAgE7 (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that Geo19 is in the right. The fact is that unless one is aware that the chat feature is in beta, it looks like a fully functional, up-and-running feature. The label "beta" does not make the feature any less there. Although having a prestigious source to cite for any fact is ideal, what is more ideal for WP than to have both the most up-to-date information (i.e., "this feature exists in beta; FB has announced that it will likely expand the feature's implementation") as well as activity (i.e., update information on the feature as and when it changes). As Jajasoon noted, WP can publish more quickly & flexibly, so it owes it to itself to employ a complementary mode of updating its information. --Jgurd (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "fully functional, up-and-running feature" until all of the users have access to it, in my opinion. ~~ DaRkAgE7 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Naturally not. It "looks like" one "unless one is aware that the chat feature is in beta." --Jgurd (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how being beta reduces legitimacy. Gmail is still in beta technically, and even if we go back and look at the history of the WP Gmail page, there was a listing shortly after its announcement--before anyone could sign up. Additionally, the iPhone OS page discusses the 1.2 and 2.0 firmware updates despite the fact they are under very limited release currently. It seems there is a clear precedent. --Bellross (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Another argument for mentioning the chat feature: Beacon has its own section and even its own article, Facebook Beacon. Beacon obviously isn't used anymore but is an important element in the general history of Facebook. Even if chat isn't universally released, it represents, like Beacon, a large step in Facebook's development.

I also want to echo what Bellross said about how the gmail article came out before gmail was widely released. I see these two situations as almost identical.

Finally, as the first of WP's five pillars suggests, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_Is_Not ) Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Therefore, we as contributors have the freedom to put in up to date information and be extensive as possible. I think this debate, though somewhat trivial, gets to the heart of what Wikipedia should be. In my opinion it should be an entity that offers something the mainstream media does not. -- Geo19_4 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems that I'm the lone voice against it. That's good enough for me. Put it in, but be sure to reference it properly. ~~ DaRkAgE7 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also for putting it in. According to Facebook employees, the chat feature has been rolled out at Stanford, Harvard, and UC Berkeley so far. I used it on Sunday but I'm not sure if it was released earlier. Given the spirit of Wikipedia, I think it makes sense to have it in the Wikipedia article even in advance of mainstream media coverage. Darkage7, its very honorable of you to allow it. (Ajhendel (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

I really appreciate everyone's feedback and I put the changes in. For some reason, I can't get the second citation to look right. Could someone please fix it? I've spent a good amount of time trying to format it right and I just can't figure it out. Also, thanks again for everyone's friendliness and openness. --Geo19 4 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also when the citation is fixed, can you please tell me what I was doing wrong? Thanks, --Geo19 4 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just changed "[[Wired Magazine" to "[[Wired Magazine]]".  :) Was that all, or does it still not look right to you? — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks a lot. --Geo19 4 (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

missing header

There are only three items in the header now: profile, friends, and inbox. There use to be four, what went missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.161.187 (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Network" section was removed from the header bar due to traffic concerns. It is now accesable from the profile page. This was mentioned on the offical Facebook blog. [1] --Electrokinetica (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A sentence about Chat

"The feature allows users to Instant Message their friends, much in the way Google Talk or AOL Instant Messenger works."

Google Talk or AOL require client-side program, but Facebook's does not. Also, if the sentence are refering to instant messaging & messengers, why only these two are mentioned? I suggest removing this statement, or changing "Google Talk or AOL Instant Messenger" to more general terms. – PeterCX&Talk 11:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The way it's currently stated- "The feature allows users to Instant Message their friends, much in the way instant messaging works." seems redundant and awkward. Suggest changing it. (I actually think it was more informative and appropriate before, for the record). ~~ DaRkAgE7 (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

From the article: "Facebook is often compared to MySpace by the media, such as The New York Times, but one significant difference between the two websites is the level of customization.[77] MySpace allows users to decorate their profiles using HTML and Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) while Facebook only allows plain text.[78] However, a number of users have customized their profiles by using hacks. For example, on February 24, 2006, users exploited a cross-site scripting vulnerability on a profile page and created a fast-spreading worm, which loaded a custom CSS file on infected profiles that made them look like MySpace profiles.[79]"

This is not a controversy. I moved it to the "features" section because customization is a feature -- or in Facebook's case, a lackthereof. Telstar2 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ConnectU controversy: ConnectU recently sued Facebook for allegedly stealing ideas from the site. According to this article in the Wall Street Journal dated June 27, 2008 the case was originally dismissed, ConnectU appealed the decision and was denied. This is just an update to the controversies section. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/27/facebook-wins-connectu-appeal-blames-fee-dispute/ (Rikkiteale (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Facebook in the UAE

Just a short note...Facebook is not banned in the UAE. If it was in the past, it was probably a temporary thing: http://www.7days.ae/showstory.php?id=57772

144.173.6.67 (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Sophie 01/05/2008 12:23 pm

Thanks, I've added that as a contradictory statement to the one that is currently in the article. Gary King (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Baalthazaq (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I don't think that really works. It's not just contradictory information, it's simply a mistake (or at least misleading information) by the original source which should be removed. I've been using Facebook for the last few years. There has been no interruption in service. My home uses Etisalat, and my work uses Du. Thus covering both ISPs available in the country. I log on daily. Etisalat, the TRA, and Du have all specifically stated that Facebook would not be banned.

The real story is effectively: The TRA banned Orkut (a site simular to Facebook), and people worried if Facebook would be next. Facebook had 10 hours of downtime to some users on Etisalat, and the community panicked that the facebook ban had come into effect, prompting petitions and whatnot.

Furthermore, it's the second most popular site in the country: http://www.itp.net/news/511899-facebook-myspace-to-be-banned

It is currently "not the case" that it is banned: http://www.itp.net/news/511911-uae-users-face-part-ban-of-facebook

Some info on the sporadic nature of the 10 hour downtime of facebook: http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/10/03/facebook-blocked-in-the-united-arab-emirates/

"Recent problems accessing the social networking site, Facebook, were not a result of censorship": http://inventorspot.com/articles/facebook_not_banned_7325

That is fair enough; I have removed the information regarding the UAE since I can't confirm with another source that it actually took place. Gary King (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian General Strike arrangement in Facebook succeeded

An Egyptian woman called Esraa began using facebook to promote for a general strike on 6 April 2008 in a group called "4 May-General Strike for the Egyptian people" against the rising prices and low wages in Egypt with the slogan "Stay home",in return for the strike's success,she was imprisoned for 16 days for investigations.Before being caught on 6 April,she planned for another strike on 4 May 2008 and some Egyptian Facebook members followed her idea creating groups promoting for it.There are claims that Egypt might ban Facebook to avoid further strikes and opposition groups.The national security members was clear in the group as they went on posting aggressive and obscene posts on its wall trying to discourage new members from joining the group. The Egyptian government made a 30% raise for all governmental employees to avoid the 4th of May strike and other private sector companies followed the same decision Here's the group's link:[[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elv2003 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The group's link doesn't really help as I, and I'm sure many here, don't read Egyptian. If someone has a reliable source written in English, then please post it here. Gary King (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[3] [4] ,I'll get you some cartoons too from the group album,reffering to the facebook revolution.rtoons too from the group album,reffering to the facebook revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elv2003 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This information should probably go to Criticism of Facebook since it does not explicitly fall under one of the sections that we have under Controversy over here. Gary King (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Popularity

There has been a recent surge in Facebook popularity, catapulting it from an Alexa traffic rating of 8 behind Wikipedia, 7 and Myspace, 6, to take a rating of 6, with Wikipedia falling to 8 and Myspace to 7.[5] 199.125.109.105 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This article would be even better if it had a map like the hi5 one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.61.120 (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Palestine Controversy

I think it would be appropriate to mention this controversy, about not listing Palestine as a place/hometown since there are so many groups about this. Facebook seems to be one of the few places that does not recognize Palestine as a country. It seems in line with the other themes such as Connect U. At least a sentence would be appropriate, if not a subheading and small paragraph.

I just checked. I can join Palestine's regional network, so I don't see what the issue is? Furthermore, I was quickly skimming through a few headlines and came to this, which actually mentions several Facebook groups that petition Facebook remove the Palestine regional group, not add it. Gary King (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened to my photo of the HQ?!

Looks like User:Gary King took it out without warning a couple of weeks ago. As a practicing attorney, I am very busy and only caught this unexplained deletion right now. What was the reason for taking it out? The photo was shot with proper angle and contrast and was obviously relevant to the subject of the article. After all, you can't have a commercial Web site if you don't have a building to house its commercial operations in! (I've never heard of any major commercial Web site operating from an open field or the top of a mountain.) If no one gives me a good reason, I'm putting my photo back in. That photo was particularly difficult to make! --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it was recommended at the current WP:FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Facebook that it be removed. Gary King (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's odd. Can you point me to the particular recommendation? I've read that FAC very, very carefully twice over and there is no suggestion that the image should be removed. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, that was the wrong page. The suggestion to remove the image is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive3. Gary King (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am putting my photo back in and will take up the dispute directly with User:AnmaFinotera and ask her to respond on this talk page. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't really feel too strongly about the issue, but when it was brought up, I felt that their concerns were warranted. It's not a major issue, since the image is free to use, but it's just decoration and not much else because as it was mentioned, the headquarters itself is not discussed in great detail. Gary King (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The picture adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the encyclopedia and is more decoration than anything else. Per WP:IMAGE: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." What the headquarters of the building looks like is not significantly relative to the article's topic. The building is not discussed in any detail in the article at all. Its unnecessary, no matter how nicely shot it is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. Your position is internally inconsistent and makes no sense. In line with your position (in which relevance of images must be demonstrated by an express discussion of the content of each and every image in the body text of the article), more than 95% of the images on Wikipedia should be removed because they are NOT expressly discussed in the articles in which they are displayed. That would make for a terribly boring, colorless encyclopedia (which would look like Citizendium or one of the smaller Wikipedias in other languages).

For example, the article on the United States currently contains photographs of Buzz Aldrin on the moon, Interstate 80, the University of Virginia, and the Hollywood sign, even though none of those objects are specifically discussed in the body text of the article. Under your extremely constrained view of relevance, all of those would go, because the article lacks a paragraph specifically discussing the importance of Buzz Aldrin, Interstate 80, the University of Virginia, or the Hollywood sign. But under the more sensible, broader view of relevance that I (and most human beings) adhere to, they are relevant to the United States because the article indirectly discusses the American space program, American car culture, American postsecondary education, and the American entertainment industry. That's close enough.

Furthermore, the headquarters of a corporation is clearly relevant to a corporation because by definition, it is the place where the officers and senior employees of the corporation work. It is literally the home of the corporation. It is the "principal place of business" of the corporation (as distinguished from its state of incorporation).

I believe the appearance of the headquarters of a company or organization is strongly relevant to an article about that company and adds a great deal of value even if the headquarters itself is not expressly discussed in the article. There is a tremendous difference between Apple Inc.'s five-story tall headquarters complex in suburban Cupertino and News Corporation's soaring skyscraper in New York (both of which I photographed for Wikipedia). The appearance and location of a corporation's headquarters speaks volumes about its corporate culture (and indeed, such buildings are often selected and designed with that point in mind, which you would know if you regularly read BusinessWeek, Fortune, Forbes, the WSJ, or any other periodical which regularly discusses commercial real estate issues). Furthermore, I think an image speaks for itself (that's why attorneys nearly always bring visual aids, photographs, or physical objects for the jury to look at) and there is no need to restate the obvious in a thousand words of prose when a single photograph would do.

Please note that I am prepared to take this issue to arbitration and will revert any other image removals based on User:AnmaFinotera's extremely limited view of the word "relevance." --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, try and remain civil and do not threaten to take this to arbitration. I think it will be quickly dismissed. This view is shared by many, many more people than only User:AnmaFinotera. If you go through Featured Article candidates, you will find this out quickly. When you say that 95% of the images in Wikipedia articles should be removed, I have no doubt that there are many editors (although probably not in the majority) that share this sentiment. This is talking in terms of the Featured Article criteria, though, specifically. No one here is going to go on a rampage and begin removing images from articles, but I respect the editors that suggest some images be removed in order to meet the higher standards set by the Featured Article process.

I think a lot of the disagreements here stem from misunderstandings. This article is currently going through the Featured Article process and therefore is being held to higher standards than most articles, and even images are being scrutinized. And I agree with AnmaFinotera's views. I have requested that some other editors give their input to this discussion, and hopefully some light can be shed for everyone involved. Gary King (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, arbitration doesn't decide content issues for the most part and would quickly dismiss such a filing. Second, I would think its obvious, but this article is NOT about the company Facebook, Inc. It is about the website, Facebook.com. They are, in fact, two separate things. If the article were actually about the company itself and not the website, then the picture would likely be appropriate But the article IS about the website, and as such, a picture of the company's headquarters is not significantly relevant. The rest Gary probably said better than I could. I hope you will be willing to listen to the input of others as well, even if they agree the image doesn't belong. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt that the image is decorative and doesn't really add anything to the article. It's not discussed in the text, and the building isn't even identifiable from the image - it's just an office block. However, since it's a free image, the necessity for removal isn't as strong as it would be normally. Black Kite 08:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Facebook, Inc as well as the website. Click the wikilink. Reinstate the picture, it adds value to the article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just returned from a badly needed transpacific vacation (during which I contracted my second cold this year and earned another 12,000 frequent flier miles). Mostlyharmless has elegantly stated the point I was going to make in rebuttal, which is that the article is about Facebook, Inc. as well as Facebook the Web site. If it were solely about the Web site, then the article should focus solely on the features, design, and user community of the Web site (the obvious analogy would be to a psychological study of the end user experience which would assume the existence of its design and make no inquiry into its creation).

But the article also clearly discusses the history of the founding of the Web site and the fundraising by the subsequent private corporation which has supported its operations since (analogous to a corporate history). This makes sense in the context of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, because as any Web designer knows, Web sites do not design themselves. Like all technological artifacts, they are designed by humans, built by humans, and used by humans. In fact, it takes hundreds of hours of labor to design a really good Web site. So the picture of the company building is relevant because that's where the people behind Facebook physically gather every day to keep it operational. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)