Talk:Facebook/Archive 3

message: When I went over the section on the phenomenon of memorializing people by writing on their Facebook Walls, I changed the section header from "digital mourning" to "Facebook memorials" and excised a sentence reading, "This particular phenomenon is nameless, though it may be referred to as digital mourning."  The reason why is that it appears to me that this term is a rarely-used neologism (and that when it is used, it is much more likely to mean "mourning related to the loss of a favorite computer peripheral or piece of software").  On Google, I found two non-Wikipedia/mirror uses of the term to refer to condolences sent online, and in both cases they referred to e-cards, not social networking sites.  If the phenomenon is really nameless, why are we insisting on giving it the name "digital mourning"?  That seems contradictory to me. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 12:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Digital mourning" 

message: Chris Hughes should be listed as an "Important Person" in the article.  As the Facebook "press" page indicates...he co-founded the site with Mark and Dustin. 
http://www.facebook.com/press.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.42.90 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 3 May 2006  (UTC)
:he co-founded the site but he isn't an executive of the company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.15.20.247 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 7 May 2006  (UTC)
::Can we come to a decision on this? At least if there's some consensus on the change, then it (hopefully) won't keep getting reverted all the time. cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 12:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Hughes, co-founder, "Important Person" 

message: Right, after watching people reverting each other's choices on this, I'd like to see some consensus. I mentioned this above, but never did anything about it. The nomination is that Chris Hughes is included in key people (though I mostly just want a decision). Moskovitz should also possibly be included, but there isn't an article on him as yet, and that's not the point for now. After the decision has been made, a comment should be left on the main page indicating the result to anyone changing it again. cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 17:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus regarding [[Chris Hughes (Facebook)|Chris Hughes]] 

message: *Support. Again, Facebook employs around 100 and considers Hughes to be in the top 5 as a co-founder. Those who keep removing him have not provided reasons for doing so. Keep Hughes included in the infobox. —L1AM (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting 

message: When individual schools were listed in this article as being the first few to have facebook, people gradually kept adding to the list until readability was compromised and the paragraph became unwieldy.  Let's not start this all over again by saying, "Yale and Stanford were added next, and then..."  Furthermore, Facebook expanded so quickly and this happened so long ago that it is not even very important anymore which schools outside of Harvard were the first ones to have the Facebook. If you disagree and think this list should be included somewhere, please explain here.  If enough people think that it should be included, then maybe someone could put together a separate graphic with the list to include in the article, rather than just typing the list directly into a paragraph in the middle of the text. NBS525 14:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing first few schools 

message: I notice this article is categorized as an "Article lacking sources." Is this true? If so, which sources are needed? If not, let's remove the article from that category. MaxVeers 07:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still lacking sources? 

message: Facebook recently changed their implementation of geography networks. They are now called "regional networks," and include a much broader selection of places from which to choose. Users can choose from local regions in the US, UK, and Canada, or choose another country (full list here). I'm not sure exactly when this was implemented (probably within the past few days), so if someone can find out the date, feel free to add this info to the article. —chair lunch dinner™ talk 19:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional networks 

message: List of social networking websites is currently an AfD candidate.  You are invited to partake in this discussion. Czj 18:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of social networking websites on AfD 

message: To make room for new links, older non-notable ones should be removed. Here's a list of the current press regarding Facebook. Since most can be found by searching Google News for 'facebook', I'm going to remove some of these. If you see one here that you feel is notable and should be included, please add it back.--L1AM (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thinning out links 

message: I've removed the petition section and seriously pruned the section of "Students against Facebook news feed".  This is because it was an advertisment for the group, and is not justified for this article.  Additionally, the petition and group are run by the same people.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  St.isaac 04:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand it, the petition was separate and created by an entirely different group; however, the former began linking to the latter on the second day of protest. --Samvscat 07:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adverts in the anti-news feed section 

message: The news feed section is seriously biases against the feed and badly written.  It needs help.  St.isaac 04:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News feed section bias 

message: Facebook to Open to All Internet Users - http://www.forbes.com/home/digitalentertainment/2006/09/11/facebook-opens-up-cx_rr_0911facebook.html --Liface 03:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The death of Facebook is on the horizon, it seems. JPG-GR 23:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks!  I've updated some of the most obvious sections but I'm sure a change this large necessitates changes throughout the article particularly as this changes the nature and character of Facebook and its users.  --ElKevbo 13:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open to all users 

message: Mark Zuckerberg has denied these rumors: http://sau.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2208601394&topic=1841&start=500#post5339
I have added this to the article. If anyone wants to clean up my style feel free too - I just put it in parentheses but I'm starting to think his denial should have more emphasis...
Anyway, $2 billion divided by 15 million users is $133 per user (!!!). Is Facebook really worth *that* much?
Dbloom 00:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The commercial value of the information stored on the average personal laptop has been estimated at over $1,000,000.  Is a concise list of one's contact information, interests, friends, and other details, plus the platform by which one could advertise directly to that individual worth $133?  I could definitely see the argument for it. NBS525 18:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, a buyout wouldn't only occur to get at the existing userbase, but also for the potential of attracting many, many new users. InsaneNewman 18:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I rewrote this passage a bit; putting primary emphasis on the idea that Zuckerberg is looking for $2 billion (a completely unsourced rumor) and then mentioning in passing that he happens to have denied it violates WP:VERIFY and WP:LIVING (see sections 4 and 5). 128.112.203.222 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buyout/merger 

message: I think it should be mentioned in the article that there has been instances of censorship by Facebook of various groups, etc. For instance: , this is (or rather, was) a group which managed to amass 430,000 members in early September, 2006 when facebook deleted the group, as well as Brody Ruckus' account. Dept of Alchemy 06:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was due to a break of the Terms of Service.  Brody was not a real person.  He was a character created by Ruckus Network to gain a massive email list.  Facebook, actually, is surprisingly lenient when it comes to censorship.  There are many pictures of illegal activities that are not removed by Facebook itself.Minidoxigirli 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please get a source so we can add this to the "Privacy concerns" section? It seems that 430k people (second largest group) and the data mining / spam harvesting is a legitamate concern. —L1AM (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to find an official source on that.  I saw it on Facebook a while ago, in the "Largest Facebook Group Ever", if anyone feels like searching.  I found a blog entry that discusses it here.  I can't find a non-blog source currently, and I have a dinner to attend.  I'll resume the search later.Minidoxigirli 23:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: On September 10, 2006, User:Ugen64 removed this article from the list of Good Articles in this edit with the edit summary "(this does not fit the GA criteria)". Ugen64 failed to tag this talk page with . I have now added the Delisted template. If you agree with Ugen64's comment, please attempt to edit the article to satisfy the criteria and renominate it. If you disagree with Ugen64's delisting, you can seek a review. — L1AM (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted from Good Articles

message: I was wandering around Wikipedia and came to the article on UCF, in which the section on the university's proposed stadium was referenced partly by a Facebook link.  I don't have Facebook, and I'm sure that tons of other Wikipedia users don't, either.  Is it proper to have Facebook link references in an article?  Nyttend 21:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Facebook? 

message: I didn't see this in the article, but I have heard that colleges look at applicants' Facebook profiles during the application process.  Has anyone else heard of this?  Bok269 22:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use by colleges to review applicants