![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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))
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
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
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)
[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)
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)
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.
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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))
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
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
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)
[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)
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)
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.
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)