Talk:MySpace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MySpace article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Chris is me
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5
About archives

Contents

[edit] This article is lulzworthy.

I realize it is a difficult article from a quality control standard, but it seems like just about every paragraph has a sentence or two that is not only flagrantly inaccurate but also written like a small child with writer's cramp. We need some good writers to do major rewrites around the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.151.174.208 (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1999?

Thomas has stated that MySpace launched in 2003. This makes sense because he is one of the first profiles and his was made that year. So why is this Wikipedia page littered with references toghmjdhkjkkjkkfjkfk starting in 1999? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.151.174.208 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the original MySpace (that wasn't a social networking website) was launched in 1999. Then the MySpace we know today was launched in 2003. DiverseMentality (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The company that launched MySpace was founded in 1999, but MySpace itself was not conceived until 2003 (v1.0 of MySpace launched in early September 2003). The article has been corrected with the proper information. Readysteadystop (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
More accurately, prior to the social networking Myspace that we know since 2003, the company of this name was a free web hosting/file sharing kind of service. I don't know if that was just a naming coincidence, or if the same people were behind both "versions" of Myspace. 91.33.226.74 (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1998

It says that myspace music was made in 1998. That's obviously incorrect. Sorry, I dont know how to sign and date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.34.222 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archived

Archive being made. I can't believe I'm still listed as the maintainer! -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) 05:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] free webhost

should myspace be under Free Webhosts this could be considered opinion and original research since there dont seem to be any references in the article debating it as such unless I read over themAtomic1fire (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China

I am removing the piece about "censorship" in China because it is groundless twaddle. The reference seems to be some web page written the day after MySpace was launched there and includes such nonsense as religion and politics are absent. Of course they would be! It was launched that day, and anyway who did any research to make such claims? It's complete rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extended Network

Every time I see a myspace profile, it always tells me that this profile "is in your extended network". I don't have a myspace profile and I'm not signed in under one so I don't know what an extended network is about. I was hoping the wikipedia article might have an answer to this but the term 'extended network' isn't in the article or the talk page archives. Gregory j 19:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's okay to quote things like this here but:

"have you ever wondered what the heck the "extended network" meant? well, since we added the status and mood updates today, and the phrase 'extended network' may someday be forgotten, i thought i'd write a few words. a eulogy?

myspace began back in 2003. our official launch was january 2004. at that time, we used a 'network' concept to show you *how* you were connected to friends. if dave knows john and john knows amy, then dave could see amy in the network. when you'd view someone's profile it'd show if you were friends, or how you were connected to a person ... within a week (or maybe even less time, hard to remember), we realized that this 'network' concept was really hard to scale .. the site was slowing down trying to process this relationship each time you viewed a profile. in fact, i later heard from a friendster developer that this is what slowed them down for the first year.

to keep the site running fast, i decided to just get rid of the networking code and let everyone view everyone else. it took all of about 5 minutes for me to realize that users preferred this greatly - you guys are very vocal! within minutes i got a ton of comments and emails supporting the change. it turned out that very few people were interested in the "degrees" of friendship or the concept of the network.

the network concept, btw, is also where me being the first friend came from. when myspace began and we had very few users, i made myself the first friend so that people could see each other on the site - when you signed up, everyone was connected through me. if a user wanted to only see a network of people they actually knew, they could just remove me as a friend.

after a year or two users began to request private profiles. in some sense, that brought back the useful part of the network concept. if you wanted to be 'invisible' to someone on myspace, you could just set your profile to private or friends only... and that's that. so long extended network, you were a good friend!"

Quoted from Tom's Blog on Myspace.  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mindless Youths"

The quote "totally not necessary, as many mindless youths and adults will donate money to us anyway" is not supported by its reference, if it isn't ridiculous enough to begin with. It was inserted in the less than constructive revision 158729957 by Zaruyache. Probably, someone registered should remove it. 68.183.26.130 10:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No one's removed it yet, but I think it just got a bit more complicated. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin ran an editorial today by a local 7th grade student with that quote from the article. The million dollar question is where that kid got the line from, but it's probably from here. Musashi1600 (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I just removed it, and replaced it with the real reason cited in the source for the decision not to charge a fee. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This is true to the fact that many are mindless. the site www.addictedtomyspace.com is a true contestant to mindless users who have wasted endless hours on end for such purposes and they too recieve donations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelarry2500 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second paragraph

imho, the whole 'Currently is x most popular', is very time specific, and probably will be different down the road.

Should be stricken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.84.1.2 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unicode replacement

For several months MySpace is replacing Ş, İ and Ğ to ,, -- or .. But MySpace didn't explain anything about that. OnurTcontribs 19:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 91.185.118.44 (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC) also for serbian letters š đ č ć ž.

[edit] Members MySpace

http://www.newscorp.com/Report2007/AnnualReport2007/HTML2/news_corp_ar2007_0035.htm
News Corp tells their stockholders that they have 115 million monthly, active users. I guess the number of 200 million users is far too big, especially as there is no documented source.. can anyone check, please?
Buttermichi 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has more than 250 million users (Just check a recently registered MySpace user's ID). OnurTcontribs 14:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
But that doesnt tell how many accounts are dead, fake or cancelled.
Buttermichi 10:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Now There Are 279.1 million accounts that have been registered....and I agree with Buttermichi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangsta dud3 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Safety?"

Myspace is safe, but not all that safe as people make it seem. The person who wrote the summary on myspace misinformed you about how profiles set to 14 and 15 are automatically set to private. This is completely untrue. Users on myspace have a choice on whether or no they want their profile open to the community or not. But on the other hand when a user request to be your friend you have the option of accepting it or not. Privacy settings can be changed at all times. And parents if you want to find out if your child has a profile on myspace Go To Myspace.com and click on search. Then type in the name of the person that you seek. but ultimately myspace is safe so just try trusting your kids. There's mainly only kids on there anyway. And kids today are smarter than they seem. They would only add people they know.

Profiles set to 14 and 15 are automatically and permanently private to anyone over 18. Almost all the cases involving MySpace included people who were substantially older than 18. Also, a large minority of people on MySpace, at the very least, are adults. Where are you getting your information? I suspect you are a concerned mother who has taken five minutes to look at the website and now claim to be an expert. Larsvolta (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You also are able at times to view private profiles there are people coming out with codes on a regular basis to try to view profiles and myspace sometimes then is able to block those codes...although myspace is becoming smarter about it now but it still has its tweeks. So as much as youd like to think your profile is private there are ways around it and parents should always be monitoring their kids...the internet is not a safe place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.170.229 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] music profiles

the maximum amount of mp3's upload-able has been increased to 6, thats for normal non-featured musicians, the featured musicians can have entire albums up. Gorillaz had 22 when they were featured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balthazar (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Musicians cannot have 6 unless you have to add a second proile ofter Bodog. Signed bands can stream entire albums if they so choose, it seems. -Violask81976 21:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
comment retracted, my band can load 6 songs. I dunno of adding Bodog as a friend gives you two now or if it's standard...Sorry. -Violask81976 20:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to include a bit about fake profiles. If someone feels the need to clean it a bit or rephrase it or move it, be my guest, but I think it should remain in the article as that it is a very prominent part of the music profiles. Xanofar (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tom profile.png

Image:Tom profile.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300 Million Accounts

I'm wondering, does the article really need a citation for reaching 300 million accounts? I can't find any site that states it, but I checked MySpace friend IDs and friend ID 300,000,000 has been created. You can view it here. Please discuss. DiverseMentality (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement just needs to be rephrased to indicate it is Myspace's claim that it has 300 million accounts. As it reads now it might be read as if it is "fact." I suspect somewhere there is proof of their claim, but until then, a quick rewording will fix the citation requirement. Jacksinterweb (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, such a source is not reliable for a hard figure on an important website like Wikipedia. Any number of accounts in between may have been deleted. For example, what about [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Very many account numbers between 1 and 300,000,000 are not even used! CaseyPenk (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's suppose to be about how many have been created, not active. DiverseMentality (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myspace Party Invites

I have added Myspace invites and out of control parties as it is obviously relevant. Please do not remove without discussion here, so we can avoid an edit war and discuss the issue reasonably. Interesting topic, particularly with now four instances, and the recent riot in Australia. Trijah (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Change the line that says police "attacked" to read "responded" or "intervened" or something not entirely POV. 76.31.9.18 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Discrimination section dispute

I've pasted the following three posts from My Talk Page and Geni's Talk Page to facilitate a third opinion request (Nightscream (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)):

Hi. Let's try to work out this matter without edit warring. First, the secondary sources, would not normally be sufficient in and of themselves, but because the Cleveland Plain Dealer establishes the matter, using the other sources to details other aspects of Pesta's position not in the CPD is not unreasonable. These include:

  • The fact that Pesta spoke with the site's founder, who personally made a promise to protect the profile. This is relevant for obvious reasons.
  • Pesta's attempts to rectify the matter by contacting customer service. This is relevant because it establishes that the deletion was not a mistake, and that proper channels were attempted before it became a public matter.
  • A petition that Pesta circulated, and a comment by a Harvard Law chaplain on the matter. This is relevant because it establishes the opinions of others on the matter, including a prominent Ivy League figure who may not be biased by a direct affiliation with the group (given that he's a chaplain, and the group is an atheist one).
  • The new profile that Pesta has. This is relevant as an external link for the same reason that External links in general are a necessary part of any WP article. They allow readers to read Pesta's comments, as well as allow skeptics to decide if his position has merit (since they may conclude that the fact that he now has another MySpace profile mitigates his allegations).

Which of these things would you argue is not relevant to the matter?

Your second argument is that this is "really a minor event on a site of the magnitude of myspace does not warrent this level of coverage". This is a completely different argument, and entirely subjective. The information placed in an article is not determined by vague measurements of the subject's "magnitude", as any article topic may details aspects that a reader may deem a "minor" or "major". Because the material you deleted is relevant to the incident in question, it is an appropriate part of its coverage, and does not represent an inordinate "level" of it. None of this constitutes using Wikipedia as a "platform for someone's battle", any more than any of the other points of Criticism in that section. Nightscream (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The fact that Pesta spoke with the site's founder, who personally made a promise to protect the profile. This is relevant for obvious reasons.
But not properly sourced (can't be see otherwise we wouldn't have all that fuss over tom's exact status).
  • Pesta's attempts to rectify the matter by contacting customer service. This is relevant because it establishes that the deletion was not a mistake, and that proper channels were attempted before it became a public matter.
The quality of myspace's customer service has nothing to do with religious descrimination
  • A petition that Pesta circulated, and a comment by a Harvard Law chaplain on the matter. This is relevant because it establishes the opinions of others on the matter, including a prominent Ivy League figure who may not be biased by a direct affiliation with the group (given that he's a chaplain, and the group is an atheist one).
Pesta does work in academia. Far from imposible that they know each other. In any case I would tend to argue that the opinions of someone who actualy deals with IT would be more relivant.
  • The new profile that Pesta has. This is relevant as an external link for the same reason that External links in general are a necessary part of any WP article. They allow readers to read Pesta's comments, as well as allow skeptics to decide if his position has merit (since they may conclude that the fact that he now has another MySpace profile mitigates his allegations).
Err we do not include external links in the flow of the article text.
Which of these things would you argue is not relevant to the matter?
The matter isn't really relivant. None of the above appears in a reliable source thus has no place in the article.
As for magnitude of the event wikipedia is smaller than myspace and the current Muhammad image fuss is bigger than what we are talking about. Does get mentioned in the wikipedia article.Geni 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"But not properly sourced" Of course it's properly sourced. The material in question is Pesta's allegation. The only source it needs is one in which he makes it. A source doesn't have to confirm an allegation as a question of fact, it merely has to source the allegation.

"The quality of myspace's customer service has nothing to do with religious descrimination" Please do not engage me with Straw Man arguments. I made the context of his attempts with customer service quite clear above, and I did not indicate anything about the quality of the customer service, or that it had anything to do with religious discrimination. This is the second time I've noticed you not reading something pertinent regarding this manner (the first having been your ignoring that one of the sources was the Cleveland Plain Dealer). Please respond to my actual statements, okay?

"Pesta does work in academia. Far from imposible that they know each other. In any case I would tend to argue that the opinions of someone who actualy deals with IT would be more relivant." I did not say they didn't know each other. As for the second sentence, I do not know what you mean by this.

"Err we do not include external links in the flow of the article text." Wikipedia: External links says that we typically do not. This may mean that there are some instances where it's allowable. I normally do not put in-line external links in the text, but the reason I did so here is because the text itself referred to that website. But even if you feel this doesn't justify an inline external link, the solution would be to convert it to a linked footnote, rather than deleting it outright.

"The matter isn't really relivant. None of the above appears in a reliable source thus has no place in the article." And I offered my response to that. Instead of my responding to my argument, you're merely repeating your original statement. Please respond to my counterargument.

"As for magnitude of the event wikipedia is smaller than myspace and the current Muhammad image fuss is bigger than what we are talking about. Does get mentioned in the wikipedia article." I have no idea what you mean by this. What does the relative size of Wikipedia to MySpace have to do with what goes into a Wikipedia article? What does Mohammed have to do with this? I see no mention of Mohammed in the article. Nightscream (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

First off, I'm okay with the use of The Plain Dealer; it's a decently written article. I'm a bit skeptical on the inclusion of this as it may be adding WP:UNDUE weight to the issue, but I was able to find two more articles: one on the Seattle PI, and one on SC magazine. I think both of those links should be included without greatly expanding or altering the text in the current section. With regard to the magnitude of this event, it doesn't seem any larger or smaller than the rest of the claims in the Criticism section. The sections on stalking and censorship are each one sentence with one source. Considerably more was written about religious discrimination, so I think it's okay.

Let me know if I can be of any more help here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the elaboration of Pesta's version of events, his attempts to rectify the matter, and the quote by the Harvard chaplain? User:Geni believes that it doesn't belong, and I believe it does. What is your position on that? Do you believe including it would constitute "greatly expanding" the section? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You're talking about the changes in this edit, right? First, don't include the direct link to his MySpace; it's not really a reliable source since it's constantly changing. The secularstudents.org is a blog source, so you have to use it carefully. Before adding the reference in, I'd like to see in what capacity you'd use it. Would you use it for the Epstein quote? I'm not really sure that the quote should be used, as it tends to lean towards POV pushing. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point on the constantly-changing nature of his MS page; I should've considered that. However, how is including Epstein's quote POV-pushing? Since he's a Harvard chaplain, I figured his statement was relevant to the incident. POV-pushing indicates a 'deliberate intent on the part of an editor to push a certain POV. I have no such intent, nor do I even have an opinion on the matter.Nightscream (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see how you would use it. What would the sentence(s) be? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Child Safety

"Profiles with ages set from 14 to 15 years are automatically private." This doesn't seem to apply anymore, at least with an account, should it be edited? 65.160.31.202 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, I can't make any sense of the 2nd paragraph whatsoever... it needs more context. 124.197.2.166 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repetition

In the section "Security" you have mentioned Racheal Bell's out-of-control party in a lot of detail. But then in the gatecrashers section you mentioned it again in much less detail. Why repeat it and in less detail? Gorillazx1 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Florida teen beating video

For some reason this article doesn't include that infamous Florida teen beating video; the site did play a role in it. Does that have any place here, or should it be covered somewhere else? I am quite surprised that Wikipedia has no article covering that subject yet. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MySpace blogging in 1999?

In the "Blurbs, blogs, multimedia" section (under "Contents of a MySpace profile") a statement reads, "Blogging features have been a part of MySpace since 1999."

If MySpace was launched in 2003 how can that statement be true?

--Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MySpace And WhatScene

Myspace is slandering another website "WhatScene.com" they banned links with a page stating that whatscene.com is spam/virus or a phish page, WhatScene is launching a lawsuit against MySpace for slander I believe it should be added here

References youtube proof vid http://youtube.com/watch?v=JqsjVJmnuIQ

Owner of whatscene productions blog pages http://www.whatscene.com/Lance/blog/168/ http://www.whatscene.com/Lance/blog/171/

and page on myspace for whatscene where all links have been killed. http://www.myspace.com/whatscene3371 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.43.124 (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)