Talk:List of social networking services/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Autosorting

Czj switched off autosorting, referring to an already obsolete discussion. Correct number sorting can be forced using sorting templates. The way to do this is already explained in a comment at the beginning of the table, but i'll it copy here:

Please use {{nts}} and no commas for the user counts so they don't not mess up sorting.
For examle: {{nts|1234567}}
Use {{ntsh}} with non-numeric user counts, for example:
{{ntsh|0}}Unknown
{{ntsh|1000}}Thousands

(Look into the wikicode if it's still not clear.)

It's a bit of a hack, but it's invisible to readers, and not too difficult to maintain; and I think the ability to sort by community size is important enough to do the extra work. Any objections against switching it back? --Tgr 11:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. A few regulars to this article seem undisposed to having sorting, as there will always be cross-browser incompatibility, no matter how you hack. If you so wish, you can convert the formatting once again yourself. Don't be surprised if someone (not me) switches it off again. Best wishes. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 21:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find any mention of browser compatibility issues at m:Help:Sorting, nor at Template talk:Sort. If there are, they should be reported at these places. But I don't think that was the problem; somebody just forgot to add the proper sorting template. (There was at least one missing in the last revision that had sorting.) --Tgr 18:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If they were reported, it wouldn't achieve much, as some scripts never will work with certain browsers. With non-sortable, at least you are guaranteed that the results are viewable to some standard in all popular browsers in use today. As I say, with editors being bold, you may find that the first one to suffer incompatibility problems removes the formatting while calling 'foul' on the talk page at the same time. Or not, who knows? Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As there doesn't seem to be any real reason for not switching on sorting here, I am going to do it. If you remove sorting please put up a notice in bold here. Thanks! --Anshul 20:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Powerfulintentions.com

I would like to add http://www.powerfulintentions.com an online community based on the Law of Attraction and the home of the official forum for the 2006 film "The Secret" by Rhonda Byrne. The current membership count is 113,000. I am the CTO and part owner of this community. Not sure of the guidelines nor how to add our community to the list. Bob OConnor 17:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Rocnet

Sorted by user count

I'd like to see this same chart, sorted by usercount. The number of users isn't a bad way to judge the notability of a Social Networking Site. Mathiastck 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to add external link to 100+ Social Networking Portla

Dear Author,

I request you to visit my analysis on 100+ Social Networking Portals categoriezed in 6-7 categories. Analysis & ranking is given on the basis of popularity and traffic genereated by portals. Hope this link will be helpful to readers. Here is the link:

(removed external link)

I am now aware whom to ask to add external link so i am using this page.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voyage2mail (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

This is not an analysis, it's a collection of links to external websites, and I don't see why you should use this talk page to advertise it. So I've disabled the URL. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 00:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact I feel that strongly about it, I've removed it. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds)

www.azeroo.com

Azerbaijanian social network site, with over 1500 verified members, blogs, videos, photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.217.197 (talk • contribs) 17:58, April 25, 2007 (UTC)

So long as it has a Wiki article, it can be added to this list.--MonkeyTimeBoy 18:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wherefore not Zorpia?

I was just recently introduced to a social networking site "Zorpia" -- I turned to Wikipedia to give me the skinny and it's not there -- anywhere -- positive or negative ???

What gives, shouldn't Zorpia at least be on this list??

Help me understand.

85.178.14.24

And maybe I'm answering my own question here. I just found a "complaint site" from Zorpia complaining that they're not on this list --- is it because they don't have an article elsewhere on Wikipedia -- and are they unable to keep an article up because there's nothing "new" about them? That seems a bit of a catch-22 --- I like this compiled list *because* of its breadth -- I want it to list ALL KNOWN MEMBERS OF THE SPECIES. But if it will only list those that have articles on Wikipedia elsewhere and somebody has decided that only unique businesses can have articles, then the two virtues are rather fighting against each other, aren't they? 85.178.14.24 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not Spock?

Not logical enough? Just joking, but a new website that seems to be of interest. Seems to be a cross between a Who's Who and a social networking site. Registration is open, but most of the 'members' appear to be stubs that they've created for the owner to claim. I think I joined out of the blue, but most of the people I found were famous alumni in the form of unclaimed stubs. The tagging system is attribute-based, but with cumulative voting from yourself and other members. So what are the criteria for inclusion here on Wikipedia? Shanen 00:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable

What is this "notable" standard, anyway? It really sounds a little evil, to be honest. I thought one of the virtues of Wikipedia was the nearly unlimited data-space --- notable to whom? What gives? (please direct me to the, I'm sure, quite extensive discussion of this matter elsewhere in Wikipedia-land). 85.178.14.24

The general overview can be found at Wikipedia:Notability. Also see the subject specific criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (web), and a good essay at User:Uncle G/On notability. -- Satori Son 11:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

virb.com

I stumbled over this, not sure if the user number is notable enough. 85.3.151.176 20:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

French social network

is it possible to add the two main social business network to the list of this article?

it's called viadeo.com and 6nergies.com ... both are more than 100 000 members

Julien (no user account on wikipedia) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.162.134.247 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Julien

If they have Wikipedia articles about them, and they are truly notable, both on the internet and by word of mouth, they can be added to the list. If not, they cannot, and any attempt to do so would be reverted. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Julien - articles on Viadeo have been deleted a number of times because they were written by a promoter for the company, and never progressed beyond being a promotional brochure full of uncited, internally-generated claims. Until such time as there exists a reliable source for Viadeo's notability, there won't be such an article. Αργυριου (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sortable tables, once again

Hi. Editors are once again inserting sortable tables without reference to consensus on the matter, gleaned by looking at this talk page. So I've added a hidden source message in the article asking them to visit the talk page to judge consensus before they make the edit. As of this timestamp, consensus is broadly against due to incorrect number sorting, e.g. 11,000 comes above 10,000,000 which is patently wrong. A true sortable numbering table would be most welcome. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

deafbuddy.com

Can someone add www.deafbuddy.com? --169.139.19.106 14:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if someone creates an article if it's notable. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wakoopa

Wakoopa has it's own article on wiki, so I am not sure why it would be deemed "unworthy". Furthermore, it has been mentioned on several external sites that are themselves noteworthy. One such example is the article. I will be glad to point to more articles if need be but please do not remove content that is obviously relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tecmobowl (talk • contribs).

Well, actually I've proposed deletion of the article since it does not seem to be notable enough to meet our WP:WEB notability inclusion criteria. Leuko 20:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point actually :-) Fair enough, axe away. // Tecmobowl 20:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Tecmo Banned Indefinitely. FYI--Tecmo has been banned indefinitely for repeated violations of Wiki policy.--Epeefleche 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

izimi

I added izimi to the list. Where did it go? 90.199.50.13 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please only add websites which have valid and notable Wikipedia articles about themselves. Izimi does not. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I think izimi should be in the list, so how do I encourage a Wikipedia contributor to create a valid and notable article on izimi, so it can then appear in the list? I know I wouldn't do it justice. 90.199.50.13 23:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "Please only add notable websites which have valid Wikipedia articles about themselves".

Number One - When was Izimi launched? Number Two - Does it have plenty of mentions in independent industry news websites? Number Three - Is it the talk of the community? Number Four - What kind of membership figures does it have right now?

If it is an alpha or beta site, or was launched within the last six or so months, it's unlikely to be notable as yet. If it does not get plenty of neutral coverage i.e. not mentions from its own forums or blogs, then it's non-notable for sure. The same applies to word-of-mouth distribution - no "buzz", no notability. And if it does not yet have a large number (I would say 50,000 plus) of members, it wouldn't qualify for an article, or for inclusion in the List.

One answer from the Press Room on the site's blog: The launch press release was dated March 5 2007, so it launched sometime around then. Two months old? I think any article created about izimi would get speedily deleted. I won't be attempting it myself. I cannot find any membership figures on the website either. Sorry. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bebo

Updated the registered user count from 31 million to 34 million. For reference, please see the about page on Bebo which was just officially edited to say 34 million.

http://bebo.com/StaticPage.jsp?StaticPageId=2517103831

Jozecuervo 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

GoodReads

Why was my contribution of GoodReads deleted? 128.101.134.38 14:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It was removed[1] because there is no article about the site in Wikipedia, and a site must have an article about it in order to be included in this list. And you should not create an article about the site unless it meets the notability guideline for articles about websites. -- AJR | Talk 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why this is more useful than a comprehensive list of social networking sites, or why this list should be subject to such criteria. Perhaps there can be another page that actually lists social networking websites, and this can be a list of selected social networking websites. 128.101.134.38 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. What you propose would in effect be a list of purely external links. The subject matter contained within that list is immaterial. What Wikipedia is not is a collection of external links. That's by definition and also by policy. The present List qualifies itself by stipulating the existence of articles for the component parts. If the website is not notable enough for an article, it doesn't belong on the List. If it is notable as a social networking portal, then create an article about it, or ask for one to be created at Requested Articles. Then it can be added to the List. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletions - 1 June 2007

1. ChampionsClub

• This was removed due to Google results not returning independent references, except for another venture by the same name at an org.uk address. It's non-notable and the article is written like an advertisement.

2. ManTurf

• This was removed due to the article being tagged for speedy deletion, and inaccurate membership information being entered in the List entry. The editor who added it to the List claimed 250,000 - by entering the website, I found that there were a total of 735 members, 8 of which were online at the time of my visit. It's patently non-notable for that reason.

Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ManTurf was subsequently deleted as non-notable. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

99.246.57.23 19:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Why was FraternityLive removed from the list? It is the largest private Greek social network on the internet!

Rooster Teeth Networks

shouldn't Rooster Teeth Networks be put into this list? -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 07:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. As there is no Wikipedia article on the subject, it cannot be entered into the list. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

TravelersTable.com

Hello, I wonder why TravelersTable.com was removed. The reason stated that it included an external link but several of these do. I think that this site deserves mentioning as it is more innovative than many others. Please advise. Thanks! Gidge-it 23:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)gidge

There should be no sites with only external links in this list, all must have internal links to Wikipedia articles. I currently do not see any. If TravelersTable.com is notable according to the WP:WEB inclusion criteria, then you may create an article on it, and place it in the list. Leuko 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there is an article on the website, but it has been tagged for speedy deletion due to the site being non-notable. Leuko 00:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

TravelersTable.com is a recently launched patented business/social networking tool. Users can set up in-person meetings for any purpose including business or social networking. It offers a quick and easy way to set up meetings that offer you the opportunity to do many things including network with others in your profession, meet others in your industry, get together with fellow alumni from your high school, college or graduate school, investigate a job opportunity, introduce yourself to prospective employers or employees or potential customers, organize a play date for your kids, etc. You can set up an invite through TravelersTable.com for lunch, dinner, coffee, drinks, jogging, golf, cards, a sporting event, movie, or any other activity. What would it be considered "non-notable"? Because its just getting started?

IMVU

Hi. In my opinion, this should not be part of the List, as it plainly states that it is software, offered for download through, but not operated by, the website in question. I have no idea when this addition was made, but I am sure it should be removed. I would like consensus on this in case I have missed something obvious (surely we should allow MSN or Windows Messenger if we allow IMVU - they certainly boast many more users than this one?). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotta agree, that is strange that snuck on.--Crossmr 15:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I take a short unannounced Wikibreak, and stuff like that happens! Well done for cutting it out, as I don't think we've missed anything subtle about it. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Usage Share?

Is this an appropriate category to dump the List into? It relates only to the function of the Usercount referencing column in the article, not the article itself, as far as I can see. Too indirect for my liking. Comments? Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes a user count is very different from a usage share.--Crossmr 16:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there really isn't a finite number of social networking website users, so I think it would be near impossible to define the "market." Really not all that related, IMHO. Leuko 00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the Cat got deleted anyway. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Windows Live Spaces

Should Windows Live Spaces not be in the list? Or are they already there under some other name? 129.142.71.166 17:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just found out that this entry was removed by User:85.185.37.18 on June 26. I reintroduced it. 129.142.71.166 09:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

SMS.ac

I think sms.ac is also a notable social network site for mobile users. Bairuz 20:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)bairuz

I don't know anything about the company, but the home page does look like a social networking website to me. I've added it, but if anyone disagrees go ahead and revert pending further discussion. Thanks, Satori Son 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed due to the article's heavy slant towards the business model and sms service aspects of the company, and only minimal focus on the social networking value, regardless of the fact that there is indeed an external link in the article to what passes for a perfectly good social networking interface. Remember though that this List is reliant on the integrity of the internal Wikipedia links contained within it - any minimalisation of the social networking content in the linked article is not acceptable in my view. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 01:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Naymz.com

I think Naymz.com should be on the list -- they are, like LinkedIn, a way to connect with other professionals. In this case it is to establish the reputability of your name by having others vouch for you. I don't know enough about the number of user accounts, etc. to post on this page. Can some one take a look at that and determine whether it should be added to the table? --Bill.albing 19:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-English SNSs

Are y'all listing non-English sites? Here's a list www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/06/02/list_of_nonengl.html.--Bill.albing 19:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest listing the non-English sites on their respective non-English versions of Wikipedia. It seems most appropriate that way, after all, that's why those multiple language formats were made available. :-)--MonkeyTimeBoy 15:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ning Situation

I see someone added Ning to the list today. While I like Ning (I've even used it to create a network of my own), and definitely see its value as a Social Networking tool, it's not a SNS in itself. But before I remove it, I thought I'd ask for a little feedback on this -- as it will set a precedent of not including such SNS "enabling" or "toolbox" sites henceforth.--MonkeyTimeBoy 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming that no objections for the past 3 months means passive approval. So, removed Ning and have set precedent to remove all other SNS creation toolkits in future.--MonkeyTimeBoy 15:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Neopets?

Since GoPets is listed, why not Neopets? --Procrastinatrix 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither appear to be social networking websites. I have removed GoPets accordingly. --ElKevbo 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

43 Things Content

43 Things is a site dedicated to the listing of goals and dreams; this is the content focus. The site links users by a tagging style system. The site itself is not about tagging per say. I changed the description to include the content and did not delete the system of connecting users. Other sites have content as part of their description: music, "dark" blogs, "Green living and activism." Why would 43 Things need to be reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.46.184 (talk • contribs) 21:55, August 6, 2007

My apologies. Your edit was accidentally reverted as I was removing some other edits. I don't pretend to understand what you mean by "Goal and Dreams" but that's not what I intended to remove. --ElKevbo 02:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Renspace.com

Renspace.com, a social network for renaissance festival enthusiasts is probably deserving of mention with nearly 3,000 members to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakeguy929 (talk • contribs) 19:54, August 9, 2007 (UTC)

What About Nexo?

I was reading on PCWorld and I saw Nexo At: http://www.nexo.com/. Somebody Should Add A Wikipedia Article About It.

WorldWrestlingFans.com

This is a new myspace.com like website which is very similar to it, but its just for wrestling fans. Do you think this should be added? Don.-.J 18:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Youtube and del.icio.us?

I'm shocked that Youtube and del.icio.us aren't on this list. Is there a good reason why they're not? IMO, these sites (along with Flickr, which does appear on this list) defined social networking as we know it. Thoughts? — Joey Day (talk·edits) 19:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, read the archives. The main purpose of those sites is not social networking.--Crossmr 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Babulous.com

Dear Author, would you please Babulous.com. Babulous.com is a new music social networking, it is based on new york and the goal is to connect fans and musicians. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alixixi (talk • contribs) 22:09, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Matador Travel

I wonder why matador Travel is not on the list, i added it twice and the next time i check it it's not on the list anymore. In fact, Matador Travel already has an article on wikipedia. Can anyone tell me why? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkTwist (talk • contribs) 06:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Because its up for deletion and the deletion so far looks like its going to the way of being deleted. All entries on this list are required to have and qualify for an entry on wikipedia, and it so far it appears that matador travel does not.--Crossmr 13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I see, thank you for that information.ThinkTwist 03:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorting

Someone please user sorting screwed up by Wirefree. Doesnt work correctly anymore when trying to sort most populace site down. Here is where it worked and then where he messed it up:

1. (cur) (last) 20:45, 28 September 2007 Wirefree (Talk | contribs) (19,317 bytes) (added Zorpia) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 20:42, 28 September 2007 Wirefree (Talk | contribs) m (19,199 bytes) (zooomr & weeworld in wrong place) (undo)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.64.23 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The above note was left in the HTML comment at the top of the article. As far as I can tell, the sorting behaviour has not changed following those edits (although, at least in Firefox, sorting by usercount sorts alphabetically rather than numerically.) -- AJR | Talk 18:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

General

A completely useless page. It is incomplete and contains more unknown and websites that are not worth to be mentioned, solely because they have had the time to write an article about themselves. There are not always internal pages yet on Wikipedia for other websites that would be worth to be mentioned - and some of those website do have some sort of Wikipedia article but are clearly not worth to be mentioned or listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby78 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see a function for this list as incorporated within the page:Social network serviceGreald 09:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I too can see a use for this page, it's giving a great overview on what is going on.

However, is it really encyclopedic content, or original research?

This is useful for me, but I am aware of the difference and will not be quoting this as if it is peer reviewed ect....

Others may not be so careful :o) Sgt101 10:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(Please don't forget to indent new replies...it quickly becomes impossible to follow the discussion if you don't. Therefore, I've formatted the previous 2 replies in this discussion.) Before unilaterally declaring usefulness (or not) of this list, please review the archived debates at the top of this page, where general consensus of notability was achieved. I am also familiar with a number of colleges/researchers that use this list in their courses, etc. on social networking (as a somewhat reliable list of notable sites). Some sites are more worthy than others, and over time, the wheat is separated from the chaff (just view the History of this article to see the almost daily elimination of redlinked sites - that is, sites whose articles have been deleted because of consensus regarding non-notability). Wikipedia is a fairly anti-elitist venture... opperating on consensus among a community of peers, and putting absolutely no stock in unilateral assertions. That's both its strength, and its greatest weakness. --MonkeyTimeBoy 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I would like to see that all the articles this page links to have a website infobox. I would also like to see that under type, they all say social network service, because social network has a dablink at the top:

Not to be confused with social network services such as MySpace, etc. or virtual community

Removed the logo, it was over 2000px wide

I removed the infobox completely - we can already see the MySpace example by clicking on that article. JamminBen 05:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Social Networking Websites

You list did not have Helloworld! I've been using this site for sometime and I find it most enjoyable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.185.87 (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not supposed to list every social networking website in existence. They need to be notable. Have a read of the notice at the top of the article for more info. JamminBen 01:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What about Lokalisten.de ?

According to the article on the German wikipedia, it had a recorded 1,390,000 members on Sept. 2007. This is quite an increase from last year. 420,000 members (IVW December 2006) (IVW: Informationsgemeinschaft zur Feststellung der Verbreitung von Werbeträgern)

I added Lokalisten to the list of sites only to have my change rolled back. Is this because I didn't have an English article to link to? Thanks. Please don't delete me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.24.8 (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who rolled back your change, but that seems like the most logical explanation. Although it doesn't say so in the body of the page, all entries need to have an article (it does say this in the comment that can be found when editing the page though). Adding an article doesn't guarantee the link will remain on this list - articles need to be notable. If you need some examples, have a look at some of the articles already linked from this list. JamminBen 22:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

nly place entries here that are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable social networking sites--Hu12 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Supporting references

Isn't one of the main purposes for this page the user count column? The foundations for every claim that site $x$ has $y$ users were wiped a few days ago. 66.93.192.222 13:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself; that major change was done without any discussion. I think those references should be restored. UnitedStatesian 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Hu12 removed the references a few days ago with the edit summary "these should be established on the main article, not here. most are just links to the root of the site anyway, no added value." Anyone yet ask him or her why such a major change was made with no discussion, particularly when that change was to remove references (which are absolutely vital to Wikipedia, IMHO)? --ElKevbo 22:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that I can tell - nothing on his talk page. UnitedStatesian 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Its primarily due to WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Because entries here are links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable social networking sites, that info is obtained on the individual article. Many "lists of..." articles have begun this transition in order to cut down the excessive spamming, and improve the quality of the list. 98% o those were self references(WP:ASR) or to the root domain of the site. Notability, Verifiability and proper references are established at the main article, not this list. This is an encyclopedia, not a link farm.--Hu12 22:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your process stinks, Hu12. I think a lot of the editors here disagree with you, and to make such a drastic change without any discussion goes against many, many WP principles. I also think you fundamentally misunderstand WP:ASR (assuming you are invoking it in good faith). Can you provide any examples of the "transition" you cite, or any guideline or policy that supports it? I am as (or more!) against spam as the next guy, but I think you have gone overboard here. I am going to start the difficult task of reverting, and would appreciate help. Improve is better than delete (and I'm a deltionist!), especially on references. UnitedStatesian 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

While your point about many of the references being poor or outright useless (links to the main page of a particular site), the solution is not to remove all references. Nor is it at all acceptable to remove references because we also have an article about that particular site as we never use other Wikipedia articles as sources. If you believe there is an exception for "lists", please point that policy as it's one of which I am unaware.

(For what it's worth, I don't really like "List of" articles at all. I don't understand what purpose they serve that categories do not already serve in a far better capacity.) --ElKevbo 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with elkevbo, this list serves no useful purpose and should be deleted; the category already does the same job and does it better. Abtract (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good list - the description and user numbers are something you cannot easily get from a category, and are helpful if you want a quick overview of the field. I don't know about the wisdom of removing references. Without references it is harder to verify and do quality control on the article. I've heard of adding references but there has to be a pretty good reason to remove them. Also, for some list articles it's useful to demand a reference as a condition for inclusion. That keeps the list from becoming indiscriminate.Wikidemo (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Such major changes to a broadly watched and contributed to article simply must be discussed, and not unilaterally executed without consensus. Period. And while some (such as Abtract) may hold a personal bias/belief that "this list serves no useful purpose..." It doesn't change the general consensus that was achieved twice that this article is a "Keep". And that's what makes Wikipedia, well, Wikipedia. Personal opinions matter very little, without consensus.--MonkeyTimeBoy (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems unfair that UnitedStatesian and others have to undo Hu12's mess on their own. Hu12 ought to step up and fix his/her own mistake.--MonkeyTimeBoy 15:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please correct sorting method

The "Registered Users" tab sorts the list alphabetically, not numerically. Please correct this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.102.254.33 (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see this has been raised before, but I didn't see anything conclusive. I tried sorting the list in Firefox and it doesn't even seem to do it alphabetically (at least, I couldn't figure out the sorting). I checked every entry in the table for formatting and it all looks fine. I have no idea why it isn't working, perhaps someone else could shed some light on this? JamminBen 00:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The sorting error appears to be a Firefox 2 (& FF3beta)-specific bug because the sorting works fine in IE7, Opera 9, and Safari 3.0.4 beta for Windows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeryp (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I take that back, it's not a Firefox-specific bug. Sorting is broken if you're logged in but it works if you're logged out. --Georgeryp (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Zhanzuo.com?

Facebook is reported to have offered $85 million (£41 million) to buy Zhanzuo.com, its largest Chinese counterpart, which has an estimated seven million active users and a popular base among students. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/zhanzuo.com ????????? `````Spencerk 07:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Traffic details aren't used for notability on wikipedia anymore. Is there notable coverage in the media about this site? If so an article can be created then it can be added to this list.--Crossmr 14:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading about this on TechCrunch or one of the other major Tech news sites I follow... However, it was discredited as just a rumor a day or two later. So, unless something can be substantiated, it's a no-go.--MonkeyTimeBoy 15:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd go one step further and say that unless the purchase went through, it isn't relevant to this page. If it wasn't a rumour but didn't go through, it might have been relevant to the Facebook article, but not this one. JamminBen 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

but its the largest Chinese social networking website?! Spencerk (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then find reliable sources to establishing notability and create an article. Once you do, then the site can be added to the list.--Crossmr (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OneClimate

This is a valid social networking site helping to promote discussion about climate change. I think it is valid for this list, it has its own wikipedia article and it is a valid social networking site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakeyjamie (talk • contribs) 14:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The validity of it having an article and being on this list is an establishment of notability per WP:WEB which it has failed to do.--Crossmr 15:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiversity

Why would you dispute that distributed teams of learners interacting at Wikiversity forms a social networking site? Wikiversity is a social network of teams of learners actively seeking participation. cc Unitedstatesian talk page Lazyquasar (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All right. I have been through your referenced Wikipedia article ...http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Social_network_service in detail and I know from personal experience that Wikiversity has been and is used as a social networking site. I am placing it back into the list until someone raises some specific reasons demonstrating to the satisfaction of others participating here that Wikiversity is not a social networking site. Lazyquasar (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that "knowing from personal experience" is not a basis for putting information into Wikipedia: it violates Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. If I go the the Wikiversity article, it does not mention the words "social networking" at all. For lists like these, we rely on what the article says (which itself should be referneced), not on the personal experience of one or more editors. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, blatant violation of WP:V.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Blatant violation of Verifiability"? Click on the link, Wikiversity is there whenever Wikipedia is, they reside on some of the same servers. The words "social networking" are not used in the Wikiversity article? So what? Social networking is defined functional characteristics not the use of specific jargon. If you want "social networking" in the Wikiversity article feel free to add it yourself. This is after all Wikipedia, not Encarta or Britannica. Lazyquasar (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear some specifics. Wikiversity has all the characteristics identified in the social networking article cited at the top of the page to help define this list. Arbitrarily deleting others work and engaging in edit wars without specific discussion is also a violation of Wikipedia policy last time I checked. Wikiveristy has IRC, email, user discussion pages, blogs, discussion forums, reading groups, and is experimenting other technologies to support collaboration or networking. At least one of the other sites on this list where I participate has nothing but blogs and forums. While scanning one of the deleting editors contributions I noticed only removals not any additions to the list. Have the deleting editors read the social networking article at Wikipedia or briefly scanned the Wikiversity web site? Shall we build a traceability matrix and find out how many other sites already listed do not meet the articles requirements while Wikiversity does? Is this function required in a third party publication before it is acceptable? If so name which publications and I shall send them some email with requests for evaluation for your local benefit. Perhaps this will be useful data regarding whether anyone else thinks Wikipedia is notable or useful or accurate. Lazyquasar (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Its primary function is "Educational, Self Study". Not social networking. We've previously discussed a number of sites who had other primary functions but also incorporated social networking elements. its always been agreed that they didn't belong on this list. This list is for sites whose primary function is social networking.--Crossmr (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

How would one accomplish the primary goals of forming learning groups and learning without "social networking"? Your previous agreements may have been in error. Nobody sane would define "social networking" as wasting time with other people doing nothing. Learning is just as valid a purpose for "social networking" as any other purpose listed in the table or you are in serious violation of the NPOV policy that Wikipedia does not push or discriminate against specific ideologies. It merely reports the facts ma'am. Dragnet, circa 70s Terra, Sol System, Milky Way galaxy. Lazyquasar (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Need I repeat part of the primary function being "self study". You interact with other people writing any number of wikis, but they're not listed here as social networking sites. How can people collaborate on writing an encyclopedia if they don't interact? But you don't see wikipedia, or others on that list either. Heck if I take an online class in any number of institutions there are other class participants that I can talk to and meet through it, but those aren't social networking sites either, nor would I think anyone really mistake them as such. The decision was made that unless the primary function of the site was social networking it didn't belong here. Otherwise this list would become unwieldy and unmanageable as every site in "web 2.0" adds some kind of social networking aspect.--Crossmr (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you need to read the Wikipedia article on "social networking". Just because Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites do not choose to use social networking as a primary means of writing an encylclopedia does not invalidate the use of social networking on Wikiveristy. Non of the primary purposes of any of the sites listed in the table at the moment is "social networking". They list "cars", "travel", "business", etc .... I take it back. I just counted three that seem to place networking or socializing as primary purpose. Your list becoming unwieldy is not a primary concern of Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a useful encyclopedia article. There is a basic responsibility towards accuracy and correctness not just formatting. Specifically what function defined in the article "social networking" do you feel is not currently met, available, and used by some Wikiversity learners to learn as they please? Lazyquasar (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the lists become unmanageable or too large is a concern of wikipedia Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lead_and_selection_criteria. Its part of the selection criteria. An items participation in a list is meant to be as specific as possible and those selection criteria is often based on the reason for keeping the list from blowing up to an unmanageable size. Which is how the selection criteria was made here. There was concern about all these web 2.0 sites throwing in "social networking elements" and the list suddenly blowing up to hundreds upon thousands of entries.--Crossmr (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually you have avoided the point that most of the sites on your list are not "primarily" social networking sites. Most have specific areas of interest they focus on. Learning is not only a legitimate area of focus it is one of the primary concerns of the Wikimedia Foundation. Jimbo's address at Wikimania announcing Wikiversity clearly describes it as learning communities interacting with each other and individual learners. "The basic concept of Wikiversity is that this would be a center, a wiki on the web, for the creation and use of free learniing materials and activities. So, Wikibooks works on textbooks, Wikiversity is much broader than that. Wikiversity includes all of the kinds of learning materials which would be... quizes, review materials, tests, all kinds of different things like that. For all age groups, all languages. Also the idea here is to also host learning communities, so people who are actually trying to learn, actually have a place to come and interact and help each other figure out how to learn things. We're also going to be hosting and fostering research into how these kinds of things can be used more effectively." [2] Is Jimbo at Wikimania with a posted transcipt on a Wikimedia server a suitable verifiable source? True he did not use the jargon term "social networking" but all the aspects described in social networking are implied. Lazyquasar (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I really didn't. A site can have a focus, niche or theme, like heavy metal music for example, but if the site is designed as a social networking site with this as a theme, its very obvious. As opposed to a heavy metal fan site which gives people the option to have a blog if they want because its web 2.0. Just because you can communicate with another user on a website doesn't mean its a social networking website.--Crossmr (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed the main page of the english Wikiversity[3]. I see nothing in the introductory descriptions stating "self study" or applicable to only such with the possible exception of "exploring personal goals". There is a lot about joining learning activities and learning communities. It is clearly oriented toward group activities and collaboration. The Wikiversity is not limited to wiki. Links can be provided to demonstrate this via IRC channels, mailing lists, blogs, email, etc. Indeed, most are available by design from the main page. I think the deleting editors here have allowed their understanding of how Wikipedia works to bias their evaluation of how Wikiversity functions. Again, I would like to hear what specific steps beyond verifying that learning also takes place at Wikiversity by intention and design the deleting editors have taken to verify Wikiversity does not use "social networking" as a primary means of building the learning communities it is designed to support. Lazyquasar (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I took the part about the self-study from how it is described in its template here on wikipedia as to what type of site it is. If the article here has incorrectly categorized the site it should probably be fixed. As far as IRC channels, mailing lists, blogs, email, etc none of those meet WP:V and WP:RS. The question becomes what does the site do to encourage and support social networking? Compare it to a site like Facebook which is very clearly a social networking site. For example, what really sets wikiversity apart from say a forum in terms of social networking? Forums can certainly have a collaborative atmosphere depending on their topic, but again I don't think anyone would mistake a forum for a social networking site unless there were some major feature changes from your basic web forum.--Crossmr (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What really sets Wikiversity apart from a forum is that it encourages individual learners to interact with other learners with similar interests on an ongoing basis to create activities and materials required to meet their longterm personal learning goals. Sure it welcomes people passing through but the core communities that are building the site and communities network via all the usual social methods available on the internet. Further we are attempting to develop new technologies and projects in support of building the necessary communities to establish a prestigious university like atmosphere. This requires a great deal of social interaction and mutual helpfulness. The goal being to emulate a physical university's (and the rest of existing educational systems) capabilities and atmosphere in a distributed network environment; this is requiring the development of procedures, processes, and technologies sufficient to allow these learners and learning groups to quickly find each other and work together. You have begged the question. What makes Facebook "obviously a social networking site" and why should it not be removed from your list as per your stated requirements for inclusion of other sites in the "List of social networking sites?". "Obviously" does not meet any verification requirements that I can evaluate. I have already told you Wikiversity is using all techniques described in social networking and that they are available from links on the front page. You, or others, should be capable of verifying this claim by going there and looking around. Further, many of these techniques are described in the quotes of scholars at Wikiversity that you dismiss there as "advertising testimonials". Lazyquasar (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it, but is there a "friend" system in place in wikiversity? Its a small point, but you've repeatedly stated the site follows everything in this article. While I agree that people can get together on the site and discuss things, I don't see that the software itself really sets itself apart from something like a forum (other than that you can edit each other's words). What about a user search? While not listed at the article, you can't deny this is a major aspect of of any notable social networking site. However, I would say that it probably meets about 90% of the description in the article in terms of what a social networking site usually consists of. I might recommend adding information to the wikiversity article to really highlight this aspect if its truly as notable a piece of this site as you're describing. I won't oppose you re-adding the site to the list of that is done.--Crossmr (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User search is active in the search utility available from the main menu. It is an asynchronous capability not a realtime list of who is currently online. One must know to check the box in the database regimes one wishes to have searched. Other tools are used for realtime interaction. The specific software or features used is irrelevant to a social networking site. What is important is peoples' interactions with each other and the site's helpfulness in growing that interaction in support of stated goals. Shall we build a traceability matrix of functional capability as defined by social networking and begin validating systematically which sites on this list have which features defined as functional characteristics so other local editors and readers can evaluate some facts while forming their opinion about the correctness and usefulness of specific entries in our article: "List of Social Networking Sites"? If the local implementation of wikimedia has it enabled, we could perform this public service in a subpage from the main article. Lazyquasar (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Although we usually agree, I am a stricter constructionist than Crossmr in this particular case. Unless the Wikiversity article's first sentence says "Wikiversity is a social networking website", it does not belong on this list. If (as is currently the case) the article's first sentence says "Wikiversity is (something else)" it belongs on the page "List of (something else)s". UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You know perhaps I was a bit too lenient. I don't see anything here that really indicates this site is set up primarily as a social networking site.--Crossmr (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Really! From 90% to zero in a few days with no specific details cited. Your evaluation process seems to have some significant variability. Has anyone considered whether the local evaluation can be improved by adding a traceability matrix as previously suggested? Many engineering processes that deal as groups with non-tivial data find them useful. Lazyquasar (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous, and obviously personal, requirement UnitedStatesian. I am glad you documented it for others to consider. Perhaps we can check the first sentence in all sixty other articles some of the local editors claim authorize inclusion in this list when we get around to documenting for verification purposes which sites have which functions as described in social networking. Lazyquasar (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Template for non-notables

I'm thinking we should create a template to leave on users talk pages for those who add non-notable sites here, you know the ones we remove several dozen times a week. I'm not sure there is one, and I don't think the spam template really covers the issue here. Before I create it, has anyone seen one already in existence?--Crossmr (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I have not see such a template, and I checked User:Arnon_Chaffin/Anti-Vandalism_Center, which basically has every user talk page template, and there is no one there either. Let me know what you decide to do. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! Spam me first please! I want standing in the mediation or arbcom sessions when people propose to have propagators of such nonsense banned. There has been serious discussion of banning tags and templates completely as too easily abused nuisances. While I did not see the resolution of that discussion on the mailing lists clearly it has resulted in no complete ban of tools that are useful when used responsibly. Lazyquasar (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of users use templates, especially with new users and IPs, and especially in the case of recent changes or new page patrollers. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find an administrator who reverts vandalism who has never used a template to warn the user. If you look at the history of this article you'll find we're reverting non-notable sites several times a day depending on the day with almost all of these edits coming from IPs or accounts created solely for the purpose of adding these sites. I've seen the discussions as well, and they've always ended in agreement that templates have their place. I've seen some editors say that they feel that people shouldn't use templates on long-term editors, but no policy or guideline was formed on that.--Crossmr (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you given any consideration to whether we should create a definitive quantitative w:traceability matrix to assure ourselves the current table is accurate and correct and to demonstrate to other editors what criteria are used to evaluate their proposed additions? Your citation of wp:own on my talk page was interesting considering that you and Unitedstatesian seem to feel you own exclusive rights to this page and may make unsubstantiated evaluation of candidates for the list unsupported by specific data. Lazyquasar (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)