Jump to content

Talk:Myspace/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Myspace
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pochacco~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 22:43, 31 December 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hmmm...those damn vandalizers...

So here I am thinking, and sitting, writing this here on wiki. This thought came about after seeing so many people coming back time after time and vandalizing various parts of the MySpace article about how “bad” MySpace is, how it’s going to take over the world, and things of that nature.

So I thought: what if tomorrow everyone wakes up, signs on to the internet, and creates an account on MySpace? Yes I know, very unlikely, and most certainly impossible, but if that were the case. Think about the implications. This would be like the DMV or the Social Security Administration, where they have basic information about you, a photo id, and other various random information, except that in this case, it isn’t a government; it’s a private corporation.

Another thing that is interesting, is that anything posted or transmitted on or through MySpace becomes the intellectual property of MySpace (or at least I’ve heard; I would like to get a confirmation on if this is fact or not) and then I really began to think. This is sort of like 1984, with the thought police, except in modern fashion. If I am Tom or a programmer/web designer for the site, I can read anything anyone transmits on or through that site.

The next step was, what if the United States government, or any other, decides to buy MySpace. Yeah, I know. IT’LL NEVER HAPPEN. But just think about how intense it would be if it did. This is where I began to think that these people who are constantly vandalizing this MySpace article have an interesting point.

The potential for MySpace abuse and misuse in my opinion is rather obvious, and now that I think about it, I’m slightly worried. What’s going to happen and how long before it will be when I start seeing all kinds of people on MySpace, including but not limited to teachers, anyone I could ever run into on the street, grandparents, and even toddlers (although you have to be 14+ to set up an account)?

I’ve personally grown so efficient on searching for people on MySpace, that I think I could easily find just about anyone on there that I come across in daily life, just as long as I know a few things about them.

If MySpace were to fall into the wrong hands, imagine the things one could do with it. Leo Collin 09:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

How many people fill in correct details such as full name and address? A database of 40 million MySpace usernames with made up postcodes, where you don't know if the photo ID is of them or not, isn't that useful to anyone...
As for IP, I can't see anything in the TOS about MySpace claiming ownership. It does say "By posting any Content to the public areas of the Website, you hereby grant to MySpace.com the non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, publicly perform and display such Content on the Website." but most importantly in then says "This license will terminate at the time you remove such Content from the Website." so it's not like they can easily get away with using your photos in an advert or selling your posts in a book. This sort of clause is common to many online sites, and I imagine is just them protecting themselves from being sued by an idiot who claims they don't have permission to display what he posted. And I don't think this has got anything to do with thought police really - I presume people running MySpace can read anything on their servers; they don't need IP ownership to do that. Mdwh 06:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Suicide

There should be a page about that punk who commited suicide on MySpace. PirateMonkey 03:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How can you commit a suicide on Myspace? Thorri 14:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

He put his suicide note on myspace, it basicly said "Title:Do me a favoure Message: Call the police. Tell them to go to (then he gives his adress) and tell them to look in the bathroom. im soo sorry <3" it became a big ytmnd fad to make fun of him (possibly one of the biggest) Johhny-turbo 01:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Popularity

Should I put something in there about myspace's huge popularity? From what I've seen myspace has eclipsed all its rivals and may be the biggest social networking site around today.. at least in the US Jarwulf 00:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Biggest social networking site around today" is quite POV. If you can cite reliable sources, then be bold and go ahead. -- Perfecto Canada 01:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
This is objectively verifiable using third-party Internet audience measurement services such as comScore Media Metrix or Nielsen NetRatings. Last month, according to comScore, MySpace.com was the third-ranked website in terms of monthly page views (10 billion plus), trailing only Yahoo and MSN, and far more heavily trafficked than any other social networking website. 24.126.242.132 09:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Move to MySpace, Inc

The company name of 'MySpace' is MySpace, Inc, there seems to be precedent for articles to go by their correct company name (eg 'Sky' is at BSkyB), I suggest that it should be moved to MySpace, Inc

This is the legal company name as per the MySpace.com Terms and conditions page.

Also the 'MySpace', 'Myspace, 'MySpace.com' and 'Myspace.com' redirects should be changed.

The website is clearly branded as "MySpace" or "MySpace.com"... so I think the article should stay where it is, with the redirects in place (of course, there's no reason not to create a "MySpace, Inc" redirect to point here, as well. But since there's no need to move the article elsewhere in order to disambig, I can't see it's necessary to move away from "MySpace". After all, if people are looking up the article, it seems more likely they'd try "MySpace" rather than "MySpace, Inc", so we may as well avoid the redir... UkPaolo 10:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Isn't the idea to make things as accurate as possible though, rather than just choosing the ones people are most likely to look for? I bet some things are mis-spelled more often than they spelled correctly when people look them up on Wikipiedia, but that's no reason to rename a article to the mis-spelled version and have the "less used" correctly spelled version redirect to that, is it? -Chaosfeary 10:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
If someone feels that strongly about it, the article could be split into articles about the website MySpace and the company MySpace, Inc., as with Google (the company) and Google search (the site). tregoweth 20:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes... to be honest, from reading the terms and conditions link which was posted above, it seems that the website itself is always branded as "MySpace" or "MySpace.com". "MySpace, Inc" only gets a mention at the end as owning the trademark. Would seem logical in my opinion, for an article about the website (such as this one) to be titled "MySpace" or "MySpace.com", and an article about the company (should someone choose to write one) at "MySpace, Inc". Just my $0.02 UkPaolo 21:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

is it Myspace or MySpace? every time it is said on the site it is MySpace, but the pages titles show Myspace.com --AlexTheMartian 05:33, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's MySpace. The article isn't named "MySpace" probably because someone made it "Myspace" first. --Alex12 3 02:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This is strange, as I have seen it as "MySpace", "Myspace", and "myspace". Upon visiting Myspace.com, you will see that the page title is indeed "Myspace.com", yet within the page it is refered to as "MySpace", and internal advertisements show it as "myspace".

Irrelevant

No one has posted anything as to *why* it should be cleaned up. I see no problem at all with the aritcle's quality. I'm removing the cleanup notice. ~~

  • While this article isn't particularly in need of cleanup, it is still very much in need of attention. Much of the prose is quite clumsy, and the founding section in particular is poorly written. I am trying to find more articles about MySpace that would lend insight into some of the details of its birth. If anyone can help out with this I would be much obliged. Slugmaster 00:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The article comes across as slightly fawning -- almost a commercial -- and too detailed: do Wikipedia readers really *care* when "emptying the trash" was introduced?

Racist?

Hard to believe that someone would have a problem with there being too many anti-racist groups. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:44, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

The argument is that different views have been effectively outlawed. --Alex12 3 02:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

"Racist Groups"

Could someone with more information clarify this section? Are they banned from an "anti-racist" group, or banned from MySpace? --Alex12 3 22:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Until clarification can be provided, I've removed the following from the article: 

    There are also allegations of political bias. Numerous "anti-racist"
    organizations are allowed in the groups section that profess violence
    towards "racists", and anyone thought to be associated with racism is
    banned, despite any respect for the rules.

If this is just user behavior, well, that's too bad, users can do whatever they want, and this therefore isn't appropriate for the article. If someone can confirm and prove that this goes up to MySpace administration, however, then it is worthy of being placed back in the article. --Alex12 3 23:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Name

I think the correct title of this article should be "MySpace.com" .. everywhere on the site, even throughout the entire Terms of Use Agreement, it is named as MySpace.com .. the only thing that is not, is many of the page titles are "Myspace.com", and the logo is "myspace".. but logos does not signify the correct capitalization or name of the company.. some companys' logos are just an acronym for the company, or have a certain capitalization in use for the design of the logo, etc. so I think either the title of this article be MySpace.com or MySpace. -- AlexTheMartian | Talk 18:11, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

ok.. I am renaming it MySpace. It seems like someone just looked at the logo and figured the correct capitalization was "myspace", correct me if im wrong. -- AlexTheMartian | Talk 18:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Attention

Some of this article's prose is pretty clumsy at the moment, perhaps because of its sparse edit history. —shoecream 05:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

By sparse I mean that I looked at the wrong page history. It need attention anyway. —shoecream
  • Are you a member of the site, so that you may be able to update the article regularly? -- Riffsyphon1024 17:08, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hey guy, My name is Petcharnin Srisuwan Cowden or you can call me by my nick name Pat. I'm from Bangkok, Thailand. I'm now studying in the University in Hawaii.

MySpace Editor

The link seems to be down, but I'm leaving it on for now, as it might just be undergoing maintenance. --Ixfd64 00:55, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

The links are working fine for me, the only problem I've seen is that some of the articals and sections dont show up until you refresh the page. Maybe this could be fixed? -- 17:14, 2005 July 16

Links should be provided only to relevant Wikipedia articles; this article suffers from a plague of irrelevant links to year, month, date articles.

Could these be cut back a bit, please? They're distracting and add nothing useful for readers. (Who cares what else happened on the same date in history as MySpace introduced "customisable name-URLs"?) Attempting to put minor MySpace updates on the same historical plane as wars, births, and deaths comes over as hubristic and self-aggrandizing.

Dates aren't linked so that people can see what else happened on that date; they're linked so that Wikipedia can format them correctly, according to the user's preferences. For example, "January 1, 1970" will always be in the format "Month Day, Year", whereas "January 1, 1970" will be in the user-preferred format. – Mipadi 17:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Bought

MySpace has been bought by News Corp (known for owning Fox)... someone should update this article to reflect all that.

Question

Why is it that MySpace can only accept teenagers 16 or older? Teen years usually start on 13.

I removed all but two external links per WP:NOT and WP:EL. Rl 19:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


Sept 25, 2005 you need to reinstate the links

"Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. "

The links removed are content relevant. Reverting to restore Customization. >>

HTML tutorials Many users have found that the profile generators are an easy way to edit the look of their profiles. However, some users have the urge to be able to work on their own coding, HTML Tutorials was created just for that purpose. While it was created as a standard myspace profile it has many Tutorials with customized HTML coding. Each of the tutorials allows the user to change their profile by either memorizing or by cutting and pasting the proper codes into their own profile via edit mode. For more HTML codes visit

www.MySpaceHTML.net CreateBlog.com Myspace Layouts Codes, Layouts, Myspace Editor Pimp MySpace MySpace Layouts MySpace Editor Thomas' Myspace Editor BestMySpace.com MySpaceExtras.com ToolsForMySpace.com

stereotypes of myspace

removed the following from the article as it is unencyclopedic and is not backed up by any sources.

MySpace is often thought of as a site filled with emo and scene kids, many of whom are supposedly suicidal, slutty, and have the same personalities. However, Myspace's members represent a very wide range of social groups. There are members of all races, sexual preferences, political persuasions, etc.

--jonasaurus 06:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

There should be a reference to the fact that myspace is very popular with emo and scene kids, but that is way pov.

^ I am therefore removing this. Seems like something you'd see on urban dictionary than an encyclopedia. I hope the author got their kicks.

There is a wide range of ages of users on myspace. A wide range of usage from those users. From little to no usage, to constant profile checking. Many users have used the site so much that it actually changed their personality from a normal teen to an 'emo kid'. 'Emo kids', (typically girls) constantly take pictures of themselves in an attempt to find the perfect picture to show off their "beauty". Whether it's a friend that takes the picture, them in the mirror(full body shot), picture of thier head as to hide the fact that took it themselves by moving their arms at awkward angles to hide their arms or just wildly random paint editing to make themselves look more scene. Users have gone from normal middle class clothes to 80's style GoodWill clothes. In conjunction with these style changes many teens have turned to local band's websites and now go to more local scene shows. Since a majority of teens that go to shows are one myspace also. A avid myspace user Shane Kohls states, "Emo kids can suck it." Not many users bought into the idea of myspace and only log in every couple months. As does Josh W. who states, "I'll stick with the old fashioned telephone."

I say we remove link to the following page: http://www.myspacesucks.8m.com/ because it is

a) clearly offending

Examples: You don't have to read far in order to notice this straight insult: "Why MySpace Sucks and So Do You"; "...you selfish bastards..."; "...reading about your generic, pointless life..."; "Jesus fucking Christ, you people are sick."

b) over-excessive swearing

Examples: "...a fucking travesty."; "...and shitty skin..."; "...you selfish bastards..."; "For fuck's sake..."; "well-known douchebag to..."

c) It is clearly defaming Tom (the owner)

Examples: "How does a lonely, single nerd become the antichrist of the internet?"; "for people just like him, with no friends,"

I know, having an anti-MySpace link is good because it represents another view on the subject, but that website is vile, disgusting and full of personal, clearly subjective hate.

I also would like to point out that children use Wikipedia and the kind of language that web site uses is definitely not suitable for them. --Thorri 10:15, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: I removed the link on Sunday 16th but when I came back today I noticed that the link was there again -reverted by none other than Casey Primeau, one of the writers. --Thorri 10:24, 17 Oct 2005, (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors — Omegatron 19:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Well that sucks. --Thorri 20:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Taylor Behl

On my MySpace page, one of my friends left me a bulletin saying that Taylor Behl's killer was somebody who she had met over MySpace. I haven't done much further looking into the story to see if this is true or not. Is that really the case? And if so, how can it be mentioned in this article in a way that is NPOV, considering that this article seems to be more about the site/company and its corporate information? By the way, here is the posting:

"GIRL MURDERED by man she first met up online on MYSPACE !!!
"Taylor Behl,a student from Virginia, has been found murdered. Her body turned up yesterday in a shallow grave and was confirmed to be that of Taylor Behl.The prime suspect, Ben Fawley claims to be an amateur photographer and is being held by authorities. She has a MySpace page and to see the comments from people while she was missing right up to finding the body is pretty sad and intense.Keep in mind that there are over 30 million people on this network so the odds are pretty good that you'll interact with some psychos and possibly some predators along the way(male or female). Just be careful and use common sense especially if you are female. I know 1st hand the amount of e-mails that women get every single day, half from guys posing as amateur photographers.
"Check out her My Space profile, which is still up and all the comments her friends have been leaving her from the day she disappeared up until today.
"http://www.myspace.com/doowop"

--Idont Havaname 17:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, idont havaname, you don't havasource. Come back later when you can cite a reliable source. Thank you. --Perfecto Maple Leaf Forever! 23:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Kara Borden, a 14-year-old from Lititz, Pa., claiming to be 17 on MySpace, allegedly stood by as her boyfriend, David Ludwig, 18, also on MySpace, shot and killed her parents.

MSNBC.com has a 2 page article on this and other MySpace-related stories. It contains information that can be added to this article.

Now, should this and other stories be listed on this article?

I have decided not to post anything for 1) I'm lazy right now, and 2) I'm not sure if it, and others, should be on this article.

MSNBC article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10272868/ -- AlexTheMartian | Talk 20:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a "Myspace-related death". Just point out that it was in the news a lot. — Omegatron 20:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
well the killer was a guy she met on MySpace... seems related enough to me. but yeah probably does not need to be on this article. -- AlexTheMartian | Talk 01:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
"Kara leaves a message, happy that he's signed up for MySpace, and asks him to leave a comment on her page. "<3Kara<3", she signs off."
Sounds like she invited him after already knowing him. — Omegatron 04:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Stereotypes" of myspace - WHY DOES THIS SECTION CONTINUE TO BE REBORN

I removed this from the page:

"MySpace is often a humorous target as a site filled with scene kids and emo kids, many of whom are supposedly suicidal and slutty with black hair and bangs crossed over one eye and thick-rimmed glasses, plus they all seem to have the same personalities. However, Myspace's members represent a very wide range of social groups. There are members of all races, sexual preferences, interests, political persuasions, religions, etc."

found it to be rather useless and... like somebody was pre-empting an attack on Myspace. Weird. It seems it was added back even though somebody above had already removed it.68.199.31.28 04:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this section probably doesn't belong here - it's never really going to be meaningfully verifiable and will just target random attacks. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

History/features section

The history section is overlong and badly written so I think it needs replacing with something else. I suggest we go for a short list of when various features were added or even include a features section and insert the date they were implimented after each entry. What does everyone think? I was going to be bold and do it all now but there's so much information there it's hard to do it in one go and it's a pretty big change to the article. Opinions and suggestions would therefore be useful. Jellypuzzle 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me but I don't think the history section is that bad. But a little rough around the edges, yes. --Thorri 19:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree "badly written" was a bit harsh. I should have said "needs work" or such. Either way, I've moved the feature related history into its own section. It's all quite messy right now though so the clean up tag needs to stay. I didn't really do any edits to the actual text of each bit, just moved it away from the general history so they're all in one place. The section on videos ought to be moved up there too sometime and the general history bit re-written into better headings than the two. I've tried my best to make it read a bit better today with this and some minor reshuffles and may do some more tomorrow. Sorry if I've messed anything up. Jellypuzzle 22:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As UkPaolo (probably rightly) removed the Features History section from the article I thought I'd post a summarised/shortened version of it below just in case someone wants to use some of the information. Jellypuzzle 15:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Features History

  • September 25 2003 - Group profiles, emptying of trash in mailbox, new look for the bulletin board, a mail indicator live anywhere on the system, unlimited friends, option to change an email and turn off reminders.
  • October 2003 - Comments on people's profile pictures, hiding online status, ability to block friend requests and approve comments before they could be posted.
  • November 2003 - Classifieds, picture ranking, and a way to find users by interest. "Online Now" status added in more areas, Mailbox improved.
  • December 18 2003 - Instant Messenger, for one-on-one IM communication between users.
  • February 2004 – Chat Rooms added.
  • 2004 - Musicians profiles added. Option to post streaming MP3s or MP3 downloads.
  • April 2004 - Forums, games, advanced browse and new Journal customisation.
  • June 4 2004 – Option for users to create groups.
  • Autumn 2004 - Users can give "props", later changed to "kudos", to their friends’ blogs.
  • Late 2004 – 2005 - Event invite option added.
  • January 27 2005 - Feature that lets members see if their friends on AOL, Yahoo!, or MSN are members.
  • February 8, 2005 – Schools/alumni feature/groups added.
  • February 24, 2005 – Pinning threads in forums (sticky threads) added.
  • March 28 2005 – Customisable name URLs added.
  • June 11 – 2005 - Calendar system added.
  • December 16 2005 - Ratings system for teachers and professors.
  • December 20, 2005, - Birthday notification feature added.

Copy rights issues

I currently and probabily never will post on these groups for copyrights reason. I did receive an invitation today which triggered me to read some of the articles on wikipedia about these groups. All of them are silent about this issue. Since some people might end up on those groups from a wikipedia referral, wouldn't mentioning the problem with these group feature prominently on the articles here?

I think some consensus ought to be reached on here regarding whether or not the "emo scene" should be mentioned. Changing the wikilink from "alternative" to point to alternative rock rather than the alternative culture I set it as could work but that might not be enough if someone thinks it is worth an even larger mention. I've had a MySpace profile for quite a while and haven't personally noticed any more "emo kids" than any other group of people but I could just be missing it by just viewing things asociated with my clique. Debating through edit summaries really isn't the best way to solve such things. Jellypuzzle 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Missing Section

The current article doesn't seem to fairly balance the postive and negative aspects of MySpace. Maybe there are more problems than good, I don't know, I'm still learning, but it seems to be missing a section between the Origins and Culture/Criticisms sections. I'd call it "Stellar Rise of MySpace" and discuss the fact that this is a phenomenon, 45 million in 2 years is uncommon, right? This is a major community venue. What about a valuation of MySpace itself (in addition to current valuation of parent company? Allude to the system strain due to it's rapid growth. 68.206.0.176 06:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myspace/Archive_1&oldid=33421598"