Talk:LinkedIn/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comments

"LinkedIn participates in the EU Safe Harbor Privacy Framework and is certified to meet the strict privacy guidelines of the European Union." ... and a bit later it states you cannot remove your profile?? Isn't this a part of EU guidelines?

This whole page reads like an advert.

Are we sure this is not written by LinkedIn?

I have made some format changes and removed some of the adverty text. Hopefully it reads better now (and I can confirm I dont work for linkedin!) ChrisUK 17:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I made some more changes today to remove a lot of what seemed like marketing material. Hopefully it looks a bit more neutral now.ChrisUK 13:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if more of their competitors had articles on Wikipedia? I added a link to Spoke, which is a dead link in Wikipedia (for now). Spoke seems to come up just as often as LinkedIn when I google a person's name, so it may be an up and come-er, as it were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.119.177 (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Still reads like an advert to me.Wjousts (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my first thought was, it must have been written by LinkedIn themselves. I came here looking for objections and criticisms, and I only find them on the talk page, with comments that they don't belong in the article itself. I came here looking to find out if LinkedIn has joined with other networking sites in the obnoxious and fraudulent practice of sending invites behind members' backs to anybody those members ever emailed. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Definitely looks like an ad, especially the "Membership" section. 129.110.5.92 (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. Wikipedia entries for products in general these days is all about how good the product is, no balance, no mention of controversial aspects or contentious issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.218.132 (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

List of social networking websites on AfD

List of social networking websites is currently an AfD candidate. You are invited to partake in this discussion. Czj 18:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Visualisation

This is a very interesting tool but I was surprised to see there is hardly any visualisation tool to show the underlined directed graph. I didn't even find a way to see the path that connect me to a specific indirect contact of mine. Did I miss something? does anyone knows what their future plans about it? thanksori 00:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just saw they've added it. NiceOri 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Privacy concerns

Why is this merited? Is it on every social networking site? Every online community? Also, this is completely one-sided. If it's going to be in there at all, it needs to be balanced.

LinkedIn Deceptive

LinkedIn is deceptive. Visitors are urged to join LinkedIn and provide personal information. Only after spending time to set up their "accounts" do they find out that they cannot actually contact any other LinkedIn members without paying for premium membership. This is a sleazy practice when done without prior notification and should be revealed in the Main Article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.100.59.68 (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

If you can cite a reliable source, then there is nothing against a criticism section. Without a source, it's original research and not allowed. —bbatsell ¿? 04:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That's not at all accurate. You do have to "connect" with people -- preferably people you know and trust -- in order to contact other LinkedIn members. But there is no limit on how many connections you can have. The typical person can easily find several hundred people they know who are already members (and they give you a tool to automate this). Once you've started identifying the relationships you already have, it's very easy to send introduction requests -- no, not directly, but through your trusted contacts. With just 100 connections, you should have visibility into 2 to 3 million people. The fact that you have to establish your existing relationships within the system in order to contact other people is kind of the whole point -- certainly not a deception. --24.27.11.88 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, judging from the above response, LinkedIn is working this page pretty hard. 192.91.173.42 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I notice that after declaring "That's not at all accurate," the responder then goes on to address something completely different from what the original poster said.
The typical person can easily find several hundred people they know who are already members? How many people really know several hundred people, period? 140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

That's BS. I use the site, and that's exactly the way that it is. The OP just didn't know what he was talking about and wanted to have a little whinge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.62.35 (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm Dominic Connor, and if you look at my profile I have more than 10,000 contacts, and have never given LinkedIn one penny, ever. LI do sell all sorts of package that help you grow your network, and the OP clearly has taken their pitch that you might need this at face value.

DominicConnor (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Linkedin Logo.gif

Image:Linkedin Logo.gif 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 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 00:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

External Links To Blogs Are Useful

These blogs usefully describe LinkedIn, its services, relevant news, and tips from insiders on how to get the most from LinkedIn's service.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.214.127 (talk • contribs) 09:55, June 18, 2007

Please read our external links guidelines and note that Wikipedia is not a guidebook for LinkedIn or anything else. --ElKevbo 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

External Links To Blogs

Referring to Wikipedia's guidelines for external links - "such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks)".

LinkedIn may not be appreciated by everyone, but it is useful to many. 65% of business people use it, the average Harvard grad has 48-connections, 11-million users in. The Wikipedia entry for LinkedIn is limited and should be expanded to contain further research made available by serious bloggers. --I3142p168 22:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about other editors but I'd never give a blanket approval for blogs as External links in any article. It might be helpful if you could make a case for each blog you think should be added to this article. As a reminder, the particular blogs removed most recently were:
--ElKevbo 22:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cases For These Specific Blogs

These four blogs are selected specifically because each describes the ways that LinkedIn actually works, what it is and is not, with news, facts and statistics on user participation and system efficacy. All of these seem to be credible, authoritative and of interest to researchers, news publications, and authors, which would seem to make these additions to the Wikipedia article practical.

Sounds good to me. The company's official blog seems like a good one to include. --ElKevbo 14:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Lee Hill's "Living LinkedIn" Blog And Open Invitation Reports day-to-day appearances of LinkedIn in the news and how LinkedIn works in practice. The blog's author has been quoted in the WSJ as a result of LinkedIn. Gives specific examples of how LinkedIn sub-groups, eg, the Sun Micro Alumni group, MIT, Vancouver Law Librarians, the philanthropic LinkedIn For Good, at al use LinkedIn to manage their groups... how they use if to access one another's networks, knowledge, etc.
Sounds good to me. --ElKevbo 14:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a compelling reason to include this blog. --ElKevbo 14:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

--I3142p168 13:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this one. It looks like it should be used as a reference but not an external link. --ElKevbo 14:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't references meant to validate existing content, whereas external links expound on what's already available in the article with additional, accurate and relevant information? The content for the LinkedIn article is limited, do you feel that the external links substantiate the content rather than add to it? --I3142p168 23:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Privacy issues

As of October 2006, there is no automated way to remove yourself from LinkedIn. The official method is to file a customer support ticket (see "Accessing and Changing Your Account Information" [1]). A workaround some have suggested is to simply change your name.

Um... This is a joke, right? If not, please clarify what this means. Otherwise, someone please remove this. --Roger McCoy 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Suppose idea was to change your profile name (like to Mr. None Existant etc), and hence void the privacy concern by making it unconnectable to your real name. Tested the suggested method (works), and changed the sentence to more clear one (also removing the passive 'some have suggested' tone) lav 12:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tried for months to get an answer from LinkenIn regarding closing my account. Any ideas? I like the change of name approach. I receive nine or ten emails weekly from people wanting to link up. I'm not interested. Help! Get me out of Linkedin!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.83.94 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional Of Personal External Link

Recently added link not really within guidelines and should be removed. --I3142p168 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Done  DangerousNerd  talk 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cases To Re-Add LinkedIn Blogs

The discussion of this subject ceased without a conclusion being reached. I will re-add the external links to these blogs if there's no further comment. --I3142p168 00:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Plaxo a Competitor?

Why is Plaxo listed as a competitor to Linkedin? To the contrary, they are entirely complementary.

how to pronounce it ?

link'd in ?

I think you have it right. There is no emphasis on either syllable, both equal...but I don't have a source for that, just how I hear people saying it.Wikidemo 16:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be pronounced /link.din/ as it sounds in this video. Ftiercel (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Not at all--it's pronounced as it's spelled, that is, "linked in," with equal emphasis on both syllables. Jack(Lumber) 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

Please review this point before deleting the section again.

The section includes a statement that the LinkedIn service does not provide a way to add/register an additional e-mail address to a master account. The first e-mail address may have 10 contacts, and the second e-mail address may have 5 contacts. They both belong to the same user.

The user may have both a Yahoo account as well as a Hotmail account, for example, and for some reason started two LinkedIn accounts.

First, it is not easy to find the "register additional e-mails" button. (It is down, off the main screen, in a third level menu.)

Secondly, when attempting to add an additional "mature" LinkedIn e-mail address (one that already has existing contacts), LinkedIn responds with A problem has been encountered with this e-mail address, and spits the user back to the registration page, without offering to explain why the problem is happeningor how to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.187.2 (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a personal beef rather than real criticism, and original research to boot. Even if it were true and sourced, unless a reliable source singles this out as a significant problem that is unique to Linkedin, it wouldn't even be pertinent if trus. I've therefore removed it.Wikidemo 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not a "personal beef", it is something that affects all of LinkedIn's users (millions of accounts). The ability to pool from more than one list of contacts is at the very heart of the product/service in question. The main feature of LinkedIn is to connect to others, by way of your list of contacts. An overwhelming majority of individuals have had more than one e-mail in their lifetime, I don't think that is in dispute. Therefore there is an unresolved issue that exists which affects a core component of the product and affects millions of its users. Jerome Wiley Segovia 11:09 AM EST 10/2/2007
This is not a good place for criticism of one of a site's non-core features, based on personal observation. It may be a very good and astute personal observation. But if there's a bug or a feature problem that makes the site less useful than it could be, they'll deal with it in good time. Or they won't. If it's not newsworthy to other people it shouldn't be in the article, though. As an encyclopedia we rely on the fact-checking, neutrality, balance, and context of reliable published sources to tell us what is worth reporting and what is not. Moreover, as I've said I don't think it's pertinent to an understanding of what LinkedIn is or its context in the world of social/business networking sites. That's our job here, to be a compendium of human knowledge - not a product review/guide. I'm not just nitpicking here. We couldn't be a good product guide even if we wanted. C/Net has a leg up there because you can count on their having actually looked at and tested software in a dispassionate way. Here, notices of software feature problems would always be spotty and unpredictable. Without context, it's impossible to get a sense of whether this illustrates a design/engineering weakness of the company, an isolated goof, a reasonable balance of competing goals, an uncompleted code-base, or something intrinsic to account maintenance that affects all sites.Wikidemo 16:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I won't remove it again. I just took a look. The mention as it now stands is pretty innocuous, and reasonably informative. If they ever fix this, it can come out. Wikidemo 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Would love to see a Criticism section on this page featuring the never-ceasing "So-and-so has invited you to join LinkedIn" spam with no opportunity to remove yourself from future spam unless you block that particular email address - which they will no doubt change - or set up a rule in your email provider. 74.235.30.246 (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you find a reliable citation for it (i.e. a published review) that suggests this is a widespread complaint, then you can, by all means, add it. But you can't add it just as a personal complaint, due to the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Me Three (talk to me) 14:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess everybody knows that Linkedin is rather fast and loose with when it comes to common decency, e.g. [1]. This article seems to be promotional material, so I understand they don't want any criticisms in it. Ketil (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

used technologies

http://www.linkedin.com/answers/technology/web-development/TCH_WDD/7699-9211409

UML Diagram = Overkill

I have to say that the UML diagram in this article is extreme overkill. It adds very little value, is impossible to read, and is of questionable validity. I suggest removal -- perhaps replacement with a simpler version of the diagram. 71.216.39.194 (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I'm not even sure what benefit is offered by showing the database design, as it's nothing unique. --Lone C (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is interesting. I'm not that familiar with UML, yet I have no trouble reading it. (Then again, databases are my area, so that's what makes it interesting :-).) Still: 1) it is not really related to what the article is about, and 2) sourcing is unclear, it looks like WP:OR to me (and indeed should be deleted in that case!). GregorB (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand why it is "overkill", but I can imagine that you find it overkill. The fact that it is "impossible to read" is questionable. As a matter of fact all the terms are in english and it shows what are the main concepts of LinkedIn. I admit that the readability is a real question, but I would say that someone with no knowledge could read the words, while someone with more knowledge could read more. A very important point is that this diagram is NOT a "database design". This is a conceptual diagram and it does not show in any sense how the database is implemented (that would be not relevant). Lately I'm not sure to understand why it is not related to LinkedIn since it only speaks about LinkedIn. In fact I'm open to all suggestions and would like to better understand why the description of the concepts managed by a systems are irrelevant with the respect to the description of the system. Is it just a matter of form ? If the same piece of information was represented as text, it would be ok, no? (in fact I plan to put more models on wikipedia, so I'm really interested in having this discussion) Thanks in advance. User:Jean-Marie_Favre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.88.254.195 (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of problems. One primary issue is original research. It contains observations, and analysis, of the LinkedIn site, made from and verifiable only by direct examination of the site itself. I won't try to justify this because it's a basic universal principle of Wikipedia, but we only offer material that has already been published in reliable sources, not new analysis of article subjects made specifically for Wikipedia. Whereas most images do not have the same verifiability concerns, a chart made from data or analysis raises the question of what the data is and where it comes from. Second, although it's not rocket science to create or read one of these, it is a technical document that probably goes beyond most people's heads. As someone with some computer background I don't find it very useful to understand LinkedIn. If I want to know how it works I can just go to the site and see for myself (although if I were doing some analysis or design based on LinkedIn, the diagram would be a good starting point and save me some work). Third, it's nonstandard. It's useful to have some consistency among articles about similar subjects so people know what to expect out of Wikipedia. There may be some other UML diagrams but I haven't noticed them - most articles don't have this. Fourth, it is unreadable in the condensed version in the article. You have to click on it to expand. That's a stylistic issue. Anyway, I don't think all of this is very important. It's harmless and someone obviously spent a lot of time working on it. The article is far from perfect in so many other ways, so I haven't felt any urge to delete it myself. If the article were an especially good, complete one I would be a little more concerned with perfecting it. Wikidemo (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fine. Thanks for this long answer. I appreciated it very much. I totally agree with the sentence "It contains observations, and analysis, of the LinkedIn site, made from and verifiable only by direct examination of the site itself.", which is absolutely true, but I didn't thought this was a problem, on the contrary. I will revise the WO:OR to better understand. WRT the second point "a technical document that probably goes beyond most people's heads" I'm not sure, but I agree that this raise a question. With respect to "nonstandard" I defintively agree. In fact I was planning to add similar diagrams for other Social network, so that one can easily compare the various feature offered by each one, and I didn't find where to ask for advice for doing that, so I just started with linkedin. As you pointed out "It contains observations, and analysis, of the LinkedIn site, made from and verifiable only by direct examination of the site itself.", so the information is easily verifiable. I would say that the source is linkedin, but I admit that this is questionable. Ok, anyway, thanks for this reply. Is there some place where it would be appropriate to discuss the use of diagram to model concepts. I mean this point has nothing to do with linkedin and it is a much more general issue. Again if this were a piece of text this would not be considered as an issue because it just describes the concepts of linkedin. The fact that it is shown in a compact and graphical way do not fundamentally change its nature. Words and images are of the same nature (dixit magritte). In all cases, just let me know what is the appropriate place to discuss this topic. Thanks. User:Jean-Marie_Favre


This is clearly original research, unless you can point to a published source with this UML diagram. Deleted again, as this is the clear consensus. --99.233.122.100 (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Valuation

Will people please stop removing the $1 billion valuation figure? Pre and post-money valuations, as established by venture capital investments, are the standard way for reporting valuations of venture-financed companies. Like it or not, that's how it is. Deleting them because you think the dot com bubble is too big or the company is overvalued is POV. It's not an attempt to say what the company is intrinsically worth. It's a way to report a transaction. The information is sourced, and more than verifiable - 450+ google news hits worth of verifiability.[2] Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement taken at face value is that a bunch of VC firms bought a 5% stake at $53 million. That the company is worth $1 billion comes from Linkedin's own PR and then media sites simply reporting it without disputing it. Look at Microsoft's 1.6% stake in Facebook. After the deal happened, Facebook's own press release stated the company was worth $15 billion, and the media took it as fact. It was only until recently, when an ugly lawsuit reared its head was it known that FB later placed a much lower internal valuation at $3.75 billion. And even then, some analysts are arguing that it's still too high because the site has yet to prove that it has a profitable long term business model. The exact same thing applies here. We're not trying to inject our own POV, but you can't simply quote everything as reported straight out of the company's own PR department, either. Unless you have a personal interest in linkedin why do you care so much about this? Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
You do not seem to understand how venture capital transactions work. It's simple arithmetic - not disputable. $53M / 5% = $1.060. That is the way venture rounds are measured. There is no other way. It's not supposed to describe the intrinsic worth of the company. It's a deal metric. Please review the pre-money valuation and post-money valuation articles. You can review this[3] if you don't understand. Of course there are reliable sources if this has to be proven but it's all textbook VC 101 stuff. There is no other way to report valuation of venture capital transactions. There's nothing POV about arithmetic. I'm reverting. You can take this to dispute resolution if you want, but I assure you, it's solid, basic stuff.Wikidemo (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, the lawsuit you refer to was a suit against Facebook for theft of intellectual property. Company valuation was not at issue in the litigation except with respect to establishing the value of the company for purposes of royalty value / damages of the intellectual property Facebook allegedly misappropriated from ConnectU. You mis-cited the source and did the analysis wrong on the Facebook article. The Wall Street Journal article you quoted used the lawsuit's disclosure of a $3.75B internal valuation as a hook for explaining the issue, not saying there was any dispute or discrepancy. You should reread that source and the talk page there because that needs to be fixed too. Wikidemo (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It's important to include a very high valuation of LinkedIn, otherwise noone will join. LinkedIn is business-oriented, and we will use wikipedia (and all other changeable media) for business purposes. Just one more reason to join. You'll understand later if you don't right now.99.8.225.97 (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the $1Gig value is bullshit but it's *authoritative* bullshit, it has references in an implacable range of sources. As LI contributors we are supposed to be neutral, and the OP is right that this is pretty much the way things are done. Maybe they shouldn't, but that's a different discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicConnor (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

New "criticisms"

I don't think any of the new criticisms are sourced well enough, or relevant enough, to include. Some of it seems to be original research or opinion of the writer, pointing out a site feature or limitation and saying it is a "criticism". Other stuff is cited to blogs or commentators, and just isn't very helpful. You can take almost any feature on any major web service, and find some tech blogger who thinks it is the greatest thing and another who thinks it is evil. At a minimum, to find fault one would have to source it to significant reliable coverage in major publications, but even there we generally don't repeat critiques and opinions because we're not set up to be a very reliable guide. It's hard to put in context. For example, limiting the number and speed of acquiring new friends is something nearly every social network is starting to do. Facebook limits invitations to 20 per day and has a 5,000 friend limit, which is unrealistically high if you look at the way real social networks work - anyone with 5,000 "friends" is using the feature in a way other than as intended. If LinkedIn makes a policy change then invariably someone is going to blog about it, but I don't think we can realistically put that in context here in a Wikipedia article. Best to point someone to the blogs if necessary and let them read it in more detail. Wikidemo (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Influence of LinkedIn

For a while now, I've thought that this article is relatively short, compared to the influence of LinkedIn (or the potential for influence). An internet company with a valuation of $1B would seem to be a very hot property. LinkedIn itself seems somewhat of a mystery to me. On the one hand, it is worth $1B, and its user base of 25 million puts it in the top 20 of social networking sites. On the other hand, LinkedIn has only several hundred employees and an Alexa score of 205 (whereas MySpace and FaceBook are in the top 5). I suspect that there is a deeper influence that LinkedIn is having on business and society that is not captured by its Alexa number or its low corporate profile. Something seems to be brewing here that many people are missing. If there are some acceptable sources on this topic, it might be good to add information about this to the article. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I own three of the largest groups on LI, and see very little evidence that it has any influence at all, and believe me, I'm looking.

The biggest 'influence' is the way some firms recruit, with internal recruiters pathetically dependent upon LI, but as the largest groups are largely controlled by external recruiters like me, that free lunch is moving out of their grasp. Although it's important to me, since it's my job, I have to ask whether anyone else could possibly care ? DominicConnor (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Community issues - autocensure

From this discussion it appears that (quoting)

Customer Service once wrote me your question or answer has to be flagged three times before it's automatically deleted. That means it takes only three jealous people and you're out. I can say that from my own experience.

The thread shows it is easy to delete other peoples threads, no countersanctioning is apparent. Clearly it lends itself to easy abuse by using just 2 sockpuppets. The thread (2 pages currently) points out problems affecting more than just one person.

Something to work into the article? --20:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.183.79 (talk)

Mobile applications

there is an application for iPod and iPhone. it is necessary to mention. and also there might be found application for other platforms (windows mobile, symbian, etc) http://times.ua/story/9410/ Elsixli (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Elsixli

Bug allowing companies to "buy" others

I've added the following section but it was removed by another editor claiming it to be minor. Anyone for a second opinion?

"In November, 2009, a bug on linked in allowing every company to "own" other companies[1] was discovered by a minor company who "bought" eBay[2]." --JoshXF (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Restricted access: NOW rather than NOT?

In the "Restricted access" section, the structure of the second paragraph is such that rather than "not available" it should probably have "now available". (Not knowing the facts, I didn't dare to make the change.)Svato (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't tested it; but I think that saying "now available" would be contradictory to the remainder of the section - "not available" seems to make more logical sense there to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I tested it, and at least for my IP (which is registered in the USA), it lists all five of those countries as available to select as being my country: Cuba, Iran, Korea (North), Sudan, and Syria. Not sure if they filter users at the IP level; but if you can reach their site, you seem to be able to select any country. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I can verify this also, all these countries are selectable.Dantilley (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of users

At the top of the page it quotes 150m users. A bit further down it quotes 161m users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.83.168 (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Backend

No mention in the article what the site runs on (application/language). Curious, does anyone know? 217.166.94.1 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Mobile site

http://m.linkedin.com/session/new

And I may put the link to http://m.linkedin.com/ in the ext. links section within a few days WhisperToMe (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Still looks a lot like an ad

DominicConnor (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the recent comments here, I did a quick skim of the article and think it's sourced far too much on primary sources. I've tagged it to indicate this. --Ronz (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a valid criticism, but I'm interested in how we can do this better ? If LI say they have 100 million members, only they know the truth, indeed even though it was me who updated the figure, I have some reason to be sceptical of it.

Ditto their rules etc, any 3rd party will be in effect saying "LI say their rules are...", which to me doesn't add any real value. DominicConnor (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Primary and self-published sources should be used to verify additional details about information verified from independent, secondary/tertiary sources. Otherwise, we risk WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SOAP, and related problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


I agree we risk all that and more, ironically my worry about their numbers is based upon original research and thus can't be used, even if I were more confident about it. So what do we do ? What has been done well with other things like this ? DominicConnor (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Most comparable articles pull usage statistics from somewhere, even if they're a matter of interpretation. The bigger problem is that the article is a hodgepodge of loosely assembled facts about features and staffing, with little flow or meaning. I'd start by organizing it thematically into sections like company history, features, social impact, etc., and within each a chronological narrative with adequate sourcing and consistent tone. Step 1 is just moving around sentences and adding headings Step 2 is to deal with content piece by piece so the work is clear. There are a number of better written articles about web services companies to use as a model. - ----

Major parts of the article are written in a marketing-oriented style, and additions critical of LinkedIn have been deleted on quite contrived grounds. 82.181.241.207 (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

Hi,

I don't see that there is enough controversy to warrant it's own discussion. Recently I reverted the addition of controversy because it seemed wishy washy, but also the source didn't seem too reputable. If there are other sources I am willing to be proven wrong here... I just don't see this controversy in my own research. NCSS (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Weiner article or redirect

Hello again,

Does anyone else think Jeff Weiner, CEO of LinkedIn should have his own page? I have seen him speak and he seems to be a very powerful force in the industry. Thoughts? NCSS (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean up the Style

Drbb01 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)I'm sure additional flaws in style will be obvious to other readers, but two stand out that can use a solid editorial touch. First, it is written in a staccato style, with sentences that do not flow well into each other; almost like bullet points without the bullets. Second, several historical occurrences are written in the present tense. The following excerpt, from "Company Background," reflects both issues:

"In June 2010, LinkedIn announced it would be opening up a European headquarters in Dublin, Ireland.[19]
"In July 2010, Tiger Global Management LLC purchased a 1% stake in the company for $20 million at a valuation of approximately $2 billion.[20]
"In August 2010, LinkedIn announced the acquisition of Mspoke. It is the company's first acquisition for an undisclosed amount. This acquisition aims to help LinkedIn users do more than just find a job, increase users' activity[21] and improve its 1% premium subscription ratio.[22]"

Drbb01 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There's an old Wikipedia expression, WP:SOFIXIT! Why not propose changes here or make them incrementally (slowly please) on the article page? The first two examples you cite are indeed stale but are written carefully to avoid the verb tense problem. The first is completely obsolete, because a comprehensive account of their office locations would track when they actually expanded, not what they announced. The second is a reasonable event to mention, but may need to be put in context. The third example has so many problems, it would be easier to fix the more obvious ones (which I'll do shortly) than to talk about it. Thanks for pointing this out! Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

LinkedIn Groups – Update and Additional Information

Groups are the real meeting and networking places on LinkedIn and I’d like to suggest adding additional and updated information on the Groups.

I will just include the information here for the editors here to consider for incorporation.


As of Tuesday, February 25th, 2012, there were 1,212,244 Groups on LinkedIn. Peter Lee, the CEO of WireWalkersVA, created the largest Group (Job Openings, Job Leads and Job Connections!) on Memorial Day – May 25th, 2009 - and currently has 700,003 Members.Italic text


Links: - WireWalkersVA - links to http://wirewalkersva.com/ - Job Openings, Job Leads and Job Connections! - Links to http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Job-Openings-Job-Leads-Job-1976445?home=&gid=1976445&trk=anet_ug_hm&goback=%2Emyg

Verification of information: - Number of Groups; largest Group; # of members on largest Group; date of start of the largest Group and Owner/Manager of the largest Group can be verified via the LinkedIn interface.

I am Peter Lee (the individual who created the LinkedIn Group described above) and I can assist in any verification of the above. Feel free to email me at pleehome@hotmail.com


--Plee888 (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Advertising

The main ways in which LinkedIn makes money are through various types of ad opportunities and through levels of service. I think this should be added into the text somewhere.

This article talks about advertising and how it works: [3] FactZebra (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Buy Any Company In Under 5 Seconds, Courtesy Of LinkedIn
  2. ^ Colnect Finalizes the Acquisition of E-Bay (as confirmed on LinkedIn)>
  3. ^ http://www.pcworld.com/article/241220/how_do_linkedin_advertisements_work_.html
I think that a significant amount of their revenue comes from services to recruiters which have been gaining in popularity. I need to find some supporting material before adding that, though. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Membership section

I'm not a Wikipedia member, so I'm not completely au fait with the editting policy.

The section states that there are 11 million members in Europe, with the Netherlands growing at the fastest rate (outside the US). The UK is quoted as having 4million members, but then later the figure is quoted as 11 million.

Could someone pick this up, and at least tidy the section so it isn't directly contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.70.217 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The lower figures were older; I deleted them in favor of the 2013 stats. -- Beland (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Security and Privacy Nullified by Sign-Up Design

As per sign up process for a newcomer, it is required to give full email address and its corresponding passwords. This allows LinkedIn to assess the account's address book directly to "suggest" people on the list to be invited to join the network. Needless to say, this level of authority is no different than the account's owner's, thus LinkedIn can log in, read, write, or change whatever with the email account. Only the dumbest of the dumb allows strangers to have the keys to his house, but this is how LinkedIn forces the signer to set up such! Use it at your expense!124.168.65.95 (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a requirement, but a tricky misconception of the interface which I've seen among many people over the past few months. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
In my case it was a requirement, definitely not a misconception. It wanted my email password, not any other so I did not proceed with that registration. For those who have several email accounts, one for private and one of those freebie ones that you only use for these networks it's probably alright, but keeping things separate can sometimes be confusing and a pain in the whatshisname. 144.136.192.10 (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There should be a section in the article on privacy. This is definitely an area of concern with Linked-In. I don't have my -mail linked to them (they don't have my password), but if you do, it searches your contacts and e-mails, and any matches will show up in your list of recommended contacts, and apparently you will show up in those contacts' list of recommendations as well. Not good if that person is on less-than-amicable terms with you. Nerfer (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Nerfer, I completely agree, which is why I thanked you for your comment in this section via WP:Echo much earlier today (April 13, 2014; non-Wikipedia time). Given the various complaints about LinkedIn's security when it comes to emails, as seen here and here on their own site, and the WP:Reliable sources out there that have reported on it, something about this should definitely be in the LinkedIn Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Economic Graph

I suggest that a section on LinkedIn's "economic graph" project be added to the article, as LinkedIn execs have been quoted as stating that the initiative is a critical element of the company's plans and how they are organizing. Rather than touching the page directly I'm making the suggestion here as I am not NPOV on LinkedIn. I work for an agency that supports LinkedIn's communications team. I've drafted up a shot at suggested language with citations for an additional subsection on the economic graph that could be placed within the "Features" section - below. If anyone who regularly edits the page would be willing to look it over, work with me on any changes to make it best suited to improving the page's value, and then make the update on my behalf, I'd be extremely grateful.

Economic Graph

LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner stated in November 2012 that the company's vision for the next decade is to construct an "economic graph." The company describes the economic graph as a comprehensive digital map of the global economy and the connections therein. (ZDNet) Using open-source data technologies (TC) and a growing collection of member data, LinkedIn's hope is that over time it becomes a graph of every professional, company, job, (BI) skill, and educational institution in the world. (Forbes)

According to Weiner, the initiative's ultimate goal is "to remove as much friction from that graph as possible, to allow human and economic capital to flow where it's most needed." (BI) Over time, the economic graph might be able to identify skills gaps between companies and workers, and help bridge these gaps to reduce unemployment. (CNBC) As an example, Weiner outlined how a growing company might use the economic graph to evaluate workforce skills in a certain area. With this knowledge, the company could then promote resources to foster needed skills in potential future employees. (CNET)

Sources

MaryGaulke (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

MaryGaulke (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Does this actually exist, or is it just strategic at this point? I ask b/c at Wikipedia we do not do WP:CRYSTALBALL. I reckon it could go in some kind of section called "Projects in Development" or "Pipeline" but then we would want to say something about its actual status. Right now the draft is just talk/hype and we don't do that here. Those are my thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your read on this, Jytdog. I took a closer look at WP:CRYSTALBALL and see your point. I do think the initiative itself probably meets the Crystal Ball standard, as some of the pieces are now being publicly discussed in some detail. While the digital mapping of the global economy isn't complete or launched yet and is a bit speculative on detail, it seems to be verifiable that the overall Economic Graph project initiative has started and is going to be a long-term push. It may "launch" formally one day, but ultimately, as they enhance products and services today they're doing so with this end goal in mind.
I agree that in light of all that it might make most sense to place the description of the Economic Graph under a new page section rather than within the "Features" section. Google does this with a "2013 onward" subsection under History - how about if we did the same with this?
Let me know what you think, and again, thanks for helping out. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
sounds like we can get to the same page here. happy. do you mind proposing content to describe the product more, and what they actually have in hand? thanks. In the last sentence of the first paragraph, I don't much like the phrase "LinkedIn's hope". Linkedin has stated what they intend to include in the near term and longer term; and the project description should be clear on that. can you please describe that too, with sources? finally, i don't intend to use the 2nd paragraph as is which I view as all crystal-ballish/hype-y about what the ultimate product may do, but rather just reduce that to something like "with the goal of making the job market more efficient by providing more transparency" or the like. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you again for your feedback and for pinpointing precisely which points merited revision. To simplify things, I've incorporated your edits and requests into a new draft, below. I've cut most of what was in the second paragraph, but also fleshed out several points about what's currently in the graph and what's in the works, according to LinkedIn. A few of the new citations refer to official LinkedIn sources - I hope that's alright. My goal was to keep those citations to fairly basic information, so that bias would be less of a concern.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the new draft - I think you've helped us push it to be a lot stronger.
Economic Graph
LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner stated in November 2012 that the company's vision for the next decade is to construct an "economic graph." The company describes the economic graph, in its finalized form, as a comprehensive digital map of the global economy and the connections therein. (ZDNet 1) The project is an evolution of LinkedIn's current platform rather than a totally separate endeavor. (LI Today) At present the graph is composed of LinkedIn’s network of professionals, companies, jobs, (BI 1) skills (Forbes), volunteer opportunities (TC), educational institutions (NPR) and content (Forbes). While these nodes already exist, LinkedIn’s long-term plan is to make the graph comprehensive in each of those categories, worldwide. (LI Today) As of May 2014, LinkedIn has more than 300 million members (BI 2), 3.5 million company profiles, more than 300,000 jobs, more than 3 billion endorsements, more than 24,000 schools, and billions of network updates. (LI SlideShare)
Most recently, the company designed its "Galene" search architecture as a way of giving users access to the economic graph's data. LinkedIn has stated that Galene will enable more thorough filtering of data, via user searches like "Engineers with Hadoop experience in Brazil." (VB, ZDNet 2) Other supporting developments include additional data provided by new and current users (LI blog) and new nodes (the Volunteer Marketplace (TC) and university pages (NPR)) for gathering other categories of information. According to Weiner, the initiative's ultimate goal is to make the global economy (with a focus on the job market) more efficient through increased transparency. (BI)
Sources
Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Mobile app and Official sites

The linked in mobile app references "linkd.in" web address in the read more section. Is this an official site or partner of linked in? Its unsettling that 10M people have downloaded the app but the documentation does not reference the official site.

Its been a while since I have posted anything, at least I remembered the tildes! Fozforic (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

confusing

It is important to write in such a way that a novice can understand the information. For example: the third paragraph under "Reception" -- after several tries, I have no idea what this paragraph means. It's wordy and jumbled. ProfessorAndro (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

i attempted to clarify it. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Economic Graph update

Hi all, in the nine months since the "Economic Graph" section was first added to this article the project has developed quite a bit, so I wanted to check in about updating/adding to the section. As mentioned above, I'm making the request here rather than editing myself because I have a COI: I work for a communications agency that represents LinkedIn. Here's what I suggest adding:

Insight from the Economic Graph has influenced research on various employment-related topics, including popular destination cities of recent college graduates (source), areas with high concentrations of technology skills (source), and common career transitions (source). LinkedIn provided the City of New York with data from the Economic Graph that highlighted “in-demand" tech skills to help inform the city's "Tech Talent Pipeline" project. (sources: 1, 2, 3) In March 2015, President Obama announced a technology training initiative for which LinkedIn will provide similar data. (source)

I'd be really grateful if someone could take a look at the above and let me know what you think. Happy to provide additional citations/research/information if that would be helpful as well. Thanks so much! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC); relocated to new section for clarity and added request edit template Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@MaryGaulke:
I rewrote the entire section using your material.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
nice work, smallbones. i marked the request as answered. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch for your help, both of you! I really appreciate it. Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

updating users number in lead

Hi all, quick request: Would it be possible to update the first paragraph of the article with a more recent user number? Currently it states 259 million as of June 2013. The most current figure, which already appears in the infobox, is 364 million. (source) Alternatively, the total as of the end of 2014 was 347 million. (source) I'm not editing directly because (as previously mentioned) I have a conflict of interest: I work for a communications firm that represents LinkedIn. I appreciate any help! Thanks. Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC); adding request edit template Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

done. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks much! FYI, I did make one minor tweak to update the "as of" date corresponding to the figure (it still said April 2013). Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Resume Upload

I deleted the sentence under dropped features that claimed (with no citation) that you could no longer upload resumes as of 2012. Resumes can still be uploaded by navigating to "Profile" on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.115.134.36 (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It's /ˌliːŋkt.ˈɪn/, or /ˌliŋkt.ˈɪn/ not /ˌlɪŋkt.ˈɪn/, right? The Yar (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

unsourced stats table

Moving here as this is unsourced. can be restored with reliable sourcing

In January 2016 the number of accounts was 400 million.[citation needed] The countries with the most LinkedIn users were:[citation needed]

Country Accounts
(in millions) 		As % of Population As % of Workforce
USA 122
India 33
Brazil 23
United
Kingdom		 19
China 12
Canada 11
France 10
Italy 8
Mexico 8
Australia 7
Spain 7
Netherlands 6

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on LinkedIn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

How was the Microsoft deal financed?

This section > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LinkedIn#2011_to_present

contains this sentence > "The acquisition would be an all-cash, debt-financed transaction."

What does this mean? Does this mean there has been no swapping of shares? Where is a source which supports this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Vinci Nanjing (talk • contribs) 09:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Custom Fencing Contractor in Lafayette-Privacy fence contractors in Lafayette

No matter the size of your house or company,our experts can create all the custom fencing designs,privacy fence contractors without any doubt at the best price in Lafayette.Austen's Construction and Remodelng is providing all sorts of construction and home Remodeling offerings for more Then 7 Years serving Many towns Like Lafayette, Crowley, Opelousas and surrounding region. Austen’s creation & reworking offers the satisfactory construction and home remodeling businesses in Louisiana. We offer exceptional residential

and industrial construction services with high best, on-time and on finances tasks listening to all of your details. customer delight is what determines our fulfillment, that is why we take a fingers-on approach. while interacting with Austens construction & remodeling, you may note that we're particularly focused at the principles of great workmanship, timely final touch, competitive pricing and integrity in all our enterprise dealings. We integrate knowledge and research with our considerable sensible enjoy to make certain a specialized approach in your venture desires. contact us today for a truthful and accurate estimate of your assignment. We look forward to adding you to our lengthy and growing listing of happy customers.

Our task is to provide an exception purchaser-targeted production provider with the aid of creatively handling the three traditional construction variables of Time, fee, and fine even as simultaneously making sure price for all our stakeholders, and a proactive mindset closer to our company social responsibilities.

Our vision to convert it into one of the pinnacle ten production businesses within the place, by using developing an exemplary production business version that works hand-in-hand with the consumer and their consultant, on the basis of agree with and mutual advantage, in orer to obtain admirable outcomes, now not most effective in mere production, but additionally in the fields of price engineering and construction consultancy.

patron delight is what determines our achievement, which is why we take a arms-on method. when interacting with Austens production & remodeling, you will word that we're specially centered at the ideas of first-class workmanship, well timed of entirety, aggressive pricing and integrity in all our business dealings.

We integrate knowledge and studies with our considerable realistic enjoy to make sure a specialized method for your venture wishes. contact us nowadays for a honest and accurate estimate of your task. We stay up for adding you to our lengthy and growing listing of satisfied customers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austensconstructionllc (talk • contribs) 10:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The hidden reason for LinkedIn's 2016 stock tanking and its deal with Microsoft

The Linkedin profile is an important component of a successful modern person and a prerequisite for the applicant in the job search process, as it indicated here: https://linkedinprofilewritingservice.com/. It is necessary to add a section on the Linkedin resume profile to the article, since this is an important aspect of using Linkedin capabilities.

Hi friends, I'm personally involved in the following issue so I'll just explain the reality and would let you guys decide if it warrants a mention. The crux of what took place can be read here, please be aware that you have links from that article to the entire story originally published in several articles on my LinkedIn account. As was probably advised to LinkedIn by its legal people they have not deleted my articles there because that would put them in greater risk once this story gets headlines.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read it. --Itai leshem (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LinkedIn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LinkedIn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible removal from list

Entries inList of colors: G–M contained links to this page.

The entry is :

  • Linkedin Blue

I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms and controversies

LinkedIn's Wiki needs a "Criticisms and controversies" section (similar to Facebook's Wikipedia page [Wiki]), because currently this Wiki appears to have been written with bias, seeming like a LinkedIn representative wrote most of it.

The main topics to cover would be:

  • LinkedIn's use of email address mining. LinkedIn has been sued for accessing users' email addresses by requesting their email passwords, then using those passwords to access their email contact lists and sending join requests to those contacts [1].
  • LinkedIn's use of Site Wide Auto-Moderation (SWAM). This LinkedIn policy automatically blacklists users from LinkedIn groups and offers limited recourse for appeals when a user is wrongly blacklisted [2].
  • LinkedIn's use of “People You May Know” email solicitation. LinkedIn generates lists of people that non-users may know based on email addresses that they have mined and then creates join requests which appear to be from those people, even though those people may not even be LinkedIn users [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CherubCow (talk • contribs) 04:12, 16 April 2014‎ (UTC)
@CherubCow: I went ahead and added that section by merging together info scattered throughout the page into one section. LikeABaller (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Geuss, Megan (21 September 2013). "LinkedIn sued by users who say it hacked their e-mail accounts". arstechnica. Retrieved 16 April 2014.
  2. ^ Macpherson, Sholto (21 August 2013). "LinkedIn's 'Blacklist' Censors Thousands of Legitimate Users". Box Free It. Retrieved 16 April 2014.
  3. ^ Macri, Giuseppe (21 February 2014). "How LinkedIn creates fake accounts for your contacts, and uses you to solicit them into joining". Daily Caller. Retrieved 16 April 2014.

Bright.com

Bright.com was acquired by LinkedIn in 2014. It now offers event rentals, and the company is no longer notable per WP:GNG or WP:CORP, apart from its past job matching business. Any objections to my merging it to a section here? Tracy Von Doom (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose; sufficient independent referenced to justify keeping. Klbrain (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Excessive details

Is it really necessary to have a such a detailed section on "User profile network"? It seems like listing off all of the functionality on LinkedIn is unnecessary, other apps and websites do not need exhaustive lists of features. I think it would be best to cut it down to just features or functionality that sets it apart or has been remarked upon by outside sources. Thoughts? LikeABaller (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree. My sense is that the material which is not referenced line-by-line could be condensed, pared down, summarized perhaps, with the exception being that not to pare down referenced material. When I try to read the list, my eyes glaze over...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
It would be a bad policy. The free encyclopedia has implemented WP:verifiability which sometimes can be satisfied even without any external source. This is the case. Anyone can verify whether the concerned functionalities of the website are real or not. Readers don't need an external source for this purpose. However, we can agree that an how-to video would be helpful but not necessary.
Otherwise, Wikipedia risks to be transformed in a private library, something like a store which would be useful for third parties to sponsorize their payment contents such as books or papers. To be verifiable, external sources firstly need to be free of charge, Open access, Full text, capable of being permanently copied in third party websites (Internet Archive, archive.is, Webcite, and so on) and possibly released with a public domain equivalent license. I think WP can hopefully indicate the qualities of an ideal source to be cited in its articles. There are not so many sources available on the web that can be compliant with all those needy points. The risks is to have to shorten a lot of good articles associated to a template:F.Philosopher81sp (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
We also have WP:UNDUE - if no one else has bothered to comment on some detail, neither should Wikipedia. Wikipedia policies specifically reject the idea that all sources should be free of charge to access. - MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I mean preferably and in a primary way. It's undeniable that payment contents are much less WP:verifiable than any other Open Access, full text and free of charge ones. On the contrary, there are no concerns demonstrating that closed and payment contents are more accurate, outstanding, high-quality and definitely more WP:reliable than any other free of charge source. I was looking for DOAJ, as an example. Thanks for your contribution.Philosopher81sp (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"Premium Subscriptions" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Premium Subscriptions. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Premium Subscriptions until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi, I've spotted a defunct link in the article's References section. In particular, the 42nd link ("Filtering and Tagging Connections Feature – No Longer Available". LinkedIn Help Pages. February 2, 2017.) seems to be unavailable neither on the web or on archive.org -Rcm183 (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

আখিব হাসান আল ইমরান একজন বাংলাদেশী গায়ক।তার জন্ম 2004 সালের 26 আগস্ট চট্টগ্রাম জেলার দোহাজারী , দিয়াকুল গ্রামে।তার পিতার নাম প্রিয়মল বড়ুয়া ।মাতার নাম অনুপমা বড়ুয়া ।তিনি এইচএসসি পাস করেন 2024 সালে পাহাড়তলী বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় থেকে ।তার ভালোবাসার প্রেমিকের নাম ছিল আখি আক্তার মণি ।পরিস্থিতির কারণে তাদের সম্পর্ক শেষ হয়ে যায় ।তবে এখনো তাকে খুব ভালোবাসেন তিনি ।আখির জন্ম 2004 সালের 30 জুন ।একই গ্রামে তাদের বসতি ।তিনি দিয়াকুল সানোয়ারা কলেজ থেকে 2024 সালে এইচএসসি পাস করেন ।তার আপুর নাম লাকি আক্তার ।তিনি গাছবাড়িয়া কলেজে পড়াশোনা শেষ করেন ।এখানেই শেষ তার জীবনকাহিনি ।

Akhib Hasan Al Emran is a Bangladeshi singer. He was born on 26 August 2004 in Diakul Village, Dohazari, Chittagong District. His father's name is Priyamal Barua. Mother's name is Anupama Barua. He passed HSC in 2024 from Pahartali University. Her lover's name was Akhi Aktar Moni. Their relationship ends due to circumstances. But he still loves her very much. Akhir was born on 30 June 2004. They live in the same village. He passed HSC in 2024 from Diakul Sanwara College. His aunt's name is Lucky Akhter. He completed his studies at Gachbaria College. This is where his life story ends

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LinkedIn/Archive_1&oldid=1217397402"