Talk:Google Meet

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Google Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Google To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Google mobile services into List of Google products Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products Other : Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...) create: Help the Google article for a good article status Improve the Outline of Google Get more members using : {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}} Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color

The WP:COIRESPONSE . SBCornelius (talk · contribs) has been paid by Outspoken Media, on behalf of Google. COI declared: Also see User:SBCornelius

Since the article is no longer a section of the Hangouts article, I've fleshed it out a bit more with a section about the rollout of Meet to non-business accounts. SBCornelius (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the article, especially the "Free access" section as added by User:SBCornelius reads like an advertisement. This phrase especially sticks out:

> Since Meet runs in

or other browsers and does not require an app or plugin, it presents fewer security vulnerabilities than video conferencing services requiring a desktop app.

It reads more like an advertisement (especially in response to the numerous security vulnerabilities discovered in Zoom) than a factual text for wikipedia, and even mentions a browser by the same company when it doesn't have to. I believe there's a large number of improvements on this article to be made regarding this, and I will be adding a Template:Advert.

I'd also like to add that citation 31 (https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/29/google-is-making-meet-free-for-everyone/) only states a claim by google: "Google argues that in return, you get a safer platform, not just because it’s hard to guess meeting codes for Meet (which makes “Meet-bombing” a non-starter), but also because Meet runs in the browser and is hence less vulnerable to security threats.", 32 doesn't contain anything regarding safety/security (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/29/google-meet-zoom-competitor/) and 33 (https://mashable.com/article/google-meet-goes-free/) guesses that it might be more secure, but doesn't say for certain that it's more secure as the claim in the article: "Furthermore, Meet doesn't allow anonymous users to join meetings created by individual accounts, and it doesn't require plugins or separate apps – it runs completely in Chrome and other browsers, which should make it less vulnerable to security threats." In addition, it seems like the example sentence above was copied from very sentence, with only couple words changed.

Aveaoz (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Google Meet Screenshot.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is "deprecation" intended to mean in this context? Deipnosophista (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certain parts of this article, in the sub-section, 'Gmail Accounts', in the section 'Features' has had multiple plagiarized lines, directly copied from a news source! Please do not reinstate the lines without fixing them, and besides - the lines do not have a neutral point of view anyways...

I have removed these lines for now, but if you feel that this was incorrect - please feel free to drop a message on my talk page.

Link: https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/31/22359774/google-meet-unlimited-calls-free-users-june-30-60-minute-limit#:~:text=Google%20will%20not%20introduce%20a,refers%20to%20as%20%E2%80%9Cunlimited.%E2%80%9D

Thanks,

]

Thanks for fixing. Does not need a copyright violations tag so I have removed but I am going to go ahead and request revdel. Again, thanks for fixing this! Sennecaster (What now?) 02:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]