Talk:Mastodon (social network)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Federation with StatusNet

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} "with an exception being StatusNet-based instances" - Why this bit? 1) StatusNet has been renamed to GNU social, so StatusNet refers to the pre-merge versions, which are mostly not around anymore. Secondly, I know of just one instance that still uses StatusNet (rainbowdash.net) and mastodon.social federates with it just fine. 158.181.79.136 (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears these statements were removed some time ago. Danylstrype (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added the paragraph about OStatus back in, as this is essential information for understanding Mastodon and its background. If you don't like the primary references, take them out, and maybe replace them with some of the references on this page, but beware, there is a *lot* of misinformation floating around in the tech press and blogopshere about Mastodon, and evidenced by the primary references I've provided.

Move to GNU Social page proposed

Trolling aside, this might be better off as a section in the GNU Social article. It's integrated with the GNU Social federation and would make more sense discussed as a part of that ecosystem. If someone else creates a compatible server/client for GNU Social and finds someone to write about it, does that make it equally notable? Probably not, at least not at the current stage of GNU Social adoption. 184.56.98.214 (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Friendica, Twister, and others each have their own articles. Mastodon has a completely independent codebase to GNU social. The GNU social article does not list any existing forks or alternatives to itself, so I don't see why a completely independent codebase should go there. 62.117.17.0 (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. Mastodon is not a fork of StatusNet/ GNU Social. It is a completely new software written in a different language, supporting the same federation protocol (OStatus). It's really more the OStatus federation than the GNU Social federation, or as some call it "The Fediverse". Given the explosive growth in the number of people using interoperable software supporting OStatus, I think it's quite legitimate to each projects that's being independently and actively developed its own page. Danylstrype (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Name of the software

Maybe this should be moved to "Mastodon (microblogging software)" or something similar, since that's the name. I've added a link to the disambiguation page since I had trouble finding this page, but I strongly favor the move 84.158.90.180 (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. The name used in the GITHub repo is Mastodon, not Mastodon Social. Mastodon.Social is an instance of the software. Danylstrype (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been done with the merging of pages about Mastodon the software and Mastodon.social. Thanks. Danylstrype (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Citation for Friendica being a fork of StatusNet/ GNU Social

The page currently says that Friendica is a fork of StatusNet. Unless someone can find a citation for that, I'm going to change it, because I'm pretty sure Friendica is a totally separate codebase (started by McGirvin as Mistpark according to its page), and the reason it can federate with GNU Social is because they both implement OStatus, not because of any shared code heritage. Danylstrype (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No citation has been forthcoming, so I presume the original author was winging it, and I've made the change. If anyone can find a citation for the suggestion that Friendica was a StatusNet/ GNU Social fork, you can always change it back. Danylstrype (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Mastodon (software) vs Mastodon.social (instance)

I just noticed that someone merged the Wikidata item for the Mastodon software (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27986619) with the one about Mastodon.social (the website, item now deleted). As a result, the description of the item changed from software to social media service

These seems to be two different things, which deserve their own article/item. How should we proceed to decouple them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedatum (talk • contribs) 12:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Mastodon.social is a site running the Mastodon software. The only thing that makes it more interesting than any other Mastodon instance is that it's the one run by the Mastodon lead developer. I think it's correct to put information about them in the same article. Danylstrype (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles online about Mastodon

Mastodon seems to have suddenly been discovered by the tech press/ blogsphere (side note: it's increasingly difficult to tell these apart). There's also a discussion from last year on Hacker News. Getting all this media oxygen seems to have resulted in a huge surge in sign-ups and new instances, and a lot of people will be coming to Wikipedia as a starting point for learning more, so its essential we improve the accuracy and depth of this page ASAP. Danylstrype (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

References

OStatus federation

Mastodon is a complete rebuild of another web-based, federated social network called GNU social (formerly StatusNet). Like GNU Social, Mastodon uses a web standard called OStatus to allow users to follow and receive posts from users on different Mastadon instances. It also allows users to follow and receive posts from non-Mastodon microblogging websites, if they are using another web application that supports OStatus federation, including those running GNU social and its variants (including PostActiv and Qvitter), as well as Diaspora, Friendica, and Hubzilla.

Moving this paragraph here for discussion and workshopping before it is added back again. As written, it is original research from primary sources and cannot stay in the article. If its relation to GNU social/StatusNet is important, what reliable, secondary sources (not blogs, site without editorial credibility or fact-checking) mention it? Same for OStatus. It might be important to mention in time, but until it's verified, it is original research on our part to make the connections in the above paragraph. To describe the web technology Mastadon uses, briefly summarize what is written on its main documentation page. czar 15:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

one of the citations I gave *was* its main documentation page, where it clearly states "Fully interoperable with GNU social and any OStatus platform". The fact that Mastodon is essentially an OStatus client is also mentioned here, here, here, here and in a discussion with the developer here. This is as basic and non-controversial aspect of the software, like the fact that Transmission is a BitTorrent client, or the fact that a beagle is a dog. I'm not sure what better sources I can provide, and I am going to reverse your edit. Danylstrype (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

References

@Danylstrype, as I've already stated multiple times, we use reliable, secondary sources. That means sources with reputations for fact-checking and reliability, not hobbyist blogs and not HackerNews forum posts. The developer himself can be cited as a self-published source, but only in a very limited fashion (on basic claims and not in great detail, or else it would have been covered in a secondary source). I asked you not to restore this content until the sourcing issues are resolved. czar 17:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Czar You are not demanding academic citations for the fact that Mastodon is software, that it uses Ruby on Rails, that's it's open source, licensed under the GNU AGPL, that it runs on Linux, or that it is in fact federated. Like all these, the fact that it federates using the OStatus standard (internally and with other OStatus apps) is a "basic claim", that is "written on its main documentation page". I'm now sure how I can express this any more clearly. You have told me a lot about the kinds of references that won't satisfy you, but I'm still none the wiser about what kind would. Danylstrype (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Danylstrype, the GitHub page is fine for the basic claims of interoperability with OStatus—it's the comparison to other platforms ("complete rebuild", "follow and receive posts from non-Mastodon microblogging websites", PostActiv, Qvitter) and the number of primary source citations that make the extended claims into original research. It's interoperable with OStatus, and those who want to know more can read the OStatus page. If the relation between Diaspora, Qvitter, and Mastodon are important, they will be mentioned in a reliable, secondary source (newspaper, magazine, blog with editorial credibility, not necessarily academic). czar 17:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Czar OK, now we're making progress. "Complete rebuild" just indicates that Mastodon is not a fork of GNU Social, even though it bootstrapped off the GNU Social fediverse. I'm not attached to this bit if you don't think it needs to be spelled out to a general reader.

@Czar I just checked, and the source is the GITHub page where is says: "An alternative implementation of the GNU social project". I would appreciate an apology for not even reading the page I gave as a source and saying my claim was unsourced when that was untrue, but I will settle for you putting back the wording you took out for that reason. Danylstrype (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If we agree that Mastodon uses the OStatus standard, then it logically follows that a Mastodon user can "follow and receive posts from non-Mastodon microblogging websites" that use OStatus, because that's what OStatus federation does. It's also a basic claim. The list of applications is just to clarify what this means in practice to a reader who doesn't already know which apps use OStatus to connect to The Federation. I think it's a useful thing for a general reader to know about Mastodon. Danylstrype (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's a basic claim, where's the source? Why isn't it sufficient to say that Mastodon is "interoperable" with OStatus platforms, as the GitHub/official page says? If the point of receiving posts from outside Mastodon was important, some reliable source would cover it. czar 19:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Czar please explain to me, in the context of a federated microblogging application, what being "interoperable" with other microblogging applications means, if it doesn't mean being able to follow other users and receive their posts? The source is the official GITHub page where is says "GNU Social-compatible microblogging", and "Fully interoperable with GNU social and any OStatus platform Whatever implements Atom feeds, ActivityStreams, Salmon, PubSubHubbub and Webfinger is part of the network". This, you'll remember, is the reference that was there all through the time you kept removing that paragraph. As I said above, I'd appreciate an apology for wasting my time with all this, but I'll settle for you restoring the text that you removed. Danylstrype (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

? The issue is the rest of the paragraph, not the GitHub source (which still isn't ideal, though fine for limited basics, and questionable to even include when the article is designed for a general audience). The GitHub source says only that Mastodon is "interoperable", meaning that it works with others on the platform. The extent to which is not explicated—do the platforms support all of each other's features or just the basics?—so we similarly do not say. All of the above claims re: following and receiving posts from non-Mastodon sites, the primary source links to Qvitter as proof of interoperability, should all not be mentioned unless a reliable source makes a point of it. czar 23:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Czar Having taken a few deep breaths, I'd like to apologise publicly for the patronising tone of some of my comments here. I'm sorry if my words have alienated you from working on this page. I'm finding this debate deeply frustrating, but that's no excuse for being pushy or dismissive towards other editors.

Having said that, I wonder if it's possible to get some participation in developing this page further from Wikipedians who may be more familiar with free code software in general, open source development practices, community documentation practices, and the associated technical jargon? For example, third opinions on the meaning of "interoperable", in the context of federated social apps might help us resolve the impasse we seem to have reached. Again, I'm sorry for my grumpiness, and I'd like to thank you for the rigorous approach you are bringing to the development of this page. Danylstrype (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries. We can request outside input with a neutral message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free Software or Wikipedia:Third opinion, depending. But I'd first write succinctly what exactly you'd like the outside opinion on, whether it's a proposed revision of the block quoted portion above or just what we can infer about interoperability from the GitHub source alone (easier to get people to weigh in when they don't have to read through reams of text). I'd also add, myself, that a secondary source explaining GNU Social or OStatus' interoperability (whether called that or not) wouldn't have to necessarily mention Mastodon, and can be used to explain how the platform works in general, as Mastodon is only a part of it. czar 11:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

History

The point that needs to be made somewhere in this article, maybe in a history section, is that the OStatus federation came first, beginning with Identi.ca/ Laconica who started supporting OStatus in 2010. Laconica was rebranded StatusNet, which was eventually replaced on Identi.ca with pump.io. StatusNet was relaunched as GNU Social in 2013 (see the refs on the GNU Social page), and by 2014, there were already hundreds of instances using OStatus federation, and either already running GNU Social or planning to migrate to it.

Point being when Eugen Rochko released Mastodon in 2016 and set up Mastodon.Social, he didn't have to establish a whole new social network from scratch. He and other Mastodon.Social users could connect to any user on GNU Social (or variants like Qvitter/ PostActiv) just as if they were using GNU Social. This network affect is what allowed Mastodon to get off to a running start, instead of having to painstakingly convince a critical mass of new users to join Mastodon.Social or set up their own instance while it was mostly full of tumbleweeds. Danylstrype (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

References

As above, without a secondary source that strings these thoughts together, it would be original research to write this history ourselves from primary sources. These points would also seem more relevant to the OStatus article than Mastodon's. We already state that OStatus predicates Mastodon—greater detail would be extraneous or trivia unless secondary sources suggest it's a history we should cover in more detail. On proportion, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." czar 11:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Czar Certainly I agree that OStatus history needs to be covered in the OStatus article. But the critical question here is this; is Mastodon 1) a new social network, or 2) new client software on an existing social network? Understanding the answer to this question is fundamental to explaining to a general reader what the Mastodon software *is*, without them needing to understand what Mastodon's use of OStatus implies. Many of the tech press pieces imply answer 1) by not putting Mastodon's appearance in the contact of OStatus or GNU Social. I think the intentions expressed on the GITHub page make it clear that the correct answer is 2). This is the crux of our disagreement about the contents of this article and it's the thing I'd like to get a Wikipedia:Third opinion on. Danylstrype (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, that isn't our question to solve. We report what the secondary sources say. If they think it's important, they write about it and we paraphrase it. If they don't write about it, we don't decide on our own that it's worth covering and do the research ourselves. I've already linked the guidelines on why this is the case. Sounds like your issue is with the tech journalists. But if you'd like another opinion, you can point to this talk page heading czar 06:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Czar No. My issue is with you choosing to take the *omission* of this background from the articles written by said tech journalists, who have either a) chosen not to talk about or b) not bothered to research at all, over what it clearly says on the main page of the software, and what it says in blog articles by people who are *clearly* much better informed about the technology than said tech journalists. Nothing good can come of the two of us continuing to go around in these logical circles. This is why I desperately want someone who understands *both* Wikipedia norms *and* the tech involved to look at the references I've assembled (those on the article so far and this Talk page) give us a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Failing that, I'm just going to have to fix the page so it correctly explains to the general reader what Mastodon is, and keep fixing it until you give up and go away. Danylstrype (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you accept any of these articles as evidence of Mastodon's origin as client software for the pre-existing OStatus network, and the fact that connecting to that network allows Mastodon users to follow, be followed by, and @ mention users on the other apps that use OStatus? Danylstrype (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

References

At the risk of repeating myself, we can only paraphrase what secondary sources say. Those two sources don't even mention OStatus. It's original research based on the sources you have provided to say, "Mastodon users can connect to any GNU Social (or variants like Qvitter/PostActiv) just as if they were using GNU Social", but you can ostensibly use the current sources to say, "Mastodon is interoperable with the GNU Social and OStatus platforms. Other GNU Social and OStatus-compatible platforms include X and Z." As for opensource.com, its about page says 40% of the content is written by the editorial staff, and it doesn't imply an editorial process. So each page on its own merits, this article was written by a hobbyist. czar 17:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The secondary sources principle is about making sure we don't make inaccurate claims on Wikipedia pages. It's often months or years before journalists who do thorough research, publish accurate stories about new software in a publication that has the competence to do accurate fact-checking about software. To wait for these stories, and leave a Wikipedia page making claims we *know* to be false, based on primary evidence, is a huge disservice to readers who consult Wikipedia for a basic briefing on a topic that's new to them. The page, as it stood, was making the claim that Mastodon is a new social network. This is false. Mastodon is a new web app (and server) for the existing Fediverse social network, consisting of all instances of all apps that use OStatus. As I have said all along, the evidence for that is in black and white on the project's GITHub page (see quotes in previous comments, or just the page). I have corrected the intro text to make the facts clear. Danylstrype (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Due to the publicity that both Mastodon and Counter.Social have received, I thought it only fair to write the Controversy section.

Mastodon is such an impressive undertaking and the goals seem right. However, controversies like this shouldn't be behind closed doors, esp when high profile persons with influence is involved and being targeted by one side or the other.

I see someone keeps trying to get the section publically removed and that is fine, but these kinds of controversies happens in nearly every development platform.

It seems to me to be a fundamental, true controversy. Mastodon promotes that people can put Mastondon on their own hardware, owned or leased, and pay for those costs, use Mastodon and set their own rules and security measures and all the entire fediverse can benefit. When this happens, Mastodon undertakes a massive block over IP firewall rules Counter.Social instituted, an action Mastodon undertakes preventing other instances from interacting with counter.social and then the creator targets a high profile user (Wil Wheaton) with contradictory and negative comments in public, requesting him to come to their or another instance. That seems like a controversy.

I expect edits, esp if they are objective but I don't think it should be whitewashed out of history.

I just wanted to give my reasoning for adding the section.

p37307 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your interest in contributing to this page on Wikipedia. However, you may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on original research. The paragraph you wrote was unsupported by any secondary sources, and instead was a synthesis of primary sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore it's role in public discourse is **strictly limited** to providing a summary of reputable secondary sources. Therefore, I've removed it from the article. If you're able to find solid secondary sources to back it up, that would be a welcome addition.

(Declaration of possible COI—I'm a good friend of Gargron's and I've talked to him about this issue before, and I did some of the research into C.S's defederation and AGPL violations. I still don't think it deserves a section of this Wikipedia article or that policy supports the addition of such a section). nightpool (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Mastodon is not distributed

Mastodon would be a "distributed" application, by the definition given in the linked Wikipedia article, if a Mastodon instance (a website running the Mastodon software) was a network of bits running on different servers. What actually happens is that each Mastodon instance runs on one server, and connects to other instances, to allow users to follow and message each other across instances. This is "federated" (like email), it's *not* "distributed" (like BitTorrent), and I am removing that claim from the article. --Danylstrype (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Could There Be a "Pro/Con" Section?

I've recently read some negative comments about Mastodon's future viability published in an article in April, 2017. Gab is about to be deplatformed, which caused me to look for an alternative and I don't want to take just this Article's Author's word for it, so I came here looking for some sense of it's functionality, strengths, weakness, etc... and how Mastodon might compare to Twitter. Could this Article be "upgraded" in order to provide some sense of Mastodon's functionality to the average User?05:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Any lists of pros/ cons would be subjective, unless linked to credible external sources. I think you're looking for the AlternativeTo.net or Slant.co page on social network software, not an encylopedia article on Mastodon. --Danylstrype (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

About 500 characters limit

This limit is a server default, but it's not a restriction for server-server communication protocol. This limit can be changed if you running self-hosted instance: https://discourse.joinmastodon.org/t/howto-raise-the-character-limit/763

I think this is an important info and should be mentioned somewhere in the article.

Fediverse is not well-defined

The Fediverse article has no sources, and its reference here seems circular. Recommend removing reference to Fediverse until its coinage is substantiated. -Inowen (nlfte) 04:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Dubious

The mention of Twitter's approach to combating harassment as "one of Twitter's largest issues" is entirely subjective. It should be revised with at least some sort of citation to surveys or analyses of public opinion regarding Twitter. Likewise, "undesirable types of content" is unclear. While obvious to a very small few, this should expand on what's meant by "undesirable" or remove the statement entirely. A clarification like such may work better: "community admins and moderators handle reports from others for unwanted content that may not be allowed or tolerated in that community". The article overall needs to be more encyclopedic, and iffy subjective statements without clear sources should be properly cited or removed. Ciolt (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding claim that harassment is one of Twitter's largest issues: no discussion after 3.5 years, so claim deleted. -- Ghastlyman (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Reference 9 (Medium interview with Eugen Rochko) doesn’t appear to explicitly contain the view cited to Rochko. Guppiefish (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Weaseling

The article currently contains weasel words: "... flagship ..." and "... powered by ...". --Mortense (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mortense: Could you expand on why those are weasel words? They seem innocuous to me, if a little clumsy. codl (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"Free software" vs. "Free and open-source software"?

On 2019-10-05T08:01:49 user:194.154.247.195 changed the claim that Mastodon was "Open-source software" to that it's "Free software".

Shouldn't it be listed as Free and open-source software?

The infobox at the top of this article says it carries the "GNU Affero General Public License", and the article on that license says it's both (a) certified as free and copyleft by the Free Software Foundation and as open source by the the Open Source Initiative.

???? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Poor sources for large international userbase

I removed "Mastodon has a large international userbase; notably, as of February 2019, Japanese-speaking users total over 250,000." because its sources were:

• the instances.social advanced search page for japanese instances
• a pastebin.com document explaining how to process it into a single overall number

Pastebin process aside, I found that many of the top japanese instances on instances.social were tagged as speaking multiple languages. Not all of their users speak japanese. So, not a reliable source.

It is deplorable how few good sources there are on Mastodon usage but it is understandable considering its distributed nature. codl (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, can the pastebin thing be considered original research? codl (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Size of Gab 'node' is falsified

Please see: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/02/14/no-way-gab-has-800000-users-web-host-says

To quote the above article:

> Based on what they are getting through us services-wise there is no way they have 800,000 users, or it would be very odd if they did,” Kapul told Hatewatch. “I would say they probably have a few thousand or a few tens of thousands. That sounds a lot more believable.

—rjt (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Far-right and racist vs. conservative

@Matthew10Damon: You changed [[Far-right politics|far-right]] to [[Right-wing politics|Conservative]] in a phrase with a citation to:

• Makuch, Ben; Koebler, Jason; Mead, Derek (11 July 2019). "Mastodon Was Designed to Be a Nazi-Free Twitter—Now It's the Exact Opposite". Vice. Retrieved 2019-07-17.

You also changed "racist" to "conservative" in a phrase with a citation to:

• Eleanor (4 July 2019). "Statement on Gab's fork of Mastodon". Official Mastodon Blog. Retrieved 2019-07-17.

I checked the first source: It has "Far Right" in the title and "far-right" six other times in the article. I can't find the word "conservative".

Similarly, the second source says "racist" and NOT "conservative".

I appreciate your efforts to tone down potentially incendiary language. However, in this case, I think your changes misrepresent what the sources actually say. I concur with the reversion by User:ApLundell. Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC) (talk)

I understand the original sources say the following the reason i editied the page was because i thought the text didn't represent what the social media gab was correctly when i saw the text i thought it meant gab was only for people on the far right and what i actually believe is the website & app is for both people of center right and far right i understand that gab is controversial and that the social media was created for Conservatives. i did not know better and i understand now i was trying my best i did not want to do bad things to this website and i wanted the wikipedia website to be a educational encylopedia website based on facts and if i was wrong i apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew10Damon (talk • contribs)

No problem. Maybe you have a proper source for that? --BlauerBaum (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Details that may be useful for software infobox

• List of live Mastodon instances

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danylstrype (talk • contribs) 12:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Listing languages?

On 2021-07-02T03:14:12 User:2409:4072:c:d172::ad8:a0a5 deleted the list of languages from the Mediawiki code for the infobox, leaving only the number. The text deleted was:

| language =

Albanian, Arabic, Armenian, Asturian, Basque,

Bengali, Breton, Bulgarian, Catalan, Simplified Chinese,

Traditional Chinese, Hong Kong Traditional Chinese, Corsican, Croatian, Czech,

Danish, Dutch, English, Esperanto, Estonian,

Finnish, French, Galician, Georgian, German,

Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Icelandic,

Ido, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Kabyle,

Kannada, Kazakh, Sorani (Kurdish), Korean, Latvian,

Lithuanian, Macedonian, Malay, Malayalam, Marathi,

Norwegian, Nynorsk, Occitan, Persian, Polish,

Portuguese, Brazilian Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Sardinian,

Serbian (Cyrillic), Serbian (Latin), Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish,

Argentine Spanish, Swedish, Sinhalese, Tamil, Telugu,

Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, Urdu, Vietnamese,

Welsh

The number on this list is 71, not 69. This discrepancy does not make sense to me:

• Are Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, and Hong Kong Traditional Chinese actually 3 languages or merely 3 slightly different ways of writing the same written language? (There are more than 3 modern "dialects" of spoken Chinese.)
• Are Norwegian and Nynorsk two distinct languages?
• Are Serbian (Cyrillic), Serbian (Latin) distinct languages, and how much do they differ from Croatian?
• How different is "Argentine Spanish" from "Spanish"?

If we accepted that only 2 of these 10 different "languages" are accepted as distinct, we could get 69. However, which 2?

Worse, I just checked the reference and found 81 listed there, starting with Afrikaans. I won't try to check the rest of the list to find other discrepancies.

Moreover, those 81 are "Translation" in addition to English. Thus, I am changing the number to 82.  ??? DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

repo URL moved

I'm not sure the proper way to update the repo URL within the article. Instead of tootsuite/mastodon, the project now lives in GitHub as mastodon/mastodon. The author/project founder mentions this here in a toot: https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/106562763879214795 riffic (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I fixed it: Below the URL is a pencil icon. I clicked on that. It took me to the Wikidata item for "Mastodon (Q27986619)" at Mastodon, 4.3.1 (in multiple languages), 5 October 2016, Wikidata Q27986619. I changed their Wikidata:P1324 (Source code repository, P1324) and Wikidata:P1401 (Bug tracking system, P1401) properties, as indicated, citing the toot that you cited as a Wikidata:P854 (reference URL, P854).

I love Wikidata. For a reference that's used only once, it's more work. However, for a reference that's used more that once, it becomes more valuable for many reasons. First, if there's an error or a broken link, fixing it in Wikidata fixes it for all uses. Secondly, I find myself adding information to Wikidata upon revisiting them. Also, the developer is listed as Eugen Rochko, Wikidata Q64876086, who has his own Wikidata item. This provides more information about him than you would likely get about such a person from a standard citation template. That becomes even more valuable with a name like John Smith, because it allows you to specify which "John Smith".

UNFORTUNATELY, it can be hard to get started with Wikidata. I was fortunate enough to attend hack-a-thons at Wikimania conferences, where I was able to get the help I needed to actually start using it. Wikidata has a Wikidata:Wikidata:Café, where you might be able to ask questions. I've not found that particularly useful. If you have a Wikidata question, you might try {{re|DavidMCEddy}}. I may not be able to help, but I have almost 10,000 edits in Wikidata since 2018 ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Additionally, I changed the Developer field in the info box to refer to the legal entity (Mastodon gGmbH) as the software developer. It was reverted by an IP editor and I reverted it back. Please discuss changes here before making another revert. I think it's appropriate to refer to the legal entity as the developer now. riffic (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If Mastodon gGmbH is a single person, I'd rather name the person. Partially because it's good practice to credit humans where possible, but also because saying that Mastodon was developed by Mastodon isn't really information. ApLundell (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it makes sense to follow the example set by Django (web framework) and to use the "Original author(s)" field in the info box, and to name the legal/organizational entity as the "Developer(s)". I'm not quite comfortable making these edits right now but if there are better ideas by all means let me know. riffic (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Trump's 'Truth Social'

@Lefty295: @Blackmail1807:

User:Lefty295: Why did you revert the following change by User:Blackmail1807:

Donald Trump's own social network Truth Social announced in 2021 is a fork of Mastodon, according to Mastodon's founder.

It seems to me to be notable, relevant, and appropriately placed.

I'm restoring it, modifying the wording to indicate that has not yet been officially launched but does seem to be operational and noting the report of license violation. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

References

The page is gaining pageviews after a redirect at Mastodon (band)

See the chart: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2019-08&end=2021-10&pages=Mastodon_Township,_Michigan%7CMastodon%7CMastodon_(band)%7CMastodon_discography%7CMastodon_(software) Greatder (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure the recent jump is due to "a redirect at Mastodon (band)"?

In reviewing the history there, it seems edits of Mastodon (band) included multiple references to "disambiguation" between 2020-11-21 and 2021-08-09. I went back to 2021-05-30 without finding when someone added "{{about|the heavy metal band|other uses|Mastodon (disambiguation)}}".

I added a similar "{{about|...|other uses|Mastodon (disambiguation)}}" to this article, but that doesn't seem to be the driver behind the recent jump.

Still, I think your plots and observation is interesting and instructive. Thanks for this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Move suggestion to "Mastodon (social media software)"

Mastodon (social media software) will help with finding and be more accurate. Greatder (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

unnecessary- I don't know of other software using its name. riffic (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this is partly correct, because most of people see Mastodon as a decentralized network and not merely a software used to run it. This is also true for their self-categorisation as "open source social network". --Märt Põder (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not what it is, though. Mastodon is a piece of server software used to access the Fediverse social media network. Rochko's talk about a "Mastodon network" is simply… tooting their own horn. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you also say Wikipedia is software? Most of Mastodon's users do not install it as a software, but use it as a web page, application or service to register as a user and access Mastodon's specific set of Fediverse's social media services (and maybe you can rightfully call this part of Fediverse "Mastodon's network"). I think using software as a disambiguation category here is not very explanatory for most of the readers as it wouldn't be for Wikipedia (although technically it might be true). --Märt Põder (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is a website which runs on the MediaWiki software. You do not call the World Wide Web the Apache or Nginx network either, even though those are very common pieces of server software. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. You're right. I would not call Wikipedia software.

Mastodon, MediaWiki, Apache and Nginx are software, Wikipedia is a website, the World Wide Web and the Fediverse are networks. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

People see mastodon as a alternative social media though Greatder (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NCDAB suggests that parenthetical disambiguators (the terms like "(software)" added to distinguish this topic from other topics with the same name) should be concise, but generally speaking similar topics should use similar disambiguators. Other applications of this sort commonly use "social network" as a disambiguator, for example Gab (social network), Hello (social network), Minds (social network), Path (social network), and Diaspora (social network). There are a few that use "app" or "website" but I don't think either one of those fits Mastodon, and I've only seen one other that uses "software", Vive (software). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Social network is acceptable. Please move to "Mastodon (social network) Greatder (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

'alt-tech'

Somebody has just edited the mastodon page to suggest that it is used for running 'at-tech' - 'social media platforms popular with the alt right or far right'. This is simply not true.

Suggest a revert. 171.192.6.36 (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

A number of "alt tech" far right sites use Mastodon software (or forks of it) for their infrastructure. But because the article covers both the software and the federated network of sites that run it — which are not federated with the mainstream of sites running Mastodon software — they're not a part of Mastodon the federated social network.

— Steve98052 (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

History

I read the page on the mastodon ceo and it contains some interesting history of mastodon that is missing here imho, eg on queer people. 2A02:A03F:663C:EA00:1023:CB4F:E710:4FC8 (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Mastodon (software) → Mastodon (social network) – Most people see Mastodon as a social network. Also, articles on other self-hosted social networks, such as Gab and Diaspora, use "(social network)" rather than "(software)" in their title. The article title "Mastodon (social network)" is more recognizable, natural, precise, consistent and in line with Wikipedia's article naming conventions and the guideline on disambiguating topics. There is a discussion on what the article's title should be. I have tried to move the article to this title, but the move has been reverted. The user who reverted my move told me in the edit summary to open a requested move. WPEditor42 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per naming conventions for similar articles, mentioned above. Patient Zero^talk 22:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mastodon being a social network is simply not the case. Other examples by nominator are not applicable: Gab is not federated, and Diaspora is arguably a much more homogenous network. It's also a WP:OSE-style argument. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I picked four of the article's secondary sources at random. All four referred to Mastodon primarily as a social network, not software. It is the more accurate disambiguator for our general readership. czar 02:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Toxicity on the platform content

@64.60.42.154 and BeywheelzLetItRip: Please discuss about the "toxicity on the platform" here. I have sent out a warning to the IP as they seem to be violating the 3RR warning. I have also reverted the version to the stable version. Thanks. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@64.60.42.154: This guideline to not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point exists. Please read it first. WP:CRITS is also useful. The removed content was relevant for the section. What is your intention to remove the content? Just because a social media has whiteness does not mean the content should be removed. The content might offend you, but I believe it should stay since it has a neutral point of view. — B. L. I. R. 18:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Whiteness is an arbitrary concept. Wikipedia is for facts. These are problems that exist on the larger fediverse and are not specific to the Mastodon problem. There are pages for ActivityPub and Fediverse that are better suited for these comments. Please cease adding these items without discussing their necessity. 64.60.42.154 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@64.60.42.154: Just because it is an arbitrary concept does not mean it is not a fact. Additionally, if this problem is mostly specific to Mastodon, it should be contained in the Mastodon article itself, not the fediverse nor the ActivityPub articles. The content was added by TheTranarchist, so I think they can give a better reason why the content should be included in this specific article. — B. L. I. R. 18:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Put as simply as possible, black people speaking out against a culture of whiteness on mastodon and discussion of how content moderation works on mastodon is relevant information in an article on mastodon. The information is verifiable and sourced, and this seems to chiefly be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from a WP:SPA. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit yet again because it is in the inappropriate section but more importantly, not properly sourced. Jonathan Flowers was improperly identified as a philosophy professor, and he did not claim "homophobic and racist" abuse to be a bigger problem than on Twitter; the whole section was wrought with such incongruence with the source it is citing. If it's to be re-added, it needs to be completely reworked and added underneath the "Comparison to Twitter" section as it is more relevant to that. 99.29.86.31 (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)