Talk:Friendica

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

Not Approved as suitable sources[edit]

These all appear to WP:SPS and are thus not suitable as sources for Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ahunt, thanks for your help in making this article abide strictly with the wikipedia principles. We will be working to improve it (the citations). Was the c't Magazine approved as suitable secondary source in your view? -- Abinoam Jr. msg 14:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be, but it isn't publicly available, so it is hard to see what it says. It can still be quoted from none-the-less. - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As this is described as a decentralized social network, with no corporate affiliation and based off of volunteers, it seems entirely irrational to dismiss citations from people, on the grounds that they support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.131.210 (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons that those references can't be used is not that they support it, but that the references are self-published and thus do not meet the criteria of reliable sources. - Ahunt (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations / Secondary Sources[edit]

The Future of Social Networking

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AbinoamJr (talk • contribs)

Who made this video and is it self-published or someone else posting copyrighted material? See WP:SPS and WP:COPYLINK. Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, I was confusing the concepts, sorry. I was thinking self-published material would be "the friendica related people (self)" publishing about itself. But, as I'm reading now, ANY kind of somebody "saying" something and publishing it by itself is a "self-published". Am I getting it right? So, what to say about articles in magazines? Is it a good suitable source? -- Abinoam Jr. msg 15:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as explained at WP:SPS people writing in blogs and then publishing it themselves without any editorial oversight are types of sources that cannot be used on Wikipedia. Sources based on the subject itself, like Ford about Ford cars, or Friendica about the Friendica project are fine for factual information like "it was founded on 1 July 2011", but not for opinions like "this is a great car" or "it is the best social network ever", as obviously they are biased. Interdependent third party refs are required to show that a subject is notable and thus should have a Wikipedia article. I hope that makes sense? - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's making sense indeed. About the video above, I thought it was an independent source because this publisher is not associated in any way with Friendica. And, it already has an article about it at wikipedia Adam_Kokesh. -- Abinoam Jr. msg 15:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then the video can be used as long as it isn't a copyright violation, meaning an unauthorized posting of the video by someone else on You Tube. As explained in WP:COPYLINK we can't cite copyright violations as refs, for legal reasons. - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Telephony endorsement[edit]

About this edit --> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friendica&diff=484423404&oldid=484407666

dyfet user is David Sugar and he is the main developer of GNU SIP Witch (http://www.gnu.org/software/sipwitch/). When endorsing Friendica in this blog entry http://ubuntuwicohan.blogspot.de/2011/07/why-friendika.html he is speaking in the name of the GNU Telephony Project as you can see at the project's milestone http://www.gnutelephony.org/index.php/GNU_Free_Call_Roadmap Friendica integration is there as one to be achieved.

More about David Sugar. http://libreplanet.org/wiki/LibrePlanet2012/Speakers#David_Sugar

I'll try to talk to David and tell him that at his blog there is not his full name and ask him to fix it. -- Abinoam Jr. msg 20:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be helpful, because as it reads right now it is just an anonymous blog and therefore can't be used as a ref. - Ahunt (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt, David was pretty fast in answering me. The GNU Telephony blog now has his full name over there. You can check it again http://ubuntuwicohan.blogspot.de/2011/07/why-friendika.html . -- Abinoam Jr. msg 02:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ahunt, Abinoam Jr. GNU Telephony's front page now mentions Friendica, I added the link. Hope that is acceptable now. user:maguf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.104.184 (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

maguf, I saw it. I fixed the link also. -- Abinoam Jr. msg 12:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good! - Ahunt (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable[edit]

I gave another source to prove Friendica is notable. I don't see any reason why it's not. Friendica is also listed in the list on Distributed social network. Of course the article is not ready yet, but that's the nature of Wikipedia. I'm going to remove the templates. They are not needed anymore. Jeroen (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to meet WP:N, so I think removing the tags was justified. Thanks for cleaning the article up. - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. --Jeroen (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot?[edit]

If a Friendia user can provide a screenshot that would be a great addition to the article and would let readers know what the interface looks like. Being free software the screenshot can go on Commons. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The interface is very configurable, the project having nearly a dozen themes that can be used, so no single screenshot would be completely representative of the "look" of Friendica, really. I am sure I can find a screenshot here somewhere, nonetheless. --Anthonybaldwin (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even a "typical" screenshot would help readers visualized the subject! - Ahunt (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the screenshot to fit in the box thingy. --Anthonybaldwin (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was just a formatting issue! Thanks for taking a screenshot. It does improve the article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

License[edit]

I think the license should be mentioned (seems to be common for software articles). I think it is the MIT license. --93.215.183.89 (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comparisons between Diaspora, Friendica, and other social networks[edit]

Please. I would like to share this article, if it were a bit of a better info aggregation point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.131.210 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons can only be done if we have references that compare the different social network services. Taking information about each subject and then and writing comparisons is not permitted on Wikipedia, as it constitutes original research and synthesis. If you have references that actually compare the services then please do post them here and we can incorporate them. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy[edit]

Friendica has an emphasis on extensive privacy settings and easy server installation.

And still, their site can't work with HTTPS? I think this information is false then, may I remove it? A site that does not have HTTPS can't say that it cares about privacy.--200.223.199.146 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a valid criticism about the friendica.com website. The features page says the software uses encryption where supported, and clearly they overlooked their own server. Miqrogroove (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, Miqrogroove.--200.223.199.146 (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The friendi.ca web domain now enforces HTTPS and offers the same feature through its software. While this reverses the concerns from a year ago, I find the original "emphasis" description was highly subjective. This software does offer privacy settings, but the settings are neither bug-free nor easy to use without some basic experience. Miqrogroove (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook Federation Deprecated[edit]

Friendica is unable to federate with Facebook as of August 2015 according to GitHub. "Facebook connectors aren't supported anymore." This conflicts with several statements in the article about integrating contacts from Facebook and trying to federate with as many networks as possible. Miqrogroove (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friendica. 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) 04:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Citation needed" unnecessary?[edit]

>Because users are distributed across many servers, their "addresses" consist of a username, the "@" symbol, and the domain name of the Friendica instance in the same manner email addresses are formed.[citation needed]

I don't think the citation needed here is that necessary, as this is a pretty basic concept in the fediverse/distributed internet. Baldersmash (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, removed. - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friendica&oldid=1207312631"