Talk:Distributed social network

Comparison concept change

I changed the comparison to "of software and protocols" instead of "of projects". Any opinions welcome. Toni Stoev (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Move comparison of projects to separate page

I suggest to move the comparison to a separate page as it is common with other topics. 14:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias-Christian Ott (talk • contribs)

Good suggestion. Toni Stoev (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am about to migrate section "Comparison of projects" to a separate article, as Matthias-Christian has suggested. I have created the new article. Toni Stoev (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I created a reference to the new article and deleted the table. Toni Stoev (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Project removal

• ownCloud: About to remove ownCloud entry from the table of comparison – not a distributed social network project, no federation. Toni Stoev (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Toni Stoev (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

ownCloud now supports federation, so I am about to put it back to the list, on the comparison page. Toni Stoev (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Toni Stoev (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Freenet: Freenet seems to be a very nice project, but its lack of federation support makes it irrelevant for the table of distributed social network projects. Please, anyone feeling competent on this topic, comment and/or argue. I intend to remove the Freenet entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toni Stoev (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed it. I considered the lack of [intent for] federation capabilities and the definition of a social networking service. Toni Stoev (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Noosfero: Noosfero is a social networking software project, very nice, but not for multimple intercommunicating sites. Reomving it, too. Toni Stoev (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Crabgrass: Crabgrass is a nice project, but not for distributed communicating sites. Removing it. Toni Stoev (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

External Links

External links are discouraged in the body of the article: Wikipedia:External links. I converted a bunch to references. I guess the ones that are left should be also be converted to references or removed if not important. Gravthuth (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. All links within the comparison table were internal or references until recently. I intend to make them again on next editing. Toni Stoev (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Did a couple.Toni Stoev (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored state of a project entry

Toni Stoev (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

DSNP is currently a protocol development project, and not a software project; although it has its software reference implementation. So I am changing its "Project" column entry to DSNP again. Toni Stoev (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Combine charts?

I started a page awhile ago here with a comparison chart for distributed social network applications. Can we combine these? Gravthuth (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Go ahead. Toni Stoev (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Gravthuth (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Distributed Networks vs Aggregation Services

How do distributed social networks "contrast" from aggregation services? Under this definition, appleseed is distributed, but diaspora is just an aggregator, yet both services aim to be self-hosted and both claim to be "distributed social networks." Binaryorganic (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Term "Distributed Social Network"

The term "distributed social network" was not coined in 2007 as the original page claimed. It has been around longer. Examples are easy to find.

http://bmannconsulting.com/blog/bmann/distributed-social-networking

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.71.126 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2008 dagonet (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

None of this is distributed, actually – Yes, they are

Thanks for porting the project list from GNU Social's Wiki over to Wikipedia, but I'm a bit confused by the use of the word distributed. These systems are or are willing to become decentralized and federated, but since they all store their own user data in a single place, they are not distributed in a computer science sense of the word. They would be distributed if data was being stored on several nodes, e.g. in a peer-to-peer architecture or in a distributed hashtable. Projects are being developed that are indeed distributed, so how do we distinguish those from the ones that are actually federated rather than distributed? I think this document describes very precisely the federated social web rather than distributed social networks which actually only exist in prototypical stage (PeerSoN, RetroShare, Tonika, status updates over GnuNet, PSYC over GnuNet). --lynX (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Could I second this, please? At the least, another column is needed listing the degree of decentralisation on each of these services. I would do it myself but hopefully someone else could do it much more quickly than I could do all the research. --Russell E (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispersed and federated are the nodes that comprise a distributed social network. The nodes may be distributed systems themselves. Data storing may be distributed among those nodes. Also, I am reminding that the projects are being compared for their software and/or protocols and not as services. Toni Stoev (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Federated?

Sorry I really don't get this alternative term and I never heard of it before, please provide an explanation (not just citation) or maybe we should remove it. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

W3C Launches Push for Social Web Application Interoperability

http://www.w3.org/2014/06/social.html.en

This information would be useful in the article, but since English is not my first language, I'm reluctant to do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.85.47.132 (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move to "Federated social network"

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sennecaster (Chat) 17:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Distributed social network → Federated social networkFederated social network – Most people and articles today refer to distributed social networks such as ActivityPub or AT Protocol as a federated social network, not a distributed social network. Renaming the article to "Federated social network" would help the article to gain more visibility and attention, especially considering the outdated state of the article. LemurianPatriot (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading of Beans 14:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 01:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I Agree. Heylenny (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Sociology and WikiProject Internet have been notified of this discussion. Reading of Beans 14:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – According to § Differences between distributed and federated networks, the terms are not synonymous. I'm uncertain whether "federated social networks" are a subset/subtopic (and this article is fine), or if they're two separate concepts (and "federated" should be split off); but in either case, this article shouldn't be moved.

I also don't see how renaming the article is supposed to help the article to gain more visibility and attention. The existing redirect from Federated social networkFederated social network means that anyone searching for that term is already sent to this article. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2024 (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.

Rewriting in sandbox

I am currently rewriting the article in my personal sandbox. I've just started so it's mostly filled with blank sections and copy-pasted content from mainspace but I just wanted to let people know. LemurianPatriot (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)