Talk:Pixelfed

Some sources that would be useful to establish notability
, please find below some sources I found that might be useful to you for the purpose of further establishing notability. Additionally, the "instances" section might be one of the this that appear to be an advertisement (we usually only mention things like instances if the instances are in-and-of-themselves notable, apart from that just mentioning there's many suffices). I'm not very familiar with software, however, so I suggest you learn from how the Mastodon (software) article uses sources/organizes its content to make this article read less promotionally. Additionally, I'd recommend you spend a few days working on the article. Editors will tend to stick to a previous draft denial if only a few hours have passed (in my experience). Hope this helps.

. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  13:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see significant coverage in any of these sources. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, . A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * mildly concerned about Pixelfed contributors working on this article, WP:Conflict of interest and it reads like it
 * https://mastodon.social/@pixelfed/112201788704576893 Jaidenstar (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources currently in the article are from Wired and The Verge, among others. I'd consider this sufficient coverage. Edit: This was in reference to the recent deletion proposal, and I misread the timestamp on this.  19:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Arghh maybe I should turn my focus on other topics. Btw is this article (https://thenewleafjournal.com/an-early-review-of-pixelfed-instagram-alternative/) notable? If so, maybe I can add it. Bertverse (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That looks like a WP:BLOG post so probably wouldn't be considered a WP:RELIABLE source so won't help establish notability. Yes, please, do yourself a favor and don't try to get something in the encyclopedia that doesn't meet our notability criteria. It may just be WP:TOOSOON for this one. To prevent the spread of misinformation, we don't cover topics until they've been well covered elsewhere. There are many articles that need improvement. Improving existing articles is usually the best way to get started contributing to Wikipedia. ~Kvng (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:THREE
Please review these references (I feel this draft now meets WP:NSOFT and if I were to be sufficiently WP:BOLD today, I'd move it into article space):



edit: oops I didn't sign my comment. riffic (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Riffic I don't see "Pixelfed" when I search content at any of these sources. What am I missing? ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * three screenshots of "pixelfed" within these texts. riffic (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Riffic, thanks. The first two appear to be passing mentions so not significant coverage. The third is not clearly a reliable source (there's not always good editorial control on conference proceedings). ~Kvng (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the review. I'll continue to scour for significant coverage in reliable sources. I wish this wasn't such a difficult thing for software like this. riffic (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

deleting admin please read
Please don't delete this draft - it will eventually be updated to meet inclusion criteria in main article space. References for this are admittedly hard to gather but there is definitely interest in getting this included. riffic (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

More sources from mainstream "notable" press
granted, notability of a source's publisher is *not* a criteria for inclusion but the fact that a publisher is reliable. nevertheless, here are some additional sources that can be worked into the article to establish notability of the subject:


 * https://www.pcmag.com/picks/quitting-twitter-try-these-alternative-social-media-networks
 * https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-starts-its-own-twitter-alternative-mastodon-1848861387

I think I might step outside of the AfC submission process, be bold, ignore all rules, and just move this draft into main article space on my own initiative. I'm more than happy to defend this article if it comes through to any of the deletion processes and I have a pretty good track record in arguing for inclusion. riffic (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * the verge : https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/23/23734581/flipboard-bluesky-pixelfed-federated-networks-activitypub-at-protocol Taniki (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * wired : https://www.wired.com/story/migrate-move-instagram-to-pixelfed-no-tracking-fediverse/ Taniki (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Taniki here is another one https://www.theverge.com/24063290/fediverse-explained-activitypub-social-media-open-protocol
 * referenced by eff: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/02/breadth-fediverse Semitones (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * More than a passing mention: https://alternativeto.net/news/2023/6/pixelfed-introduces-new-feature-allowing-instagram-users-to-import-their-content/ Semitones (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * and another, although this one appears to be a blog
 * https://www.coywolf.news/social/instagram-alternative-pixelfed-ios-app/ Semitones (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * still trying to find things that are WP:RELIABLE and collect them here (so not WP:BLOG Semitones (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of these may be of use: I will come back and check if they are more than passing mentions when I have time https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=pixelfed+fediverse Semitones (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Freie-soziale-Medien-Fotos-teilen-mit-dem-werbefreien-Pixelfed-7250370.html in German, reputable magazine Semitones (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * OKO.press : https://oko.press/witajcie-w-wolnym-swiecie-fediverse
 * OKO.press : https://oko.press/facebook-cenzura-konfederacja

About OKO.press — notable relatively mainstream news portal in Poland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OKO.press — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.181.96.67 (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Another source for notability
Puvia, E., Monteleone, V., Fulantelli, G. and Taibi, D. "Facing the Appeal of Social Networks: Methodologies and Tools to Support Students towards a Critical Use of the Web." DOI: 10.5220/0009571105670573 In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2020) - Volume 1, pages 567-573 ISBN: 978-989-758-417-6 LingLass (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Page Rewrite / Restructure for encyclopedia?
Some people were saying over on Mastodon that this page looks more promotional than encyclopedic. I can kind of see their point, although I didn't notice it at first. What do others think? Should we restructure, like "intro, history, etc"? Sorry I'm on mobile at the moment. Semitones (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I could live with the structure, wouldn't object if someone wants to try restructuring. Certainly, some copyediting is required. Not least, this line: "Using Pixelfed has been discussed in books and conference proceedings.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31]" Yes, maybe some of these references should be incorporated into the article, but this is not the 'encyclopedic' way to do it. Ben Aveling 09:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)