Talk:ActivityPub

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ActivityPub article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance). Computer science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles 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.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet Cleanup : Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention Copyedit : Computing Expand : Computer science Infobox : Computer science articles without infoboxes Maintain : Timeline of computing 2020–present Photo : Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists) Computing articles needing images Stubs : Computer science stubs Unreferenced : WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs Project-related : Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

It is my intent to begin writing the text for the ActivityPub page to eventually have ActivityPub have its own page instead of redirecting to Pump.io as it currently does. Algotruneman (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The articles linked in the "See Also" section may not contain references to ActivityPub. Algotruneman (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

If not, that's because those pages need updating too, to reflect the fact that the ActivityPub spec has been published, and developers are busy working on implementing it. Danylstrype (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

If a particular entry on this list is deemed not notable enough then remove that entry specifically. Stop removing the entire list. Many entries on here such as Pleroma and PeerTube are quite notable. If a short list of examples is desired perhaps we could instead rename the section to "Notable Implementations" rather than "List of Implementations" and include some more detailed entries for a few key items that we decide are major examples. The short-list that this section keeps getting reverted to is a strange mix of major and minor implementations and creates the false impression that the standard is not used by anything notable but Mastodon, which is not the case. The last reversion cited the guidelines on stand-alone lists to justify it. This is not a stand-alone list. Even if the guideline applied, this list meets CSC criteria 3: A short list less than 32K of every verifiable member of the group. --50.255.129.225 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I've not removed the entire list. WP:BURDEN on Plemora and PeerTube. Reminder: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Please add reliable sources (independent, third party) establishing notability, or possibly link more specifically to the activitypub.rocks list in external section. activitypub.rocks is part of W3C and the ActivityPub standard. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
• WP:EL too. The software listed should have its own article or be expected to be created soon, if WP:REDLINK. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory" rationale, but IMHO it's a silly excuse for removing information from a Wikipedia article when a) it's a non-controversial fact about the subject, and b) removing it results in an article that leaves readers misinformed about the subject. This is a common problem on articles about new internet tech, because it is too new to have generated many (accurate) secondary sources (see the talk page for Mastodon for an example). Having a representative list of ActivityPub implementations is necessary to give the reader an accurate impression of the variety of software supporting ActivityPub, and the current truncated list does not achieve this.

Having ActivityPub support mentioned the homepage or source code repository (on GH or wherever) of a project on the list is sufficient to ensure this article's accuracy. If this is not sufficient for Wikipedia's sources standard, or formatting standard, I would appreciate an explanation of why. --Danylstrype (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

List cleaned up again: Special:Diff/965228693. The external links point to a more extensive list, already. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Some entries in the list have less than 10 users, and some have less than 100 users. I don't think they are all notable in Wikipedia. I think we should define a minimal user amount a software should have to be on this list. Jnmths (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pump.io is a predecessor to activitypub, but should not be listed as an implementation. Baldersmash (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The official documentation of W3C is also not listing Pump.io as THE source of the ActivityPub Protocol! They refer on the ActivityStreams 2.0 data format as its base. See [| ActivityPub W3C recommendation] --Vilby (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nextcloud doesn't have any activitypub implementation, am i missing something or should this be fixed? 92.250.97.24 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://nextcloud.com/blog/no-need-to-trust-musk-we-go-federated-with-nextcloud-social/ 95.90.241.175 (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Njradcliffe and HLHJ: User:David Gerard and User:Maddy from Celeste are claiming that ActivityPub is WP:SPS and is therefore unreliable and cannot be cited in the Wikipedia article on Mastodon (social network) -- and presumably anyplace else. See talk:Mastodon (social network)#Tagging re. {{unreliable sources}}. If you agree this is appropriate, do nothing. If you think, like I do, that this is inappropriate censorship, then I recommend you join the discussion on the Mastodon talk page and elsewhere. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, DavidMCEddy. Sorry for taking so long to reply. I guess I don't log into Wikipedia all that often, though I thought it mailed alerts. I'll check my settings. Much as I love Wikipedia, I have always thought its tertiary sources rule is a bit odd and seems to be trying to do two different things (one more about self-promotion etc., and the other about reliability). I'll take a look at the Mastodon talk page, but it may be that it's all moved on now. Njradcliffe (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess I didn't have the right notification settings. Apologies again, DavidMCEddy. Njradcliffe (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've read through it now DavidMCEddy. (It's been archived, unsurprisingly.) Old news by now. I suspect I fall between you and User:David Gerard, tbh. I agree that there was (is?) probably over-reliance and better sources are better. But with recent things, tertiary sources are often unavailable, and if there's ever an area where reliable sources are likely to be blogs and microposts, it's probably these areas. I generally try to avoid this kind of metawar, so I'll leave it there... Njradcliffe (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

WP:SPS is pretty clear and does not mean "unreliable", this is your interpretation and not other people's. However, a third party source is vastly preferable and adding one is a good way not to have an SPS label - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Code: https://codeberg.org/grunfink/snac2

Author: https://comam.es/snac/grunfink

2003:DD:6F4B:5E34:825:1895:73E3:FBBA (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Activity pub has many implementation iissues including:

- Sending cross instance data is super inefficient. There is no request batching and a new message has to be sent to each person seeing said message resulting in tons of lag and delay in messages showing up.

- Fake instances allow easy DDOSing of instances by making fake instances which follow a lot of accounts and the above issue makes this very effective.

- Encryption is deployed in public messages which is totally unnecessary and causes issues.

- And more.

There has been critisism about these and other design issues that activitypub has and it has been a barrier in the adoption of the technology so adding a section detailing the critism would be a good fit. H44dyss9900 (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

kbin claims to support ActivityPub, https://kbin.pub/en but this needs investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.37.22 (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, kbin.social able to federates with lemmy.world https://lemmy.world/post/594445 Dorakuthelekor (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'll be reverting last 2 edits done by User:Danger89 to lgv 1181824829, Seems like he is behind the kbin fork Dorakuthelekor (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, so? If I'm not allowed to add this page, then feel free to revert the revert. Danger89 (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Or are you saying I need to create bogus user accounts..? That also don't make it better. Danger89 (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it really matters anymore, kbin's dead so mbin getting some more attention (being the unofficial successor to that project) isn't that much of a big deal as long as it's not just obviously an advertisement. LemurianPatriot (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The inadvertent DDoSing is specifically a Mastodon problem, not a problem with AP as a protocol. That section belongs in the Mastodon article, not the AP article. Danylstrype (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

If a multi-users software requires 1000+ users to be included, which number applies for single-user instance like snac, Hollo, and GoToSocial? Git repo star number? Active instance number?

Stars number on Codeberg repo: Snac: 400+ stars Hollo: 400+ stars GoToSocial: 600+ stars

Some fedi software with 1000+ users only have less than 20 active instances and even less stars on their git repo. Christian Elbrianno (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply