@strypey Wikipedia disputes are almost always over /references/ rather than /arguments/. Don't try to /convince/, but find /acceptable sources/ backing claims. There are some cases where things devolve further, but that's reasonably rare.
Look for a third-party source that says "Mastodon instances can share content with other open standards social networks including GNU Social, OStatus..." etc. Mashable, Vox, Forbes, Ars Technica, Business Insider. Better, a half-dozen or so.
@strypey It's not the claims, per se, but the /sourcing/ of the claims that matter.
E.g., go back to the original edits of the Jarl Mohn article, NPR's current president. I created that when I realised there wasn't one, and immediately got a bunch of "not good enough" responses. So I made it good enough. If that means four cites establishing that he is in fact the fucking president of NPR, so be it.
Especially: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jarl_Mohn&oldid=650132220
Doc Edward Morbius ❌