Egun on Boodarwun/Gnangarra,
You are righth in one thing: it is very difficult to prove a point only from
one puntual statistic. That's why I have been tracking statistics for a long
time, because patterns are here the most important thing. Neverthless, there is
only one way to know if the point me and some other users in this thread are
rising is valid: experimenting. @Wikipedia should try something: tweeting 6-7
times a day, with varied topics, "on this day" like tweets, varying timezones
and even curiosities about how Wikipedia works
(https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki/status/1614045362985082881 2 million
impressions in 9 hours). Then, after -let's say- one month, if the results
(engagement, followers, retention) are better, it would be quite obvious that
there's a point changing the social media strategy. If not, if engagement is
the same, no obvious uprise in followers or RTs is visible, the current
strategy could be validated.
Me, personally, I'm ready to help the Communications Team with this task,
proposing intercultural items that could be tweeted and promoted. If they want
help, they know where to go for it. Again, I think that following the same
pattern is a bad communication strategy (as we can see by our own eyes) and
trying something new could be better. Is up to the communications team to
aknowledge this and give a try.
Sincerely,
Galder
From: Gnangarra
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
Kaya Galder
The assumption that despite there being a wider audience the interests of those
audience members is exactly the same, if that was true why have multiple
channels. What I am saying is that in different communities that doesnt and
will never hold true. Using statistics to compare the two is the issue and
then complaining about different audience responses to the same event being
caused by those posting to the channel. Its not the channel operators, it's the
underlying expectation that all audiences are the same and react exactly the
same way every time even as the audience is increasing by many orders of
magnitude.
Boodarwun
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 at 02:06, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
mailto:galder...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
@Gnangarra: I would doubt on the idea that Pelé is not relevant to the English
audience, as it was the most visited article by far that day
(https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org=all-access=2022-12-29=),
and the second most visited next day, just after the less known Andrew Tate.
Also, the account is not ENGLISH Wikipedia. Is called Wikipedia, so it should
take into account, even if it tweets only about English Wikipedia (as pointed
by @Xavier Dengra) a global audience. Because, again, the goal is "By 2030,
Wikimedia is to become the central infrastructure for Free Knowledge on the
Internet.". Not only for US centered people, but by a global audience. Even
with that in mind, Pelé was the most visited article in English Wikipedia.
@Yaroslav: Basque Wikipedia is not one of the few accounts tweeting about Pelé,
and in perspective, there are more Basque tweeting accounts per speaker, than
there are for other larger languages. We are not competing with major news
outlets; we are competing to be "the central infrastructure for Free Knowledge
on the Internet". Wikipedia is doing well on that: nearly 2,5 million visits in
two days for the article about Pelé only in English. I think that there may be
very few web services having 2,5 million visits for a page about Pelé in two
days, if there's any. Also, next day the most visited article was about Andrew
Tate. So, you are right: we are not a news outlet, but we are visited according
to the news. Any strategy that doesn't have this in mind, will fail.
You also ask how many tweets a day would be enough. I don't have an answer for
this. I would like the communications team to come with one, but they don't
seem either to have one. I don't think that tweeting every hour is better, but
I'll explain why one tweet per day is a bad strategy, based only in what we
know about the Twitter algorithm:
* The Twitter algorithm tends to show a tweet to followers and others more
often if it gets more engagements (RTs, likes, comments...). So, maximizing
engagements seems a something positive if we want to reach to new people.
* It also shows an account more often if the user interacts with it. If
someone likes, RTs or comments a tweet, it seems that this account will be
shown again soon. That's why you see more often tweets from your friends than
others. And that's why ideological bubbles are created.
* If people are engaged with a tweet, it will be shown more regularly after
a tweet by other people you follow once you scroll down. This is why if you
open a tweet by a far-right politician, you will see below other tweets by
