[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l]

Hi Justice,

As the @euwikipedia "cannot even have a lookalike audience", which is your 
threshold of representativeness?

Because I provided in the same thread on Meta the accurate data of @Viquipedia 
(Catalan), for which we have 40K followers and hundreds of monthly article link 
clicks, being the 4th most language followed across versions of Wikipedia in 
this social network.

Will we need to provide Arabic's and Bahasa Indonesia's metrics (the 2nd and 
3th with the biggest impact) so that is it legit or "lookalike audience" enough 
for the comms team to make transparent whatever data they generate from the 
Wikipedia's Twitter account? And pay attention that I refer to it as 
"Wikipedia's" and not as "English Wikipedia's": which is a topic that for a 
long time I've wanted to bring up. Is the comms teams considering it the global 
or the language-specific one? Because I feel that the vague definition of this 
Twitter account is being used one way or another to satisfy different 
reasonings (article content vs outreach, project vs institution).

I'd like to see that, given the ongoing obscurity and disdain to provide info 
on very valid claims, at least we could find a compromise. Even if it is as a 
minimal appreciation and deference for the volunteers that spend their free 
time to run accounts in several other languages. That compromise can easily 
become the basic monthly raw data offered by Twitter Analytics, so that 
everyone can further calculate, rethink or compare their needs, impacts and 
conclusions.
Kind regards,

Xavier Dengra

Actiu dt, ag 2, 2022 a 22:03, Justice Okai-Allotey  va 
escriure:

> HI Galder,
>
> My challenge is you trying to use the number of interactions in a month on 
> Twitter as a yardstick for Wikipedia's success on that platform and that's a 
> wrong premise to start from in all honesty.
>
> And the fact that you use @euwikipedia as the baseline is even more 
> problematic for me. EUWikipedia has 7K plus followers compared to 600K plus 
> followers for Wikipedia.
>
> The audience is vastly different. Wikipedia is an English based channel as 
> compared to Basque for @euwikipedia.
>
> I don't see how they can even have a lookalike audience to make that 
> comparison.
>
> Regards,
> Justice.
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 6:15 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
>  wrote:
>
>> Hi Justice,
>> I'm not trying to measure two accounts. I'm trying to know the number of 
>> interactions in the last 28 days from @wikipedia, as Lauren claimed that 
>> they are using that number when reporting. But it seems that getting that 
>> number is now impossible.
>>
>> It's the only thing I'm asking now, because Lauren claimed that the number 
>> of interactions was the metric they are using to measure the success of the 
>> strategy.
>>
>> If someone at the Communications Team does know the number of interactions 
>> in the last month, we could know if @wikipedia is succesful or not. We know 
>> that @euwikipedia is succesful by THAT STANDARD, the one proposed by Lauren 
>> to measure their work. Is not the one we use at @euwikipedia, as there are 
>> other relevant factors, related to audiences and sociolinguistics. Is 
>> @wikipedia who should support the claim they made two weeks ago, not me.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Galder
>>
>> 2022(e)ko abu. 2(a) 19:50 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Justice Okai-Allotey 
>> ):
>>
>>> Hi Galder,
>>>
>>> I have been reading the back and forth between you and Lauren, and I think 
>>> we are making a mistake by using two completely different pages audiences 
>>> to use as a reference.
>>>
>>> I don't think the account you reference has the same audience as the 
>>> Wikipedia page, so it would be a mistake to use whatever metrics to make 
>>> assumptions or make absolute statements. As long as the audience is 
>>> different, there will be very different metrics, and the so-called industry 
>>> metrics are not the holy grail.
>>>
>>> In other to make informed comments about any account metrics we first have 
>>> to know what kind of metrics they are collecting and what success looks 
>>> like regardless of each metric collected.
>>>
>>> Vanity metrics like they say in this day and age is not all that social 
>>> media managers are looking for when they managing pages.
>>>
>>> As a social media manager likes and engagement may not mean anything to me 
>>> but probably conversions will and this may not fully show in the metrics 
>>> because those may not be the channels we are using to measure conversions.
>>>
>>> Industry standards are changing on a regular as far as managing social 
>>> media accounts are concerned.
>>>
>>> Thank You.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Justice.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 3:51 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
 Dear Lauren,
 That's plainly false: the "industry standard" you are using to measure is 
 not related to Twitter engagement measure, because one uses impressions 
 and the other followers. So comparing one measure 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Justice Okai-Allotey]

HI Galder,

My challenge is you trying to use the number of interactions in a month on
Twitter as a yardstick for Wikipedia's success on that platform and that's
a wrong premise to start from in all honesty.

And the fact that you use @euwikipedia as the baseline is even more
problematic for me. EUWikipedia has 7K plus followers compared to 600K plus
followers for Wikipedia.

The audience is vastly different. Wikipedia is an English based channel as
compared to Basque for @euwikipedia.

I don't see how they can even have a lookalike audience to make that
comparison.

Regards,
Justice.



On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 6:15 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Justice,
> I'm not trying to measure two accounts. I'm trying to know the number of
> interactions in the last 28 days from @wikipedia, as Lauren claimed that
> they are using that number when reporting. But it seems that getting that
> number is now impossible.
>
> It's the only thing I'm asking now, because Lauren claimed that the number
> of interactions was the metric they are using to measure the success of the
> strategy.
>
> If someone at the Communications Team does know the number of interactions
> in the last month, we could know if @wikipedia is succesful or not. We know
> that @euwikipedia is succesful by THAT STANDARD, the one proposed by Lauren
> to measure their work. Is not the one we use at @euwikipedia, as there are
> other relevant factors, related to audiences and sociolinguistics. Is
> @wikipedia who should support the claim they made two weeks ago, not me.
>
> Thanks,
> Galder
>
> 2022(e)ko abu. 2(a) 19:50 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Justice
> Okai-Allotey ):
>
> Hi Galder,
>
> I have been reading the back and forth between you and Lauren, and I think
> we are making a mistake by using two completely different pages audiences
> to use as a reference.
>
> I don't think the account you reference has the same audience as the
> Wikipedia page, so it would be a mistake to use whatever metrics to make
> assumptions or make absolute statements. As long as the audience is
> different, there will be very different metrics, and the so-called industry
> metrics are not the holy grail.
>
> In other to make informed comments about any account metrics we first have
> to know what kind of metrics they are collecting and what success looks
> like regardless of each metric collected.
>
> Vanity metrics like they say in this day and age is not all that social
> media managers are looking for when they managing pages.
>
> As a social media manager likes and engagement may not mean anything to me
> but probably conversions will and this may not fully show in the metrics
> because those may not be the channels we are using to measure conversions.
>
> Industry standards are changing on a regular as far as managing social
> media accounts are concerned.
>
> Thank You.
>
> Regards,
> Justice.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 3:51 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Lauren,
> That's plainly false: the "industry standard" you are using to measure is
> not related to Twitter engagement measure, because one uses impressions and
> the other followers. So comparing one measure to the other is not
> posssible, and we can't claim that we are above industry standards with the
> data you are providing.
>
> You can skip this conversation, you can report to whoever you want, but
> you can't claim that the numbers are correct, because that is false.
>
> Sincerely,
> Galder
>
>
>
>
> 2022(e)ko abu. 2(a) 17:24 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson <
> ldickin...@wikimedia.org>):
>
> Hi Galder,
>
> Respectfully, we use Twitter's definition of engagement rate
> .
> Over the last 28 day period, the Wikipedia account garnered a 3.0%
> engagement rate. On Meta-Wiki
> ,
> I previously shared several resources that confirm this is above industry
> standards, as I thought you were asking as a point of interest. The
> conversation, since, steered into an 'apples and oranges
> ' comparison of two
> different accounts with different strategies, audiences, and goals.
>
> Again, we will be discussing our social media strategy with members of the
> Wikimedia communities on the Communications Committee in the near future.
> For this discussion, I believe it has become circular and detracts from our
> important work. I hope we can leave things at a place of respectful
> agreement (or disagreement).
>
> Lauren
> *Lauren Dickinson (she/her)*
> Senior Communications Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:32 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello again,
> A couple of weeks ago this conversation was moved to Meta
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Hi Justice,I'm not trying to measure two accounts. I'm trying to know the number of interactions in the last 28 days from @wikipedia, as Lauren claimed that they are using that number when reporting. But it seems that getting that number is now impossible.It's the only thing I'm asking now, because Lauren claimed that the number of interactions was the metric they are using to measure the success of the strategy.If someone at the Communications Team does know the number of interactions in the last month, we could know if @wikipedia is succesful or not. We know that @euwikipedia is succesful by THAT STANDARD, the one proposed by Lauren to measure their work. Is not the one we use at @euwikipedia, as there are other relevant factors, related to audiences and sociolinguistics. Is @wikipedia who should support the claim they made two weeks ago, not me.Thanks,Galder2022(e)ko abu. 2(a) 19:50 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Justice Okai-Allotey ):Hi Galder,I have been reading the back and forth between you and Lauren, and I think we are making a mistake by using two completely different pages audiences to use as a reference.I don't think the account you reference has the same audience as the Wikipedia page, so it would be a mistake to use whatever metrics to make assumptions or make absolute statements. As long as the audience is different, there will be very different metrics, and the so-called industry metrics are not the holy grail. In other to make informed comments about any account metrics we first have to know what kind of metrics they are collecting and what success looks like regardless of each metric collected.Vanity metrics like they say in this day and age is not all that social media managers are looking for when they managing pages.As a social media manager likes and engagement may not mean anything to me but probably conversions will and this may not fully show in the metrics because those may not be the channels we are using to measure conversions.Industry standards are changing on a regular as far as managing social media accounts are concerned.Thank You.Regards,Justice.On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 3:51 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  wrote:Dear Lauren,That's plainly false: the "industry standard" you are using to measure is not related to Twitter engagement measure, because one uses impressions and the other followers. So comparing one measure to the other is not posssible, and we can't claim that we are above industry standards with the data you are providing.You can skip this conversation, you can report to whoever you want, but you can't claim that the numbers are correct, because that is false.Sincerely,Galder2022(e)ko abu. 2(a) 17:24 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson ):Hi Galder,Respectfully, we use Twitter's definition of engagement rate. Over the last 28 day period, the Wikipedia account garnered a 3.0% engagement rate. On Meta-Wiki, I previously shared several resources that confirm this is above industry standards, as I thought you were asking as a point of interest. The conversation, since, steered into an 'apples and oranges' comparison of two different accounts with different strategies, audiences, and goals.Again, we will be discussing our social media strategy with members of the Wikimedia communities on the Communications Committee in the near future. For this discussion, I believe it has become circular and detracts from our important work. I hope we can leave things at a place of respectful agreement (or disagreement).LaurenLauren Dickinson (she/her)Senior Communications ManagerWikimedia FoundationOn Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:32 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  wrote:






Hello again,

A couple of weeks ago this conversation was moved to Meta. There Lauren,
 from the Social Media team provided a couple of numbers to show how @Wikipedia handle on Twitter is doing "above the industry standards". The problem is that this numbers are plainly false. The team is dividing the number of interactions by the number of impressions,
 instead of the number of followers, that is what the metric was asking for.




I have asked there for the exact data on impressions, in order to calculate the real impact, but once the team has seen that their numbers are wrong, they are using distraction tactics in order to bury the problem.






So, as moving it to Meta seems like a move to forget about this, I would like to discuss the topic again. Can someone in the WMF provide the number of interactions we had in the last 28 days so we can see if, indeed, we are "above the industry standards"?




Thanks




Galder



From: The Cunctator 
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 1:55 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
 


I'm glad this conversation is moving over to meta-wiki. I hope 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Justice Okai-Allotey]

Hi Galder,

I have been reading the back and forth between you and Lauren, and I think
we are making a mistake by using two completely different pages audiences
to use as a reference.

I don't think the account you reference has the same audience as the
Wikipedia page, so it would be a mistake to use whatever metrics to make
assumptions or make absolute statements. As long as the audience is
different, there will be very different metrics, and the so-called industry
metrics are not the holy grail.

In other to make informed comments about any account metrics we first have
to know what kind of metrics they are collecting and what success looks
like regardless of each metric collected.

Vanity metrics like they say in this day and age is not all that social
media managers are looking for when they managing pages.

As a social media manager likes and engagement may not mean anything to me
but probably conversions will and this may not fully show in the metrics
because those may not be the channels we are using to measure conversions.

Industry standards are changing on a regular as far as managing social
media accounts are concerned.

Thank You.

Regards,
Justice.


On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 3:51 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Lauren,
> That's plainly false: the "industry standard" you are using to measure is
> not related to Twitter engagement measure, because one uses impressions and
> the other followers. So comparing one measure to the other is not
> posssible, and we can't claim that we are above industry standards with the
> data you are providing.
>
> You can skip this conversation, you can report to whoever you want, but
> you can't claim that the numbers are correct, because that is false.
>
> Sincerely,
> Galder
>
>
>
>
> 2022(e)ko abu. 2(a) 17:24 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson <
> ldickin...@wikimedia.org>):
>
> Hi Galder,
>
> Respectfully, we use Twitter's definition of engagement rate
> .
> Over the last 28 day period, the Wikipedia account garnered a 3.0%
> engagement rate. On Meta-Wiki
> ,
> I previously shared several resources that confirm this is above industry
> standards, as I thought you were asking as a point of interest. The
> conversation, since, steered into an 'apples and oranges
> ' comparison of two
> different accounts with different strategies, audiences, and goals.
>
> Again, we will be discussing our social media strategy with members of the
> Wikimedia communities on the Communications Committee in the near future.
> For this discussion, I believe it has become circular and detracts from our
> important work. I hope we can leave things at a place of respectful
> agreement (or disagreement).
>
> Lauren
> *Lauren Dickinson (she/her)*
> Senior Communications Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:32 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello again,
> A couple of weeks ago this conversation was moved to Meta
> .
> There Lauren, from the Social Media team provided a couple of numbers to
> show how @Wikipedia handle on Twitter is doing "above the industry
> standards". The problem is that this numbers are plainly false. The team is
> dividing the number of interactions by the number of impressions, instead
> of the number of followers, that is what the metric was asking for.
>
> I have asked there for the exact data on impressions, in order to
> calculate the real impact, but once the team has seen that their numbers
> are wrong, they are using distraction tactics in order to bury the problem.
>
> So, as moving it to Meta seems like a move to forget about this, I would
> like to discuss the topic again. Can someone in the WMF provide the number
> of interactions we had in the last 28 days so we can see if, indeed, we are
> "above the industry standards"?
>
> Thanks
>
> Galder
> --
> *From:* The Cunctator 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2022 1:55 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> I'm glad this conversation is moving over to meta-wiki. I hope the
> communications staff will recognize their job should be to facilitate the
> volunteers to do the work when it comes to anything other than speaking for
> the Foundation.
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 2:22 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Lauren, I have followed there, because I think we are measuring two
> very different things when talking about engagement.
>
> Have a good day
> Galder
>
> 2022(e)ko uzt. 18(a) 19:48 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson <
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Dear Lauren,That's plainly false: the "industry standard" you are using to measure is not related to Twitter engagement measure, because one uses impressions and the other followers. So comparing one measure to the other is not posssible, and we can't claim that we are above industry standards with the data you are providing.You can skip this conversation, you can report to whoever you want, but you can't claim that the numbers are correct, because that is false.Sincerely,Galder2022(e)ko abu. 2(a) 17:24 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson ):Hi Galder,Respectfully, we use Twitter's definition of engagement rate. Over the last 28 day period, the Wikipedia account garnered a 3.0% engagement rate. On Meta-Wiki, I previously shared several resources that confirm this is above industry standards, as I thought you were asking as a point of interest. The conversation, since, steered into an 'apples and oranges' comparison of two different accounts with different strategies, audiences, and goals.Again, we will be discussing our social media strategy with members of the Wikimedia communities on the Communications Committee in the near future. For this discussion, I believe it has become circular and detracts from our important work. I hope we can leave things at a place of respectful agreement (or disagreement).LaurenLauren Dickinson (she/her)Senior Communications ManagerWikimedia FoundationOn Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:32 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  wrote:






Hello again,

A couple of weeks ago this conversation was moved to Meta. There Lauren,
 from the Social Media team provided a couple of numbers to show how @Wikipedia handle on Twitter is doing "above the industry standards". The problem is that this numbers are plainly false. The team is dividing the number of interactions by the number of impressions,
 instead of the number of followers, that is what the metric was asking for.




I have asked there for the exact data on impressions, in order to calculate the real impact, but once the team has seen that their numbers are wrong, they are using distraction tactics in order to bury the problem.






So, as moving it to Meta seems like a move to forget about this, I would like to discuss the topic again. Can someone in the WMF provide the number of interactions we had in the last 28 days so we can see if, indeed, we are "above the industry standards"?




Thanks




Galder



From: The Cunctator 
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 1:55 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
 


I'm glad this conversation is moving over to meta-wiki. I hope the communications staff will recognize their job should be to facilitate the volunteers to do the work when it comes to anything other than speaking for the Foundation.


On Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 2:22 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  wrote:


Thanks Lauren, I have followed there, because I think we are measuring two very different things when talking about engagement.


Have a good day
Galder 


2022(e)ko uzt. 18(a) 19:48 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson ):


Hi Galder, I just left a more detailed reply on 
Meta-Wiki so we can continue the conversation there. In summary, we refer to a few different sources to benchmark our engagement rates on @Wikipedia. According to

Rival IQ, the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is 0.037%; for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054%. According to

Adobe, "most would consider 0.5% to be a good engagement rate for Twitter, with anything above 1% great." @Wikipedia Twitter's engagement rate, according to

the dashboard we access when logged-in to the account, over the last 28 day period is 2.7%. In May and June, it was 2.6% and 2.2%, respectively. I hope the resources shared are helpful for your management of @euwikipedia.


It's difficult to draw direct comparisons between the @euwikipedia and @wikipedia accounts due to the difference in follower size and our more global focus, as well as the objectives we are prioritizing to support the movement but also build resonance among
 groups who can help us to push forward our knowledge equity goals. At the same time, a straight comparison—with the understanding that I cannot see the analytics for the @euwikipedia account—reveals more retweets, likes, and comments on the @Wikipedia account.
 I'd like to better understand however if we are defining engagement differently. Also, an overall higher engagement rate from Twitter's analytics could be a result of the

low base effect (comparing two accounts of different sizes).  

Please note that I am managing a family commitment this week. I am happy to continue this conversation on

Meta-Wiki when I return. 

Also, Andy, we will follow up this week 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Lauren Dickinson]

Hi Galder,

Respectfully, we use Twitter's definition of engagement rate
.
Over the last 28 day period, the Wikipedia account garnered a 3.0%
engagement rate. On Meta-Wiki
,
I previously shared several resources that confirm this is above industry
standards, as I thought you were asking as a point of interest. The
conversation, since, steered into an 'apples and oranges
' comparison of two
different accounts with different strategies, audiences, and goals.

Again, we will be discussing our social media strategy with members of the
Wikimedia communities on the Communications Committee in the near future.
For this discussion, I believe it has become circular and detracts from our
important work. I hope we can leave things at a place of respectful
agreement (or disagreement).

Lauren
*Lauren Dickinson (she/her)*
Senior Communications Manager
Wikimedia Foundation 


On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:32 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hello again,
> A couple of weeks ago this conversation was moved to Meta
> .
> There Lauren, from the Social Media team provided a couple of numbers to
> show how @Wikipedia handle on Twitter is doing "above the industry
> standards". The problem is that this numbers are plainly false. The team is
> dividing the number of interactions by the number of impressions, instead
> of the number of followers, that is what the metric was asking for.
>
> I have asked there for the exact data on impressions, in order to
> calculate the real impact, but once the team has seen that their numbers
> are wrong, they are using distraction tactics in order to bury the problem.
>
> So, as moving it to Meta seems like a move to forget about this, I would
> like to discuss the topic again. Can someone in the WMF provide the number
> of interactions we had in the last 28 days so we can see if, indeed, we are
> "above the industry standards"?
>
> Thanks
>
> Galder
> --
> *From:* The Cunctator 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2022 1:55 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> I'm glad this conversation is moving over to meta-wiki. I hope the
> communications staff will recognize their job should be to facilitate the
> volunteers to do the work when it comes to anything other than speaking for
> the Foundation.
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 2:22 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Lauren, I have followed there, because I think we are measuring two
> very different things when talking about engagement.
>
> Have a good day
> Galder
>
> 2022(e)ko uzt. 18(a) 19:48 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson <
> ldickin...@wikimedia.org>):
>
> Hi Galder, I just left a more detailed reply on Meta-Wiki
> 
> so we can continue the conversation there. In summary, we refer to a few
> different sources to benchmark our engagement rates on @Wikipedia.
> According to Rival IQ
> ,
> the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is
> 0.037%; for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054%. According to Adobe
> ,
> "most would consider 0.5% to be a good engagement rate for Twitter, with
> anything above 1% great." @Wikipedia Twitter's engagement rate, according
> to the dashboard
> 
> we access when logged-in to the account, over the last 28 day period is
> 2.7%. In May and June, it was 2.6% and 2.2%, respectively. I hope the
> resources shared are helpful for your management of @euwikipedia.
>
> It's difficult to draw direct comparisons between the @euwikipedia and
> @wikipedia accounts due to the difference in follower size and our more
> global focus, as well as the objectives we are prioritizing to support the
> movement but also build resonance among groups who can help us to push
> forward our knowledge equity goals. At the same time, a straight
> comparison—with the understanding that I cannot see the analytics for the
> @euwikipedia account—reveals more retweets, likes, and comments on the
> @Wikipedia account. I'd like to better understand however if we are
> defining engagement differently. Also, an overall higher engagement rate
> from Twitter's analytics could be a result of the low base effect
>  (comparing two accounts
> of different 

[Wikimedia-l] Recognition of Tyap Wikimedians User Group

[Camelia Boban]

Hi everyone!



I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
[1] *Tyap Wikimedians Proposed User Group* [2] as a Wikimedia User Group.
The group aims to* promote Wikimedia projects in Nenzit (Central Plateau)
languages, with Tyap language as a role model. Tyap is a Nigerian language
spoken in the central part of the country, with over 250,000 native
speakers and an unaccounted number of L2 and L3 speakers and when
considered one and same with Jju (a close mutually intelligible language
with a separate ISO Code), would have close to a million L1 speakers*.



Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recognition_of_Tyap_Wikimedians_User_Group

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tyap_Wikimedians_Proposed_User_Group




Regards,





*Camelia Boban*
*Chair*

*Affiliations Committee
*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/5RN7CGQOPGJNAWN4SNMTHQIEOZ4PZM7S/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The new Signpost issue (Aug. 1) is out

[Bobby Shabangu]

Thanks for providing this snapshot Andreas.

Best,
Bobby Shabangu

On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 13:02, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> July has ended and a new Signpost issue is out – complete with an Election
> Guide that includes op-eds by all six shortlisted candidates for the WMF
> Board, and candidates' answers to community questions on the associated
> talk pages.
>
> There's also detailed coverage of the recent hubbub surrounding the
> English Wikipedia's "Recession" article (see "In the Media" and "Op-Ed")
> and the Russian government's new action against Wikipedia (see "In the
> Media" and "News and Notes"), along with other news such as Facebook's
> Wikipedia-related AI initiatives, the great Chinese history hoax and Wikipedia
> articles' alleged impact on court decisions (see "In the Media"). Enjoy!
>
>
>- From the editors: Rise of the machines, or something
>
> 
>
>
>- News and notes: Information considered harmful
>
> 
>
>
>- In the media: Censorship, medieval hoaxes, "pathetic supervillains",
>FB-WMF AI TL bid, dirty duchess deeds done dirt cheap
>
> 
>
>
>- Op-Ed: The "recession" affair
>
> 
>
>
>- Eyewitness Wikimedian – Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (part 3)
>
> 
>
>
>- Election guide: The chosen six: 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>Trustees elections
>
> 
>
>
>- Community view: Youth culture and notability
>
> 
>
>
>- Opinion: Criminals among us
>
> 
>
>
>- Arbitration report: Winds of change blow for cyclone editors,
>deletion dustup draws toward denouement
>
> 
>
>
>- Deletion report: This is Gonzo Country
>
> 
>
>
>- Discussion report: Notability for train stations, notices for mobile
>editors, noticeboards for the rest of us
>
> 
>
>
>- Traffic report: US TV, JP ex-PM, outer space, and politics of IN,
>US, UK top charts for July
>
> 
>
>
>- Featured content: A little list with surprisingly few lists
>
> 
>
>
>- Tips and tricks: Cleaning up awful citations with Citation bot
>
> 
>
>
>- In focus: Wikidata insights from a handy little tool
>
> 
>
>
>- On the bright side: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war — three
>(more) stories
>
> 
>
>
>- Essay: How to research an image
>
> 
>
>
>- Recent research: A century of rulemaking on Wikipedia analyzed
>
> 
>
>
>- Serendipity: Don't cite Wikipedia
>
> 
>
>
>- Gallery: A backstage pass
>
> 
>
>
>- From the archives: 2012 Russian Wikipedia shutdown as it happened
>
> 
>
>
>- Humour: Why did the chicken cross the road?
>
> 
>
>
> * *Read this Signpost in full
> * *
> Single-page
> 
>  *
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> 

[Wikimedia-l] The new Signpost issue (Aug. 1) is out

[Andreas Kolbe]

July has ended and a new Signpost issue is out – complete with an Election
Guide that includes op-eds by all six shortlisted candidates for the WMF
Board, and candidates' answers to community questions on the associated
talk pages.

There's also detailed coverage of the recent hubbub surrounding the English
Wikipedia's "Recession" article (see "In the Media" and "Op-Ed") and the
Russian government's new action against Wikipedia (see "In the Media" and
"News and Notes"), along with other news such as Facebook's
Wikipedia-related AI initiatives, the great Chinese history hoax and Wikipedia
articles' alleged impact on court decisions (see "In the Media"). Enjoy!


   - From the editors: Rise of the machines, or something
   



   - News and notes: Information considered harmful
   



   - In the media: Censorship, medieval hoaxes, "pathetic supervillains",
   FB-WMF AI TL bid, dirty duchess deeds done dirt cheap
   



   - Op-Ed: The "recession" affair
   


   - Eyewitness Wikimedian – Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (part 3)
   



   - Election guide: The chosen six: 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of
   Trustees elections
   



   - Community view: Youth culture and notability
   



   - Opinion: Criminals among us
   



   - Arbitration report: Winds of change blow for cyclone editors, deletion
   dustup draws toward denouement
   



   - Deletion report: This is Gonzo Country
   



   - Discussion report: Notability for train stations, notices for mobile
   editors, noticeboards for the rest of us
   



   - Traffic report: US TV, JP ex-PM, outer space, and politics of IN, US,
   UK top charts for July
   



   - Featured content: A little list with surprisingly few lists
   



   - Tips and tricks: Cleaning up awful citations with Citation bot
   



   - In focus: Wikidata insights from a handy little tool
   



   - On the bright side: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war — three
   (more) stories
   



   - Essay: How to research an image
   


   - Recent research: A century of rulemaking on Wikipedia analyzed
   



   - Serendipity: Don't cite Wikipedia
   



   - Gallery: A backstage pass
   



   - From the archives: 2012 Russian Wikipedia shutdown as it happened
   



   - Humour: Why did the chicken cross the road?
   



* *Read this Signpost in full
* * Single-page

 *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/V2FKQDPJVZPIJQ5IBZCFK56IM6L7XEXL/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Hello again,
A couple of weeks ago this conversation was moved to 
Meta.
 There Lauren, from the Social Media team provided a couple of numbers to show 
how @Wikipedia handle on Twitter is doing "above the industry standards". The 
problem is that this numbers are plainly false. The team is dividing the number 
of interactions by the number of impressions, instead of the number of 
followers, that is what the metric was asking for.

I have asked there for the exact data on impressions, in order to calculate the 
real impact, but once the team has seen that their numbers are wrong, they are 
using distraction tactics in order to bury the problem.

So, as moving it to Meta seems like a move to forget about this, I would like 
to discuss the topic again. Can someone in the WMF provide the number of 
interactions we had in the last 28 days so we can see if, indeed, we are "above 
the industry standards"?

Thanks

Galder

From: The Cunctator 
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 1:55 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

I'm glad this conversation is moving over to meta-wiki. I hope the 
communications staff will recognize their job should be to facilitate the 
volunteers to do the work when it comes to anything other than speaking for the 
Foundation.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 2:22 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
mailto:galder...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks Lauren, I have followed there, because I think we are measuring two very 
different things when talking about engagement.

Have a good day
Galder

2022(e)ko uzt. 18(a) 19:48 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson 
mailto:ldickin...@wikimedia.org>>):
Hi Galder, I just left a more detailed reply on 
Meta-Wiki
 so we can continue the conversation there. In summary, we refer to a few 
different sources to benchmark our engagement rates on @Wikipedia. According to 
Rival IQ, 
the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is 0.037%; 
for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054%. According to 
Adobe,
 "most would consider 0.5% to be a good engagement rate for Twitter, with 
anything above 1% great." @Wikipedia Twitter's engagement rate, according to 
the 
dashboard
 we access when logged-in to the account, over the last 28 day period is 2.7%. 
In May and June, it was 2.6% and 2.2%, respectively. I hope the resources 
shared are helpful for your management of @euwikipedia.

It's difficult to draw direct comparisons between the @euwikipedia and 
@wikipedia accounts due to the difference in follower size and our more global 
focus, as well as the objectives we are prioritizing to support the movement 
but also build resonance among groups who can help us to push forward our 
knowledge equity goals. At the same time, a straight comparison—with the 
understanding that I cannot see the analytics for the @euwikipedia 
account—reveals more retweets, likes, and comments on the @Wikipedia account. 
I'd like to better understand however if we are defining engagement 
differently. Also, an overall higher engagement rate from Twitter's analytics 
could be a result of the low base 
effect (comparing two accounts 
of different sizes).

Please note that I am managing a family commitment this week. I am happy to 
continue this conversation on 
Meta-Wiki
 when I return.

Also, Andy, we will follow up this week regarding your 
questions about the 
@WiktionaryUsers and @Wiktionary accounts. We do not currently have access but 
are exploring potential options via Twitter now.

Thank you, all, for your comments.

Lauren
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Wikimedia-logo_black.svg/54px-Wikimedia-logo_black.svg.png]
  Lauren Dickinson (she/her)
Senior Communications Manager
Wikimedia Foundation


On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 5:16 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
mailto:galder...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the answer, Lauren. I see quite a few interactions with the tweets 
(despite having more than half a million followers). You say that the 
engagement is above the industry standard. Is there any data we can use to 
compare? I'm one of the managers of @euwikipedia and I see we have even more 
engagement than @wikipedia, so I would like to know which are those industry 
standards, so we can also measure ourselves.

Thanks

Galder

2022(e)ko