[Wikimedia-l] Re: May 12⋮14⋮17 >> Queering Wikipedia 2023 Conference

[Željko Blaće]

In 10 days on Friday May 12th at noon (UTC)
we are going to open the Queering Wikipedia 2023 Conference
with a keynote of Dr. Nishant Shah +6 hours of online program
https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/qw2023-1-day-dia/3042
...then following Sunday 14th and Wednesday 17th same time
https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/qw2023-2-day-dia/3043
https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/qw2023-3-day-dia/3044
please consider to check it out, check in
*(Wikimedia accounts work)
and join us!

https://twitter.com/QueeringW
___
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/FS2PZRA2WBIDAN4R5TWROD3IHTDZ3KUY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Local enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct

[effe iets anders]

Hi Andreas,

interesting questions. I don't think your assumption "As you are no doubt
aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author recently published..."
is true. I was definitely not aware of it, and I doubt many others are
either. I was able to piece together some of your claims, but not all
(simply due to lack of time, I'm sure). Just offering this information so
that you can provide the necessary context as needed. I was unable to dive
deep enough to give this proper attention. One thing I did note was that
you were the person who started the arbitration case. It might be
beneficial for this discussion if someone else familiar with the matter,
could summarize it. If only for the simple fact that they may have more
appreciation of what is and isn't known by the wider community. (For
example, I was unable to verify myself that the workplace and real name
were indeed shared, and that this information could not be assumed to be
public knowledge)

Assuming all your stated facts to be correct, I would actually not be
certain what the right approach would be either. Surely, it can not be the
intent to encourage doxxing off-platform, but we can't attempt to block
academic discussion on complex matters either. Wikipedia does not live in a
vacuum. I would rephrase your question "are [Wikimedians] permitted to
share contributors' private information such as their workplace address in
these various venues, without obtaining explicit consent to do so? " to
something like: "Should Wikimedians be sanctioned when they disclose
private information without explicit consent in the source of academic (or
political, societal) discourse outside of Wikimedia".

I'm however not particularly surprised that this issue eventually arises,
as this was bound to happen. I am also curious for what the intended policy
implications would be (based on the current UCoC) and maybe then there
could a conversation be had if that is indeed what we wanted to achieve.

Lodewijk




On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:01 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia Foundation Trustees and all,
>
> The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) has been in force for some time. The
> Enforcement Guidelines have now been endorsed by the community. But as with
> any new document, shared understandings and clarifications must develop
> over time. Until then, practical enforcement is anything but routine. Here
> is an example.
>
> Section 3.1 of the UCoC states that the following is harassment:
>
> *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private
> information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address
> without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
> elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
> outside the projects.*
>
> As you are no doubt aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author
> recently published an academic essay criticising aspects of the English
> Wikipedia's Holocaust coverage. In their essay, the authors mention the
> legal names and the places of employment of two longstanding Wikipedia
> contributors who, as WMF Trust & Safety will confirm, have suffered years
> of egregious harassment because of their Wikimedia participation. I
> understand this has included threats to their children, calls to their
> workplace asking for them to be fired, etc.
>
> Given this history, the authors' decision to share precise information
> about these contributors' workplaces in their academic essay struck me as
> ill advised. It is hard to justify on scholarly grounds – the Holocaust
> topic area is unrelated to the academic positions held by these two
> Wikipedians. And surely it must have occurred to the authors that providing
> information on their workplaces might exacerbate the harassment they are
> already experiencing, of which the authors were well aware.
>
> Needless to say, neither of the two contributors gave their consent to
> having their names and workplaces shared in the essay, which criticises
> them severely – and in at least some cases very unfairly.
>
> Given that explicit consent is what the UCoC requires for sharing of
> personal information, sharing details of these Wikimedians' workplaces –
> especially in the context of harsh and inflammatory criticism of their
> editing, and a long history of prior harassment suffered by these
> contributors – struck me as a bright-line violation of UCoC Section 3.1,
> specifically:
>
> *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private
> information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address
> without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
> elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
> outside the projects.*
>
> The reason I am mentioning this here is that the English Arbitration
> Committee, which opened an arbitration case soon after publication of the
> essay, appears largely to have taken a different view to date, 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Local enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Brock and all,

You mention academic standards. In academic contexts it is perfectly normal
to level personal critiques at opposing scholars. And naming the
institutions where scholars with opposing viewpoints teach is arguably
essential, as well as a matter of professional courtesy.

But the Wikimedia movement is composed of amateurs, not scholars. As such,
it has generally insisted that editors' real-world identities or
professional qualifications are irrelevant to any critique of their
participation.

It is true that the contributors whose workplaces the essay's authors chose
to divulge in their essay are themselves academics. But they are not
scholars in the discipline that this argument is about (historiography and
Holocaust studies). They might as well be car mechanics, shopkeepers or
dentists, as far as academic expertise in this subject area is concerned.
(I wouldn't be making the argument I am making here if all the people
concerned knew each other in an academic context, i.e. if they were all
historians having regular scholarly arguments across different publication
venues, *one of which* happened to be Wikipedia.)

The Universal Code of Conduct introduced a couple of years ago and endorsed
by the community for enforcement requires "explicit consent" from
Wikimedians before their personal data can be shared. This requirement,
which arguably makes the Code even more stringent than traditional English
Wikipedia policy, was not met.

Now, the essay in question here is currently being promoted internationally
at academic conferences as a model for other scholars to follow.[1] Its
methodology relied on interviewing editors contributing to a contentious
topic area that had been subject to multiple on-wiki arbitrations before.
It ended up endorsing one side of the conflict, and "naming and shaming"
editors on the other side.

The authors are correct that this model could be applied to other on-wiki
conflict areas. An Indian scholar writing about the India/Pakistan
conflict, for example, could review past on-wiki dispute resolution
proceedings, identify interested parties and banned editors whose views
they find sympathetic, and use opposition research gathered from their
interviewees to expose Pakistani editors – and vice versa. The same goes
for the China/Taiwan/Hong Kong topic area, the Israel/Palestine conflict,
pro-Russia/anti-Russia disputes, and so forth.

Do we really want to normalise editors' workplaces being disclosed in such
academic writing?

I am perfectly aware that ultimately there may be little that can be done
about unwanted workplace disclosures. Laws differ from country to country,
but many forms of doxing are not actually illegal. Indeed, some are morally
justifiable, or even a legitimate part of law enforcement. But as far as I
can see the doxing done in this essay was gratuitous. The essay would not
have lost any of its academic integrity and significance if it had
refrained from disclosing editors' legal names and workplaces.

In formulating the Universal Code of Conduct, surely the Board had an idea
in mind of protecting volunteer contributors from external harassment, as
far as possible. External harassment is different from on-wiki criticism of
someone's contributions or participating in on-wiki dispute resolution (an
avenue that is available to scholars just like it is available to anyone
else). Every editor should be open to having their contributions
criticised, but external harassment is a different matter.

As I see it, the Board of Trustees decided to make observing the Universal
Code of Conduct the "price of admission", as it were, for active
participation in the Wikimedia movement. There may always be scholars who
are unfamiliar with the Code, or decide to ignore it even though they know
that the code requires them to obtain Wikimedian's explicit consent before
sharing their personal information.

But the Wikimedia movement is not completely powerless here. We can
certainly say to academics, Don't divulge people's identities – especially
if, as in this case, they are already targets for harassment – unless you
have a very good reason to do so, and their real-life identity is of direct
relevance to the issue you are reporting on.

The Universal Code of Conduct is new. I am not saying that academics who
make a mis-step should have the book thrown at them. But ArbCom should not
overlook obvious violations either.

Ultimately, I think there are good chances that – once aware of the issue –
academics will by and large do without doxing contributors.

Regards,
Andreas

[1] In a couple of days, for example, at Lund University:
https://www.hist.lu.se/historia/kalendarium/evenemang/hogre-seminariet-jan-grabowski-och-shira-klein-wikipedias-intentional-distortion-history-holocaust/




On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 2:45 PM  wrote:

> In fact, just to expand on this, in order for it to be harrassment of
> defamation or what have you, it first has to NOT be appropriate academic
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Seeking volunteers for the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct process

[Patrick Earley]

Hello,

As follow-up to the message about the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement
Guidelines

by Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Vice Chair, Shani Evenstein
Sigalov, I am reaching out about the next steps. I want to bring your
attention to the next stage of the Universal Code of Conduct process, which
is forming a building committee for the Universal Code of Conduct
Coordinating Committee (U4C). Community members with experience and deep
interest in community health and governance are invited to nominate
themselves to be part of the U4C building committee, which needs people who
are:


   -

   Community members in good standing
   -

   Knowledgeable about movement community processes, such as, but not
   limited to, policy drafting, participatory decision making, and application
   of existing rules and policies on Wikimedia projects.
   -

   Aware and appreciative of the diversity of the movement, such as, but
   not limited to, languages spoken, identity, geography, and project type
   -

   Committed to participate for the entire U4C Building Committee period
   from mid-May - December 2023
   -

   Comfortable with engaging in difficult, but productive conversations
   -

   Confidently able to communicate in English


The Building Committee shall consist of volunteer community members,
affiliate board or staff, and Wikimedia Foundation staff.

The Universal Code of Conduct has been a process strengthened by the skills
and knowledge of the community and we look forward to what the U4C Building
Committee creates. If you are interested in joining the Building Committee,
please either sign up on the Meta-wiki page
,
or contact ucocproj...@wikimedia.org by May 12, 2023. Read more about the
Building Committee on Meta-wiki.


Best,

Patrick


-- 
Patrick Earley
Lead Trust & Safety Policy Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
pear...@wikimedia.org
___
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/XD5TPFLZNQ224IIQUUWGRGTKWA6S6O35/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

[The Cunctator]

I honestly think the WMF has better things to do than worry about
engagement on what is clearly a grossly mismanaged website.

On Tue, May 2, 2023, 3:53 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Justice,
> Yes, it works that way, because we are not measuring the total engagement
> (where @Wikipedia wins @euwikipedia bat not @viquipedia) but the engagement
> rate per tweet, which is balanced with the number of followers.
>
> Another topic is that the take-over by Elon Musk is affecting our
> engagement, but this should also be taken in account by the Social media
> team. In fact, there should be a discussion following up here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Twitter_verification_checkmarks.
>
>
> Since the changes on the algorithm affects everyone, the @Wikipedia team
> should be interested in learning about successful stories and how other
> social media handles continue having engagement while the one that should
> be leading is losing engagement every month.
>
> Finally, I don't think that any discussion is "settled" if there's no
> answer. For the moment, the answer to the proposal of working together is
> silence.
>
> Thanks
>
> Galder
> --
> *From:* Justice Okai-Allotey 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 2, 2023 9:47 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> Hi Galder,
>
>
> Twitter has consistently seen a downward trend since the take over by Elon
> Musk. A lot of people are not using that platform like they did in the
> past.
>
> And I thought this conversations was settled when WMF brought their social
> media strategy and engagement plan. But it looks like you keep bringing it
> up.
>
> Again you don't expect accounts with less following to have same
> engagements with accounts with higher following it doesn't work that way.
>
> Organizations define their own metrics and so success may mean different
> things to different organizations.
>
> Regards,
> Justice.
>
> On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 07:41, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
> The impact of @wikipedia continues going down on Twitter. There's no
> strategy to turn this trend and the team seems happy with the numbers .
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Organic_social_media_strategy_update.
>
>
> For context, the "Engagement Rate per Tweet" (this is the metric that the
> Communications Team proposed as a benchmark) felt to 0.011% (benchmark
> average is 0.035% and 0.05% for non-profits). Compare it with 0.27% of the
> Basque Wikipedia or the Catalan Wikipedia accounts (both have the same
> impact factor), or the 0.23% of the French Wikipedia account. We are
> talking about strategies with x25 impact.
>
> Some months ago, some users made an offer to collaborate in making the
> social media communication strategy better, but there's no answer from the
> Wikimedia Foundation. I'm still waiting for an aswer to the offer.
>
> Sincerely,
> Galder
> --
> *From:* Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:36 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in
> Twitter
>
> Dear all,
> I write to send a small update on this. In a message about the methodology
> followed to measure success (
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions),
> Laura Dickinson posted this: "*According to its 2022 report
> , the
> median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is 0.037%;
> for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054% [our engagement] over the last 28
> day period is 2.7%.*"
>
> I have measured the engagement with that methodology (
> https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/#title-methodology)
> for @Wikipedia in January (Likes+RT+Comments / Number of followers) and the
> result is: 0.012%, three times lower than the industry standard and 4.5
> lower than for non-profits. For context, Basque Wikipedia had 0.055%,
> Catalan Viquipedia 0.060% and Indonesian Wikipedia an astonishing 2.79%.
> (You can check the numbers here:
> https://www.rivaliq.com/free-social-media-analytics/twitter-head-to-head)
>
> There's an open question about the strategy followed and a sincere
> proposal of opening this account to a shared volunteers/WMF administration.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Galder
>
> --
> *From:* Àlex Hinojo 
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:42 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> A Wikipedia account *should* be under the control of Wikipedians,
> following the editorial policy for Wikipedia, but they could let WMF do the
> 

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

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Dear Justice,
Yes, it works that way, because we are not measuring the total engagement 
(where @Wikipedia wins @euwikipedia bat not @viquipedia) but the engagement 
rate per tweet, which is balanced with the number of followers.

Another topic is that the take-over by Elon Musk is affecting our engagement, 
but this should also be taken in account by the Social media team. In fact, 
there should be a discussion following up here: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Twitter_verification_checkmarks.

Since the changes on the algorithm affects everyone, the @Wikipedia team should 
be interested in learning about successful stories and how other social media 
handles continue having engagement while the one that should be leading is 
losing engagement every month.

Finally, I don't think that any discussion is "settled" if there's no answer. 
For the moment, the answer to the proposal of working together is silence.

Thanks

Galder

From: Justice Okai-Allotey 
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 9:47 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

Hi Galder,


Twitter has consistently seen a downward trend since the take over by Elon 
Musk. A lot of people are not using that platform like they did in the past.

And I thought this conversations was settled when WMF brought their social 
media strategy and engagement plan. But it looks like you keep bringing it up.

Again you don't expect accounts with less following to have same engagements 
with accounts with higher following it doesn't work that way.

Organizations define their own metrics and so success may mean different things 
to different organizations.

Regards,
Justice.

On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 07:41, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
mailto:galder...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Dear all,
The impact of @wikipedia continues going down on Twitter. There's no strategy 
to turn this trend and the team seems happy with the numbers 
.https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Organic_social_media_strategy_update.

For context, the "Engagement Rate per Tweet" (this is the metric that the 
Communications Team proposed as a benchmark) felt to 0.011% (benchmark average 
is 0.035% and 0.05% for non-profits). Compare it with 0.27% of the Basque 
Wikipedia or the Catalan Wikipedia accounts (both have the same impact factor), 
or the 0.23% of the French Wikipedia account. We are talking about strategies 
with x25 impact.

Some months ago, some users made an offer to collaborate in making the social 
media communication strategy better, but there's no answer from the Wikimedia 
Foundation. I'm still waiting for an aswer to the offer.

Sincerely,
Galder

From: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
mailto:galder...@hotmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:36 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

Dear all,
I write to send a small update on this. In a message about the methodology 
followed to measure success 
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions),
 Laura Dickinson posted this: "According to its 2022 
report, 
the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is 0.037%; 
for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054% [our engagement] over the last 28 day 
period is 2.7%."

I have measured the engagement with that methodology 
(https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/#title-methodology)
 for @Wikipedia in January (Likes+RT+Comments / Number of followers) and the 
result is: 0.012%, three times lower than the industry standard and 4.5 lower 
than for non-profits. For context, Basque Wikipedia had 0.055%, Catalan 
Viquipedia 0.060% and Indonesian Wikipedia an astonishing 2.79%.  (You can 
check the numbers here: 
https://www.rivaliq.com/free-social-media-analytics/twitter-head-to-head)

There's an open question about the strategy followed and a sincere proposal of 
opening this account to a shared volunteers/WMF administration.

Sincerely,

Galder


From: Àlex Hinojo mailto:alexhin...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:42 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

+1

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Peter Southwood 
mailto:peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>> wrote:

A Wikipedia account should be under the control of Wikipedians, following the 
editorial policy for Wikipedia, but they could let WMF do the technical work if 
such exists.  WMF can and should run Wikimedia accounts. WMF running a 
Wikipedia account could be misrepresentation.

Cheers,

Peter



From: Andreas Kolbe [mailto:jayen...@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 January 2023 02:46
To: 

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

[Justice Okai-Allotey]

Hi Galder,


Twitter has consistently seen a downward trend since the take over by Elon
Musk. A lot of people are not using that platform like they did in the
past.

And I thought this conversations was settled when WMF brought their social
media strategy and engagement plan. But it looks like you keep bringing it
up.

Again you don't expect accounts with less following to have same
engagements with accounts with higher following it doesn't work that way.

Organizations define their own metrics and so success may mean different
things to different organizations.

Regards,
Justice.

On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 07:41, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> The impact of @wikipedia continues going down on Twitter. There's no
> strategy to turn this trend and the team seems happy with the numbers .
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Organic_social_media_strategy_update.
>
>
> For context, the "Engagement Rate per Tweet" (this is the metric that the
> Communications Team proposed as a benchmark) felt to 0.011% (benchmark
> average is 0.035% and 0.05% for non-profits). Compare it with 0.27% of the
> Basque Wikipedia or the Catalan Wikipedia accounts (both have the same
> impact factor), or the 0.23% of the French Wikipedia account. We are
> talking about strategies with x25 impact.
>
> Some months ago, some users made an offer to collaborate in making the
> social media communication strategy better, but there's no answer from the
> Wikimedia Foundation. I'm still waiting for an aswer to the offer.
>
> Sincerely,
> Galder
> --
> *From:* Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:36 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in
> Twitter
>
> Dear all,
> I write to send a small update on this. In a message about the methodology
> followed to measure success (
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions),
> Laura Dickinson posted this: "*According to its 2022 report
> , the
> median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is 0.037%;
> for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054% [our engagement] over the last 28
> day period is 2.7%.*"
>
> I have measured the engagement with that methodology (
> https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/#title-methodology)
> for @Wikipedia in January (Likes+RT+Comments / Number of followers) and the
> result is: 0.012%, three times lower than the industry standard and 4.5
> lower than for non-profits. For context, Basque Wikipedia had 0.055%,
> Catalan Viquipedia 0.060% and Indonesian Wikipedia an astonishing 2.79%.
> (You can check the numbers here:
> https://www.rivaliq.com/free-social-media-analytics/twitter-head-to-head)
>
> There's an open question about the strategy followed and a sincere
> proposal of opening this account to a shared volunteers/WMF administration.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Galder
>
> --
> *From:* Àlex Hinojo 
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:42 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> A Wikipedia account *should* be under the control of Wikipedians,
> following the editorial policy for Wikipedia, but they could let WMF do the
> technical work if such exists.  WMF can and should run Wikimedia accounts.
> WMF running a Wikipedia account could be misrepresentation.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Andreas Kolbe [mailto:jayen...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 19 January 2023 02:46
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Cc:* F. Xavier Dengra i Grau
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The obvious question surely is: Why not let volunteers (co-)run the
> Wikipedia Twitter account?
>
>
>
> A number of Wikipedia language versions (French, Catalan, Portuguese,
> Basque, Waray, etc.) seem to have volunteer-managed Twitter accounts that
> are doing fine. If volunteers are good enough to write the encyclopedia and
> curate the main page of each language version, aren't they good enough to
> write (or suggest) the occasional tweet?
>
>
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:20 PM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Hi/Bona nit,
>
>
>
> This last tweet from @Wikipedia is a good example of what some of us have
> been mentioning in this list during the past days:
>
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/wikipedia/status/1615756186640334848?s=46=7wB7VI4gwISyFjo-X2jZvQ
>
>
>
> Despite the fact that many Wikipedias have already had this new skin
> deployed since months ago as voluntary testers, not a single mention on
> their huge contribution was explained on Twitter (neither back 

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

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Dear all,
The impact of @wikipedia continues going down on Twitter. There's no strategy 
to turn this trend and the team seems happy with the numbers 
.https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Organic_social_media_strategy_update.

For context, the "Engagement Rate per Tweet" (this is the metric that the 
Communications Team proposed as a benchmark) felt to 0.011% (benchmark average 
is 0.035% and 0.05% for non-profits). Compare it with 0.27% of the Basque 
Wikipedia or the Catalan Wikipedia accounts (both have the same impact factor), 
or the 0.23% of the French Wikipedia account. We are talking about strategies 
with x25 impact.

Some months ago, some users made an offer to collaborate in making the social 
media communication strategy better, but there's no answer from the Wikimedia 
Foundation. I'm still waiting for an aswer to the offer.

Sincerely,
Galder

From: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:36 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

Dear all,
I write to send a small update on this. In a message about the methodology 
followed to measure success 
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions),
 Laura Dickinson posted this: "According to its 2022 
report, 
the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is 0.037%; 
for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054% [our engagement] over the last 28 day 
period is 2.7%."

I have measured the engagement with that methodology 
(https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/#title-methodology)
 for @Wikipedia in January (Likes+RT+Comments / Number of followers) and the 
result is: 0.012%, three times lower than the industry standard and 4.5 lower 
than for non-profits. For context, Basque Wikipedia had 0.055%, Catalan 
Viquipedia 0.060% and Indonesian Wikipedia an astonishing 2.79%.  (You can 
check the numbers here: 
https://www.rivaliq.com/free-social-media-analytics/twitter-head-to-head)

There's an open question about the strategy followed and a sincere proposal of 
opening this account to a shared volunteers/WMF administration.

Sincerely,

Galder


From: Àlex Hinojo 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:42 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

+1

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Peter Southwood 
mailto:peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>> wrote:

A Wikipedia account should be under the control of Wikipedians, following the 
editorial policy for Wikipedia, but they could let WMF do the technical work if 
such exists.  WMF can and should run Wikimedia accounts. WMF running a 
Wikipedia account could be misrepresentation.

Cheers,

Peter



From: Andreas Kolbe [mailto:jayen...@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 January 2023 02:46
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: F. Xavier Dengra i Grau
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter



Dear all,



The obvious question surely is: Why not let volunteers (co-)run the Wikipedia 
Twitter account?



A number of Wikipedia language versions (French, Catalan, Portuguese, Basque, 
Waray, etc.) seem to have volunteer-managed Twitter accounts that are doing 
fine. If volunteers are good enough to write the encyclopedia and curate the 
main page of each language version, aren't they good enough to write (or 
suggest) the occasional tweet?



Andreas



On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:20 PM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l 
mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>> wrote:

Hi/Bona nit,



This last tweet from @Wikipedia is a good example of what some of us have been 
mentioning in this list during the past days:



https://twitter.com/wikipedia/status/1615756186640334848?s=46=7wB7VI4gwISyFjo-X2jZvQ



Despite the fact that many Wikipedias have already had this new skin deployed 
since months ago as voluntary testers, not a single mention on their huge 
contribution was explained on Twitter (neither back then nor today…). We need 
to go to the 8th tweet of today's publication to read something like "The new 
features, which start rolling out on English Wikipedia today, were built in 
collaboration with Wikipedia volunteers worldwide."



If this is the situation in which the main account is monopolized only to the 
English version and its news/articles, why not specifying it as "English 
Wikipedia" in the profile and in the main link?



Days pass by and we keep sharing to this list proofs, data and justified 
arguments (even collagues offering themselves and willing to trace a joint 
planning!), but still not a word or single thought from the Comms department. 
Disappointing, I am sad to say.



Kind regards/Salutacions



Xavier Dengra



El ds, 14 gen., 2023 a 09:52, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga