[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
Hi Galder, Respectfully, we use Twitter's definition of engagement rate <https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/using-the-tweet-activity-dashboard>. Over the last 28 day period, the Wikipedia account garnered a 3.0% engagement rate. On Meta-Wiki <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions>, 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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> 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 > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions>. > 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 > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions> > 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 > <https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/>, > the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is > 0.037%; for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054%. According to Adobe > <https://www.adobe.com/express/learn/blog/what-is-a-good-social-media-engagement-rate>, > "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 > <https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/using-the-tweet-activity-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
[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
Hi Galder, I just left a more detailed reply on Meta-Wiki <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions> 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 <https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/>, the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is 0.037%; for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054%. According to Adobe <https://www.adobe.com/express/learn/blog/what-is-a-good-social-media-engagement-rate>, "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 <https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/using-the-tweet-activity-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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions> when I return. Also, Andy, we will follow up this week regarding your questions <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Twitter> 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 *Lauren Dickinson (she/her)* Senior Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 5:16 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < 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 uzt. 14(a) 00:56 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson < > ldickin...@wikimedia.org>): > > Hi again — thanks for these comments! > > I wanted to add that we very regularly refer to the ITN/DYK sections (and > OTD, too) when planning out the content calendar and responding to current > news and topics. These are great, natural sources of topic inspiration for > the Wikipedia channels. > > As mentioned, we welcome other ideas for articles / topics to share. I > understand that the form may not always be the best way to do this. So, I > invite you to share ideas and feedback on Meta-Wiki > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media> (we just did a light > clean up of the page). I am also a member of the Facebook group (Wikimedia > social media hub) that Andy shared; I see most posts, but the form and > Meta-Wiki are the best way to reach me. > > For additional perspective, based on the note from Galder, there are > currently two staff, including myself working on digital communications > strategy at the Foundation, which includes both the Wikimedia and Wikipedia > social accounts, as well as our website and blogs. Across all, we > prioritize showing up with a consistent voice and identity, so through > association, people understand our work better. > > Our strategy is global and we try hard to give equal weight to topics that > reflect the diversity of our world and movement—keeping track of movement > happenings, edit-a-thons, user group initiatives, current events, and > trends in places across the world. Rather than focusing on putting out a > large quantity of content, our goal with each post is to make people > understand the diverse work that the movement
[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
Hi again — thanks for these comments! I wanted to add that we very regularly refer to the ITN/DYK sections (and OTD, too) when planning out the content calendar and responding to current news and topics. These are great, natural sources of topic inspiration for the Wikipedia channels. As mentioned, we welcome other ideas for articles / topics to share. I understand that the form may not always be the best way to do this. So, I invite you to share ideas and feedback on Meta-Wiki <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media> (we just did a light clean up of the page). I am also a member of the Facebook group (Wikimedia social media hub) that Andy shared; I see most posts, but the form and Meta-Wiki are the best way to reach me. For additional perspective, based on the note from Galder, there are currently two staff, including myself working on digital communications strategy at the Foundation, which includes both the Wikimedia and Wikipedia social accounts, as well as our website and blogs. Across all, we prioritize showing up with a consistent voice and identity, so through association, people understand our work better. Our strategy is global and we try hard to give equal weight to topics that reflect the diversity of our world and movement—keeping track of movement happenings, edit-a-thons, user group initiatives, current events, and trends in places across the world. Rather than focusing on putting out a large quantity of content, our goal with each post is to make people understand the diverse work that the movement does and the diverse range of knowledge that can be discovered on Wikipedia. This fosters understanding with those who may not have deep knowledge of how the movement works and what we stand for, but who may want to join us if they did. In addition to our regular content, we must be constantly vigilant and address potential misunderstandings about our work and projects. We monitor social chatter closely and strive to ensure that our content and replies meet the standards that uphold movement values. We track the metrics and impact of our social media efforts and find that our strategy is working well. For example, over the last year, we saw a 7% increase in Wikipedia's Twitter following and a consistent above-average engagement rate when compared to industry standards. Lastly, I'll note that we are planning to discuss our refreshed digital communications strategy with ComCom <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee> in the coming months. It includes lessons gleaned over the last two years on how to position community work so that it reaches the right audiences and helps to advance movement goals. One of our focuses is on better amplifying the work of volunteers in the movement, and we are eager to get reactions / ideas on ways we can do this even more. I hope this is all helpful context and information. Thanks again for sharing your ideas and feedback with us. Lauren *Lauren Dickinson (she/her)* Senior Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 4:24 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the answer, Lauren. > > I have been looking at the stats of the last 4 weeks in Twitter, Facebook > and Instagram, to make an idea of the activity those accounts have. I don't > know how many people takes part in the process, but as I read "We" in the > answer, I'm going to assume that is more than one person to do all of this > job. > > In Twitter, before my e-mail (after that there was a tweet by Wikimedia > Chile that was mentioned by @Wikipedia), the last tweet was two days > before. From June 10th to July 10th 34 tweets were done, 5 of them about > the concept "tea". That makes roughly one tweet a day, but there have been > many days without any tweet activity. In Facebook I count 24 posts related > to Wikipedia. This is 0,77 posts per day. In Instagram the situation is > worse, only 9 posts in one month, is to say, one every 3 days. It could be > that June 10th to July 10th is a bad moment, but I have looked up > previous months, and the trend is the same: most of the days is 1 tweet, > there are some days with 0 activity, and some other days with 3-4 tweets, > usually about the same topic. > > I don't know how long it takes to do that, but based on my experience > managing social media, this activity (a tweet a day, 0,7 posts in Facebook > a day and 0,3 posts in Instagram, that actually are about the same topic) > takes around 30 minutes per day, a little bit longer if I need to take > extra-extra care to choose the article. I don't know how many workers are > in this process, but I assume that the "we" means than is more than one. > > Let me help with this, because there are many processes that can
[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
Hi everyone, I hope you are all doing well and enjoying the new images from the Webb telescope. They are truly incredible. In response to Lodewijk's question, the Foundation's Communications Department manages the English Wikipedia social media accounts (on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/>, Twitter <https://twitter.com/Wikipedia>, and Instagram <https://www.instagram.com/Wikipedia/?hl=en>), as well as the Wikimedia Foundation accounts. There is more information about that on Meta-Wiki <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media>. We try to plan the content calendar about one to two weeks in advance, but we stay flexible to react to current events and Wikimedia news. We always welcome ideas for articles and content to share from both the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia channels. You can share ideas with us at any time via this Google Form <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSchEZ_-8jCJP6E6UQguy_MjOYgoNUfSyzNhbnWU5S1D9_aenw/viewform>. Amplifying the work of volunteers in the movement is important to us, and we value suggestions on opportunities for us to do this further. Regarding the Webb telescope news, we are planning to share the related Wikipedia article as this Friday's Article of the Week <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Article_of_the_week> on Wikipedia's social media channels, and to highlight that the images are available on Commons. Every Friday, we share an article that is relevant to current global events and conversations (e.g. we shared about Hajj <https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/1545492143023820813> last week), so we thought the Webb telescope would be a perfect fit for this week. We also look for opportunities to retweet posts from others related to Wikimedia and current topics. For example, we just shared this post from Wikimedia Chile <https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/1546936039968743425> about the Webb images. With this approach, we can share about the same topic in multiple ways, from a range of perspectives, and celebrate community groups. Another way is by sharing blog posts and media coverage that mention us. With that in mind, another idea I would like to propose is a blog post on Diff <https://diff.wikimedia.org/> that tells the story of how Wikimedia communities responded to the release of the images and made sure information and the photos were quickly available on Wikimedia projects. This is just an idea. If anyone is interested in writing that blog, please let us know! We can then amplify the post on social media to bring it more visibility. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Lauren *Lauren Dickinson (she/her)* Senior Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 1:43 PM effe iets anders wrote: > How is @Wikipedia (and similar accounts) being managed right now? I'm > mostly curious about the process how the tweets are decided upon - is this > a staff-driven process or is there some community engagement? Is it planned > out long in advance, or reactive (or somewhere in between)? > > Are there opportunities to better bolster the strengths of our community? > > Lodewijk > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 9:30 AM Samuel Klein wrote: > >> We should all be answering questions :) The public interest will only >> grow with the glorious images coming out today. >> >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 10:45 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < >> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Good day, >>> Yesterday, the James Webb telescope published its first image, called >>> "Webb's Frist Deep Field" ( >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webb%27s_First_Deep_Field). An article >>> about the image existis in 14 languages. The tweet announcing it has >>> collected in less than a day more than 77.000 RTs and 275.000 likes ( >>> https://twitter.com/NASAWebb/status/1546621080298835970). The main >>> object of the image didn't have any article at any Wikipedia (not an item >>> at Wikidata) yesterday. Now we have an article in 8 languages: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMACS_J0723.3-7327 and a category in >>> Commons. >>> >>> Well, the Wikipedia twitter handle didn't tweet anything about this >>> achievement, and didn't give any contest to the image. ( >>> https://twitter.com/wikipedia). >>> >>> We could be answering questions. "By 2030, Wikimedia will become the >>> essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge". We could be >>> centering free knowledge at Wikimedia. >>> >>> Best, >>> Galder >>> ___ >>> Wikimedia-l mail
