On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Joe Sutherland <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey all, > > We just published "Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy" > to the blog. URL: > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/ > > Many thanks to everyone involved for this post. > > Below are some proposed social media messages. Please tweak as needed. > > Twitter (@wikipedia/@wikimedia): > • Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy, not > reliability > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/ Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy, not > reliability Well to be precise, the study did not actually find that edit rates do not correlate with controversy... How about:
Citation needed: Study finds controversies relate to higher edit rates - but does that really damage reliability? https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/ As an alternative or double-down tweet, I think the post's title actually works well as tweet too: Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/ > > Facebook/Google+: > • "In true Wikipedian spirit, we believe any research should be assessed and > reported with rigor and care." > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/ LGTM > > thanks, > Joe > > -- > Joe Sutherland > Communications Intern [remote] > m: +44 (0) 7722 916 433 | t: @jrbsu | w: JSutherland > > _______________________________________________ > Social-media mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media > -- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB _______________________________________________ Social-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
