"Check this out first" sounds friendlier but is longer, so "Read this" as James suggested might be best. Otherwise I agree that Ed's FB posts are good and Joe's tweets are good.
My meme with Jimmy's quote raised the most questions on FB (although they are addressed well in the article already for those that then actually read it). So fair warning on that. ;) I think that this article is both great to be putting out and important to spread far and wide. I would encourage affiliates to retweet and repost this as well. -greg _______________ Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later. > On Sep 19, 2015, at 12:08 AM, James Alexander <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Yeah, I'd be concerned (at least with this post) about making a very clear > "Don't" (as much as I, personally, would agree with the statement :) ). > > I like Ed's FB/G+ copy (especially the 2nd/Jimmy quote). I'd go with Joe's > copy for Twitter, like both 1 & 2, I'd probably drop "first" (I'd just go > with "Read this", feel like it sounds more like a command) but aren't fussed > either way :). > > James Alexander > Manager > Trust & Safety > Wikimedia Foundation > (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Joe Sutherland <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> The issue is that I don't think the message is "don't", the message is more >> like "only if you understand the community views on it". That makes a bit >> trickier to get something engaging but which is also true to the message of >> the post ;) >> >> Joe >> >>> On 19 September 2015 at 04:30, Michael Guss <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Joe, >>> >>> Yeah let's get people to read this :) >>> >>> I like the second option. >>> >>> Maybe even say something like "Thinking of paying for a Wikipedia article? >>> Don't." >>> >>> >>>> On Friday, September 18, 2015, Joe Sutherland <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> Hey, >>>> >>>> I'm not convinced that Twitter copy is ideal :) How is: >>>> >>>> • Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? [link] >>>> • Thinking of paying for a Wikipedia article? Read this first. [link] >>>> >>>> Both are still perhaps a little risqué but not as misleading. Let me know >>>> what you think and we can get this scheduled for Monday morning. >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>>> On 18 September 2015 at 22:45, Ed Erhart <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> "Should I pay for a Wikipedia article?" is prepped and scheduled to go >>>>> out at 7:30am PST tomorrow, assuming the blog's time zone is PST. A >>>>> preview for those with WordPress access is available, or there is a draft >>>>> Google Doc. The image comes from Commons. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks go to Gamaliel for the post. >>>>> >>>>> Proposed social media messages follow: >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: >>>>> Considering paying for a Wikipedia article? Check out a reference guide >>>>> first: >>>>> Facebook/Google+: >>>>> Wikipedia's rules on editing for money are numerous. Here's a summary: >>>>> As Jimmy Wales says, "If anybody emails you asking for money pretending >>>>> to be Wikipedia, alarm bells should ring ... Everything about Wikipedia >>>>> is free." >>>>> >>>>> As always, I'm open to suggestions and improvements, and I'm fairly >>>>> certain that someone here can come up with better posts! >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Ed Erhart >>>>> Editorial Associate >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Joe Sutherland >>>> Communications Intern [remote] >>>> m: +44 (0) 7722 916 433 | t: @jrbsu | w: JSutherland >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Michael Guss >>> Research Analyst >>> Wikimediafoundation.org >>> [email protected] >> >> >> >> -- >> 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
_______________________________________________ Social-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
