Hi/Bon dia
Yaroslav: Also, you say one tweet per day is too little, how may do you think
is normal? If I personally see an account which tweets more than say 10 per day
(not counting threads) I start thinking may be it is a spam generator.
Since 4 years ago we updated the social media methodology for the Catalan
Wikipedia Twitter account (approx 4.5M native speakers, 10M audience), we
boosted from 15.3K to 45.4K speakers, now being the 4th most followed language
of Wikipedia.
Our method in a nutshell: we have up to 23 knowledge themes that we oblige
ourselves to post at least once every week. The number of our daily tweets vary
from 6 to 10 only in content (i.e., articles). This depends on, ofc, whether
it's a working day vs a weekend or other time aspects (peak hours). Plus the
interactions (RT+kudos) with our wikipedians that share their new articles
tagging us, which has been a massive way to appreciate their task and to
visibilize to others the task of being a volunteer in Wikipedia. In fact, the
latter has been especially critical to bring us huge additional views and to
renew a few of our new, most active editing community (especially young users!).
If our account, managed by volunteers, can conduct this organized work for a
small-medium size language, why should we accept that a whole staffed team from
the WMF, firstly, rejects to provide engagement data on our common, biggest
handle? And secondly, why should we give up on them preparing a strategy to
improve its scope and objectives?
Regarding the last question, I'd like to add a last thought: never ever in the
4 years that I've been upfront in the handles in my language, the @Wikipedia
account has given a simple, courtesy RT of any knowledge content (articles)
from the Arabic, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Catalan, Galician, French, Suda or
Portuguese (etc.) existing handles. That should be a key aspect in our debate.
Because if @Wikipedia is mostly used as the “central account” for the project,
then it should also be very careful 1) to not always post in English and give
some room to interact with the other language handles, 2) to stop centering
their tweets on English-speaking culture, and 3) to post without clear range of
topics to stay balanced. Oppositely, if it is decided that @Wikipedia is only
the English-language handle, then it may change its profile name to "English
Wikipedia" and not continue as the reference speaker either for the WMF nor for
significant news or events.
Best/Salutacions,
Xavier Dengra
------- Original Message -------
On divendres, 13 de gener 2023 a les 14:56, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Galder,
>
> on the other hand.. Basque Wikipedia is one of very few accounts twitting on
> the Pele death in Basque, whereas a lot was twitted in English. I do not
> think English Wikipedia twitter can compete with major news outlets, they
> operate on a completely different scale.The low-hanging fruit would be
> twitting DYKs, FAs, GAs, or may be some other randomly picked stuff. Also,
> you say one tweet per day is too little, how may do you think is normal? If I
> personally see an account which tweets more than say 10 per day (not counting
> threads) I start thinking may be it is a spam generator.
>
> Best
> Yaroslav
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 2:26 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
> <galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Some months have gone since I started this topic in this list, and still, we
>> can't know how much engagement we have at Wikipedia, because data is not
>> available. Twitter is now owned by Elon Musk, things are changing, there are
>> more accounts in Mastodon daily, but still Twitter matters. I have been
>> looking at the Twitter activity in the last days for @Wikipedia and I'm
>> still very worried about the (lack of) strategy followed here. A full team,
>> with staff members, which only produces one tweet per day, a lonely message
>> in the vastness of the ocean, and gets really poor engagement numbers.
>>
>> A couple of weeks ago Pelé, one of the greatest football players of all
>> time, died. (English) Wikipedia Twitter account needed 7 days to tweet about
>> it, even if the article was changed in a few minutes after the death
>> (https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/1611363972174778368). The tweet had
>> 13.729 impressions (now we can know the number of impressions), 14 RTs and
>> 129 likes. Wikipedia account has nearly 644.000 followers. If we divide
>> these two numbers, we get a rate of 2,13% of impressions per follower.
>>
>> The same day Pelé died, Basque Wikipedia made a tweet. Not a week after,
>> just when it was news
>> (https://twitter.com/euwikipedia/status/1608541274491211776). The tweet had
>> 964 impressions, 3 RTs and 2 likes. Basque Wikipedia account has 7,956
>> followers. This is a rate of 12,11% of impressions per follower. x5.68 times
>> larger, relatively than (English) Wikipedia Twitter account.
>>
>> (English) Wikipedia Twitter account has nearly 81 times more followers than
>> the Basque one. English Wikipedia is more visible, because it has a (now
>> golden) verified account symbol, so tweets are more often promoted. English
>> has 1.500 million speakers around the world. Basque has fewer than one
>> million. English Wikipedia should have around 1.000 more followers than
>> Basque Wikipedia. English Wikipedia article about Pelé had 2,5 million
>> pageviews in the two days after his death. Basque had 250 pageviews. This is
>> 10.000 times more pageviews.
>>
>> @Wikipedia has 644.000 followers, and @euwikipedia has nearly 8.000.
>> Audience of English Wikipedia is 10.000 times larger for the same event. Why
>> Wikipedia is not 10.000 times larger? Why doesn't Wikipedia account have 80
>> million followers? YouTube's Twitter account has 78 million followers. "By
>> 2030, Wikimedia is to become the central infrastructure for Free Knowledge
>> on the Internet.". How could we if Youtube's account has 100x more followers
>> than we have? How can think that we are in a good shape if our tweets are
>> only seen by less than 2% of our followers?
>>
>> I hope that 2023 comes with a change. A change to open these accounts, have
>> a fresh way of thinking on social media ,and building engagement, both with
>> momentum, not losing opportunities, and promoting good content.
>>
>> Sincerely
>>
>> Galder
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> From: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder...@hotmail.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 3:21 PM
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>>
>> Dear all,
>> Some weeks ago, we had a discussion here about the different approaches we
>> have for the @wikipedia account at Twitter. We don't know yet how many
>> interactions does the account has, but as I said in the discussion, we try
>> to find ways to measure our work at @euwikipedia. Today I want to share with
>> you that this account was ranked last week as the most influential
>> social-movements account in Basque language
>> (https://umap.eus/ranking/gizartea) and the 10th most influential account in
>> all categories (https://umap.eus/ranking/orokorra). This is a good metric we
>> use to know if we are doing fine or not.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Galder
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> From: Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
>> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 8:50 PM
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 18:48, Lauren Dickinson <ldickin...@wikimedia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, Andy, we will follow up this week regarding your questions
>>> about the @WiktionaryUsers and @Wiktionary accounts.
>>
>> Three working weeks have passed since the above was written; I've seen
>> no such follow-up. Have I missed something?
>>
>> --
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> https://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/ASHCU4Z7TN2Q5PJCZ6JAXHWJSJYI3BTG/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.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/5MHFSBSKJSRIDF5TKH265YZRPOPTZPQA/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.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/4FGI3ERCPFFPOYPE2NR7HXO7ZVHI4G7T/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
