+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&t=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 < > galder...@hotmail.com> va escriure: > > Egun on Boodarwun/Gnangarra, > > You are righth in one thing: it is very difficult to prove a point only > from one puntual statistic. That's why I have been tracking statistics for > a long time, because patterns are here the most important thing. > Neverthless, there is only one way to know if the point me and some other > users in this thread are rising is valid: experimenting. @Wikipedia should > try something: tweeting 6-7 times a day, with varied topics, "on this day" > like tweets, varying timezones and even curiosities about how Wikipedia > works (https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki/status/1614045362985082881 2 > million impressions in 9 hours). Then, after -let's say- one month, if the > results (engagement, followers, retention) are better, it would be quite > obvious that there's a point changing the social media strategy. If not, if > engagement is the same, no obvious uprise in followers or RTs is visible, > the current strategy could be validated. > > > > Me, personally, I'm ready to help the Communications Team with this task, > proposing intercultural items that could be tweeted and promoted. If they > want help, they know where to go for it. Again, I think that following the > same pattern is a bad communication strategy (as we can see by our own > eyes) and trying something new could be better. Is up to the communications > team to aknowledge this and give a try. > > > > Sincerely, > > Galder > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM > *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter > > > > Kaya Galder > > > > The assumption that despite there being a wider audience the interests of > those audience members is exactly the same, if that was true why have > multiple channels. What I am saying is that in different communities that > doesnt and will never hold true. Using statistics to compare the two is > the issue and then complaining about different audience responses to the > same event being caused by those posting to the channel. Its not the > channel operators, it's the underlying expectation that all audiences are > the same and react exactly the same way every time even as the audience is > increasing by many orders of magnitude. > > > > Boodarwun > > > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 at 02:06, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < > galder...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > @Gnangarra: I would doubt on the idea that Pelé is not relevant to the > English audience, as it was the most visited article by far that day ( > https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&date=2022-12-29&excludes=), > and the second most visited next day, just after the less known Andrew > Tate. Also, the account is not ENGLISH Wikipedia. Is called Wikipedia, so > it should take into account, even if it tweets only about English Wikipedia > (as pointed by @Xavier Dengra) a global audience. Because, again, the goal > is *"By 2030, Wikimedia is to become the central infrastructure for Free > Knowledge on the Internet."*. Not only for US centered people, but by a > global audience. Even with that in mind, Pelé was the most visited article > in English Wikipedia. > > > > @Yaroslav: Basque Wikipedia is not one of the few accounts tweeting about > Pelé, and in perspective, there are more Basque tweeting accounts per > speaker, than there are for other larger languages. We are not competing > with major news outlets; we are competing to be "the central infrastructure > for Free Knowledge on the Internet". Wikipedia is doing well on that: > nearly 2,5 million visits in two days for the article about Pelé only in > English. I think that there may be very few web services having 2,5 million > visits for a page about Pelé in two days, if there's any. Also, next day > the most visited article was about Andrew Tate. So, you are right: we are > not a news outlet, but we are visited according to the news. Any strategy > that doesn't have this in mind, will fail. > > > > You also ask how many tweets a day would be enough. I don't have an answer > for this. I would like the communications team to come with one, but they > don't seem either to have one. I don't think that tweeting every hour is > better, but I'll explain why one tweet per day is a bad strategy, based > only in what we know about the Twitter algorithm: > > - The Twitter algorithm tends to show a tweet to followers and others > more often if it gets more engagements (RTs, likes, comments...). So, > maximizing engagements seems a something positive if we want to reach to > new people. > - It also shows an account more often if the user interacts with it. > If someone likes, RTs or comments a tweet, it seems that this account will > be shown again soon. That's why you see more often tweets from your friends > than others. And that's why ideological bubbles are created. > - If people are engaged with a tweet, it will be shown more regularly > after a tweet by other people you follow once you scroll down. This is why > if you open a tweet by a far-right politician, you will see below other > tweets by far-right sided politicians and the opposite for left, > libertarian, green or vegans. It shows you similar content, based on > people's interaction. > > So, tweeting more doesn't maximize engagement (if you tweet every minute, > you will lose it), but tweeting less minimizes engagement. If you only > tweet once a day, and you don't get too much attention, your next tweet > will be less important for the algorithm, and so on. The only valid > strategy is one that gets people engaged to your tweet, so you get more > impressions, and this drives more interactions, and this drives more > followers. Because, at the end of the day, we want to be "the central > infrastructure for Free Knowledge on the Internet". > > > > I don't know how much is the ideal thing. In Basque Wikipedia our strategy > is to publish 5-6 tweets every day, and then also interact with people > talking about Wikipedia or speaking about articles they have created (like > @viquipedia does, with great success). Our topics from the 5-6 daily tweets > now (2023) are like this: every morning (yes, most of our followers live in > the same time-zone) a biography of someone who was born/died on this day; > then, something that happened 100 years ago. At noon, an artwork. If the > artwork is depicting something interesting, a second tweet linked to that > explaining the artwork itself. Two tweets in the afternoon: the first one, > optional, about something related to Wikipedia itself (Statistics, > projects, some user who has created something cool...) and then > science/technology in a broad sense. At evening, we like to tweet something > related to current events, if this is interesting. We have a shared doc > with the daily tweets and we program them some days in advance. Also, we > use MOA to have them copied to Mastodon. > > > > I don't know, again, if this is the optimal. I know that is better than > one-per-day, because data is obviously better. Engagements, followers and > interactions are better this way, as I have proved above. > > > > Best, > > Galder > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l < > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > *Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2023 3:37 PM > *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > *Cc:* F. Xavier Dengra i Grau <xavier.den...@protonmail.com> > *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter > > > > 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/63A3HD7UDTQUAB2ALBRPOW5V3IDUSULP/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > -- > > Boodarwun > Gnangarra > > 'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardoon ngalang Nyungar > koortaboodjar' > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/OKQ6HNZAJB4XGJSWMBWKOR3HFRLVCT5S/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > Virus-free.www.avg.com > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/NFOQXPW3ZZDDWYLNXQRDSCKWSBYNZQBJ/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org -- Àlex Hinojo
_______________________________________________ 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/7BSNSSSCPSYIEVVDTJ4M5DUDWVVFOKGS/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
