The reasonable account to compared the official @wikipedia account to is Depths of Wikipedia, on Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok. On Twitter it was 715K followers has about 10-20 posts a day, and monster engagement.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023, 7:47 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/D24H4GKFHHYDHRC7DSQI6DCVEIDIMVXZ/ > 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/QMATC56XSA26OLBIFE3C4AGF4GMWXV5C/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
