[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[The Cunctator]

I honestly think the WMF has better things to do than worry about
engagement on what is clearly a grossly mismanaged website.

On Tue, May 2, 2023, 3:53 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Justice,
> Yes, it works that way, because we are not measuring the total engagement
> (where @Wikipedia wins @euwikipedia bat not @viquipedia) but the engagement
> rate per tweet, which is balanced with the number of followers.
>
> Another topic is that the take-over by Elon Musk is affecting our
> engagement, but this should also be taken in account by the Social media
> team. In fact, there should be a discussion following up here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Twitter_verification_checkmarks.
>
>
> Since the changes on the algorithm affects everyone, the @Wikipedia team
> should be interested in learning about successful stories and how other
> social media handles continue having engagement while the one that should
> be leading is losing engagement every month.
>
> Finally, I don't think that any discussion is "settled" if there's no
> answer. For the moment, the answer to the proposal of working together is
> silence.
>
> Thanks
>
> Galder
> --
> *From:* Justice Okai-Allotey 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 2, 2023 9:47 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> Hi Galder,
>
>
> Twitter has consistently seen a downward trend since the take over by Elon
> Musk. A lot of people are not using that platform like they did in the
> past.
>
> And I thought this conversations was settled when WMF brought their social
> media strategy and engagement plan. But it looks like you keep bringing it
> up.
>
> Again you don't expect accounts with less following to have same
> engagements with accounts with higher following it doesn't work that way.
>
> Organizations define their own metrics and so success may mean different
> things to different organizations.
>
> Regards,
> Justice.
>
> On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 07:41, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
> The impact of @wikipedia continues going down on Twitter. There's no
> strategy to turn this trend and the team seems happy with the numbers .
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Organic_social_media_strategy_update.
>
>
> For context, the "Engagement Rate per Tweet" (this is the metric that the
> Communications Team proposed as a benchmark) felt to 0.011% (benchmark
> average is 0.035% and 0.05% for non-profits). Compare it with 0.27% of the
> Basque Wikipedia or the Catalan Wikipedia accounts (both have the same
> impact factor), or the 0.23% of the French Wikipedia account. We are
> talking about strategies with x25 impact.
>
> Some months ago, some users made an offer to collaborate in making the
> social media communication strategy better, but there's no answer from the
> Wikimedia Foundation. I'm still waiting for an aswer to the offer.
>
> Sincerely,
> Galder
> --
> *From:* Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:36 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in
> Twitter
>
> Dear all,
> I write to send a small update on this. In a message about the methodology
> followed to measure success (
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions),
> Laura Dickinson posted this: "*According to its 2022 report
> <https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/>, the
> median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is 0.037%;
> for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054% [our engagement] over the last 28
> day period is 2.7%.*"
>
> I have measured the engagement with that methodology (
> https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/#title-methodology)
> for @Wikipedia in January (Likes+RT+Comments / Number of followers) and the
> result is: 0.012%, three times lower than the industry standard and 4.5
> lower than for non-profits. For context, Basque Wikipedia had 0.055%,
> Catalan Viquipedia 0.060% and Indonesian Wikipedia an astonishing 2.79%.
> (You can check the numbers here:
> https://www.rivaliq.com/free-social-media-analytics/twitter-head-to-head)
>
> There's an open question about the strategy followed and a sincere
> proposal of opening this account to a shared volunteers/WMF administration.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Galder
>
> --
> *From:* Àlex Hinojo 
> *Sent:* Thursday, Jan

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Dear Justice,
Yes, it works that way, because we are not measuring the total engagement 
(where @Wikipedia wins @euwikipedia bat not @viquipedia) but the engagement 
rate per tweet, which is balanced with the number of followers.

Another topic is that the take-over by Elon Musk is affecting our engagement, 
but this should also be taken in account by the Social media team. In fact, 
there should be a discussion following up here: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Twitter_verification_checkmarks.

Since the changes on the algorithm affects everyone, the @Wikipedia team should 
be interested in learning about successful stories and how other social media 
handles continue having engagement while the one that should be leading is 
losing engagement every month.

Finally, I don't think that any discussion is "settled" if there's no answer. 
For the moment, the answer to the proposal of working together is silence.

Thanks

Galder

From: Justice Okai-Allotey 
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 9:47 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

Hi Galder,


Twitter has consistently seen a downward trend since the take over by Elon 
Musk. A lot of people are not using that platform like they did in the past.

And I thought this conversations was settled when WMF brought their social 
media strategy and engagement plan. But it looks like you keep bringing it up.

Again you don't expect accounts with less following to have same engagements 
with accounts with higher following it doesn't work that way.

Organizations define their own metrics and so success may mean different things 
to different organizations.

Regards,
Justice.

On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 07:41, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
mailto:galder...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Dear all,
The impact of @wikipedia continues going down on Twitter. There's no strategy 
to turn this trend and the team seems happy with the numbers 
.https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Organic_social_media_strategy_update.

For context, the "Engagement Rate per Tweet" (this is the metric that the 
Communications Team proposed as a benchmark) felt to 0.011% (benchmark average 
is 0.035% and 0.05% for non-profits). Compare it with 0.27% of the Basque 
Wikipedia or the Catalan Wikipedia accounts (both have the same impact factor), 
or the 0.23% of the French Wikipedia account. We are talking about strategies 
with x25 impact.

Some months ago, some users made an offer to collaborate in making the social 
media communication strategy better, but there's no answer from the Wikimedia 
Foundation. I'm still waiting for an aswer to the offer.

Sincerely,
Galder

From: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
mailto:galder...@hotmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:36 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

Dear all,
I write to send a small update on this. In a message about the methodology 
followed to measure success 
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions),
 Laura Dickinson posted this: "According to its 2022 
report<https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/>, 
the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is 0.037%; 
for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054% [our engagement] over the last 28 day 
period is 2.7%."

I have measured the engagement with that methodology 
(https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/#title-methodology)
 for @Wikipedia in January (Likes+RT+Comments / Number of followers) and the 
result is: 0.012%, three times lower than the industry standard and 4.5 lower 
than for non-profits. For context, Basque Wikipedia had 0.055%, Catalan 
Viquipedia 0.060% and Indonesian Wikipedia an astonishing 2.79%.  (You can 
check the numbers here: 
https://www.rivaliq.com/free-social-media-analytics/twitter-head-to-head)

There's an open question about the strategy followed and a sincere proposal of 
opening this account to a shared volunteers/WMF administration.

Sincerely,

Galder


From: Àlex Hinojo mailto:alexhin...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:42 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

+1

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Peter Southwood 
mailto: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:ja

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Justice Okai-Allotey]

Hi Galder,


Twitter has consistently seen a downward trend since the take over by Elon
Musk. A lot of people are not using that platform like they did in the
past.

And I thought this conversations was settled when WMF brought their social
media strategy and engagement plan. But it looks like you keep bringing it
up.

Again you don't expect accounts with less following to have same
engagements with accounts with higher following it doesn't work that way.

Organizations define their own metrics and so success may mean different
things to different organizations.

Regards,
Justice.

On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 07:41, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> The impact of @wikipedia continues going down on Twitter. There's no
> strategy to turn this trend and the team seems happy with the numbers .
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Organic_social_media_strategy_update.
>
>
> For context, the "Engagement Rate per Tweet" (this is the metric that the
> Communications Team proposed as a benchmark) felt to 0.011% (benchmark
> average is 0.035% and 0.05% for non-profits). Compare it with 0.27% of the
> Basque Wikipedia or the Catalan Wikipedia accounts (both have the same
> impact factor), or the 0.23% of the French Wikipedia account. We are
> talking about strategies with x25 impact.
>
> Some months ago, some users made an offer to collaborate in making the
> social media communication strategy better, but there's no answer from the
> Wikimedia Foundation. I'm still waiting for an aswer to the offer.
>
> Sincerely,
> Galder
> --
> *From:* Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:36 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in
> Twitter
>
> Dear all,
> I write to send a small update on this. In a message about the methodology
> followed to measure success (
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions),
> Laura Dickinson posted this: "*According to its 2022 report
> <https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/>, the
> median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is 0.037%;
> for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054% [our engagement] over the last 28
> day period is 2.7%.*"
>
> I have measured the engagement with that methodology (
> https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/#title-methodology)
> for @Wikipedia in January (Likes+RT+Comments / Number of followers) and the
> result is: 0.012%, three times lower than the industry standard and 4.5
> lower than for non-profits. For context, Basque Wikipedia had 0.055%,
> Catalan Viquipedia 0.060% and Indonesian Wikipedia an astonishing 2.79%.
> (You can check the numbers here:
> https://www.rivaliq.com/free-social-media-analytics/twitter-head-to-head)
>
> There's an open question about the strategy followed and a sincere
> proposal of opening this account to a shared volunteers/WMF administration.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Galder
>
> ------
> *From:* Àlex Hinojo 
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:42 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> +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 so

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Dear all,
The impact of @wikipedia continues going down on Twitter. There's no strategy 
to turn this trend and the team seems happy with the numbers 
.https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Organic_social_media_strategy_update.

For context, the "Engagement Rate per Tweet" (this is the metric that the 
Communications Team proposed as a benchmark) felt to 0.011% (benchmark average 
is 0.035% and 0.05% for non-profits). Compare it with 0.27% of the Basque 
Wikipedia or the Catalan Wikipedia accounts (both have the same impact factor), 
or the 0.23% of the French Wikipedia account. We are talking about strategies 
with x25 impact.

Some months ago, some users made an offer to collaborate in making the social 
media communication strategy better, but there's no answer from the Wikimedia 
Foundation. I'm still waiting for an aswer to the offer.

Sincerely,
Galder

From: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:36 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

Dear all,
I write to send a small update on this. In a message about the methodology 
followed to measure success 
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions),
 Laura Dickinson posted this: "According to its 2022 
report<https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/>, 
the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is 0.037%; 
for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054% [our engagement] over the last 28 day 
period is 2.7%."

I have measured the engagement with that methodology 
(https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/#title-methodology)
 for @Wikipedia in January (Likes+RT+Comments / Number of followers) and the 
result is: 0.012%, three times lower than the industry standard and 4.5 lower 
than for non-profits. For context, Basque Wikipedia had 0.055%, Catalan 
Viquipedia 0.060% and Indonesian Wikipedia an astonishing 2.79%.  (You can 
check the numbers here: 
https://www.rivaliq.com/free-social-media-analytics/twitter-head-to-head)

There's an open question about the strategy followed and a sincere proposal of 
opening this account to a shared volunteers/WMF administration.

Sincerely,

Galder


From: Àlex Hinojo 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:42 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

+1

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Peter Southwood 
mailto: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<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 
mailto: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=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,

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Dear all,
I write to send a small update on this. In a message about the methodology 
followed to measure success 
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions),
 Laura Dickinson posted this: "According to its 2022 
report<https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/>, 
the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is 0.037%; 
for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054% [our engagement] over the last 28 day 
period is 2.7%."

I have measured the engagement with that methodology 
(https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/#title-methodology)
 for @Wikipedia in January (Likes+RT+Comments / Number of followers) and the 
result is: 0.012%, three times lower than the industry standard and 4.5 lower 
than for non-profits. For context, Basque Wikipedia had 0.055%, Catalan 
Viquipedia 0.060% and Indonesian Wikipedia an astonishing 2.79%.  (You can 
check the numbers here: 
https://www.rivaliq.com/free-social-media-analytics/twitter-head-to-head)

There's an open question about the strategy followed and a sincere proposal of 
opening this account to a shared volunteers/WMF administration.

Sincerely,

Galder


From: Àlex Hinojo 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:42 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

+1

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Peter Southwood 
mailto: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<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 
mailto: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=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 
mailto: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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Àlex Hinojo]

+1

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Peter Southwood 
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=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 
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Peter Southwood]

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 
 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 
<https://twitter.com/wikipedia/status/1615756186640334848?s=46=7wB7VI4gwISyFjo-X2jZvQ>
 =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  
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 
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
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  
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 
<https://

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[The Cunctator]

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  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=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 
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM
>> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> *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 t

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Andreas Kolbe]

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=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 
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *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=all-access=2022-12-29=),
> 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

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l]

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=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  
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 
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> 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 
>  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=all-access=2022-12-29=),
>>  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 
>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

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 
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
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 
mailto: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=all-access=2022-12-29=),
 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 politic

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Gnangarra]

resting, 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 
> *Cc:* F. Xavier Dengra i Grau 
> *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 da

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

@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=all-access=2022-12-29=),
 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 
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 3:37 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Cc: F. Xavier Dengra i Grau 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

Hi/Bon dia

Yaroslav: Also, you say one tweet per

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l]

owers. 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 
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 3:21 PM
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> 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 
>> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 8:50 PM
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 18:48, Lauren Dickinson  
>> 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

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Yaroslav Blanter]

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 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 16, 2022 3:21 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *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 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 5, 2022 8:50 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> On Mon

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Gnangarra]

Kaya Galder

The difference would be influenced by the audience, while Pele is a global
sports person the interest in him will be different in many communities. I
would "suspect" coming from a personal perspective that while its news Pele
isnt as revered in many english speaking countries in such a deep way that
his death would reach across generations like it might in the Basque
community.

Comparatively the numbers regarding the audiences depth of interest in the
death of Pope Benedict XVI would also be different with different
audiences.

Sometimes we place too much emphasis on raw numbers and statistics,
ignoring the cultural perspectives and the audiences.

On Twitter I personally would take those follower numbers with a "grain of
salt" or a piece of scepticism as @Wikipedia would have many fake accounts
following to give legitimacy to their perception, along with many others
who follow for reasons that aren't actively liking, retweeting, or
commenting.  Those percentages would differ between Basque and the EN
twitter accounts.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 21:26, 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 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 16, 2022 3:21 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *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 lan

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

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 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 3:21 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
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 
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 8:50 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 18:48, Lauren Dickinson  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

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

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 
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 8:50 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 18:48, Lauren Dickinson  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/CQWT3WBJXNYYT2GRE7PUR7WWQHVFIYET/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 18:48, Lauren Dickinson  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] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l]

y standards are changing on a regular as far as managing social 
>>> media accounts are concerned.
>>>
>>> Thank You.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Justice.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 3:51 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Lauren,
>>>> That's plainly false: the "industry standard" you are using to measure is 
>>>> not related to Twitter engagement measure, because one uses impressions 
>>>> and the other followers. So comparing one measure to the other is not 
>>>> posssible, and we can't claim that we are above industry standards with 
>>>> the data you are providing.
>>>>
>>>> You can skip this conversation, you can report to whoever you want, but 
>>>> you can't claim that the numbers are correct, because that is false.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Galder
>>>>
>>>> 2022(e)ko abu. 2(a) 17:24 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson 
>>>> ):
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Galder,
>>>>>
>>>>> Respectfully, we use [Twitter's definition of engagement 
>>>>> rate](https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/using-the-tweet-activity-dashboard).
>>>>>  Over the last 28 day period, the Wikipedia account garnered a 3.0% 
>>>>> engagement rate. On 
>>>>> [Meta-Wiki](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions),
>>>>>  I previously shared several resources that confirm this is above 
>>>>> industry standards, as I thought you were asking as a point of interest. 
>>>>> The conversation, since, steered into an '[apples and 
>>>>> oranges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges)' comparison of 
>>>>> two different accounts with different strategies, audiences, and goals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, we will be discussing our social media strategy with members of 
>>>>> the Wikimedia communities on the Communications Committee in the near 
>>>>> future. For this discussion, I believe it has become circular and 
>>>>> detracts from our important work. I hope we can leave things at a place 
>>>>> of respectful agreement (or disagreement).
>>>>>
>>>>> Lauren
>>>>>
>>>>> Lauren Dickinson (she/her)
>>>>> Senior Communications Manager
>>>>> [Wikimedia Foundation](https://wikimediafoundation.org/)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:32 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello again,
>>>>>> A couple of weeks ago this conversation[was moved to 
>>>>>> Meta](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions).
>>>>>>  There Lauren, from the Social Media team provided a couple of numbers 
>>>>>> to show how @Wikipedia handle on Twitter is doing "above the industry 
>>>>>> standards". The problem is that this numbers are plainly false. The team 
>>>>>> is dividing the number of interactions by the number of impressions, 
>>>>>> instead of the number of followers, that is what the metric was asking 
>>>>>> for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have asked there for the exact data on impressions, in order to 
>>>>>> calculate the real impact, but once the team has seen that their numbers 
>>>>>> are wrong, they are using distraction tactics in order to bury the 
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, as moving it to Meta seems like a move to forget about this, I would 
>>>>>> like to discuss the topic again. Can someone in the WMF provide the 
>>>>>> number of interactions we had in the last 28 days so we can see if, 
>>>>>> indeed, we are "above the industry standards"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Galder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: The Cunctator 
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 1:55 PM
>>>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>>>>>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>>>>>>
>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Justice Okai-Allotey]

eement (or disagreement).
>
> Lauren
> *Lauren Dickinson (she/her)*
> Senior Communications Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:32 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello again,
> A couple of weeks ago this conversation was moved to Meta
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions>.
> There Lauren, from the Social Media team provided a couple of numbers to
> show how @Wikipedia handle on Twitter is doing "above the industry
> standards". The problem is that this numbers are plainly false. The team is
> dividing the number of interactions by the number of impressions, instead
> of the number of followers, that is what the metric was asking for.
>
> I have asked there for the exact data on impressions, in order to
> calculate the real impact, but once the team has seen that their numbers
> are wrong, they are using distraction tactics in order to bury the problem.
>
> So, as moving it to Meta seems like a move to forget about this, I would
> like to discuss the topic again. Can someone in the WMF provide the number
> of interactions we had in the last 28 days so we can see if, indeed, we are
> "above the industry standards"?
>
> Thanks
>
> Galder
> --
> *From:* The Cunctator 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2022 1:55 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> I'm glad this conversation is moving over to meta-wiki. I hope the
> communications staff will recognize their job should be to facilitate the
> volunteers to do the work when it comes to anything other than speaking for
> the Foundation.
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 2:22 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Lauren, I have followed there, because I think we are measuring two
> very different things when talking about engagement.
>
> Have a good day
> Galder
>
> 2022(e)ko uzt. 18(a) 19:48 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson <
> ldickin...@wikimedia.org>):
>
> Hi Galder, I just left a more detailed reply on Meta-Wiki
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions>
> so we can continue the conversation there. In summary, we refer to a few
> different sources to benchmark our engagement rates on @Wikipedia.
> According to Rival IQ
> <https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/>,
> the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is
> 0.037%; for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054%. According to Adobe
> <https://www.adobe.com/express/learn/blog/what-is-a-good-social-media-engagement-rate>,
> "most would consider 0.5% to be a good engagement rate for Twitter, with
> anything above 1% great." @Wikipedia Twitter's engagement rate, according
> to the dashboard
> <https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/using-the-tweet-activity-dashboard>
> we access when logged-in to the account, over the last 28 day period is
> 2.7%. In May and June, it was 2.6% and 2.2%, respectively. I hope the
> resources shared are helpful for your management of @euwikipedia.
>
> It's difficult to draw direct comparisons between the @euwikipedia and
> @wikipedia accounts due to the difference in follower size and our more
> global focus, as well as the objectives we are prioritizing to support the
> movement but also build resonance among groups who can help us to push
> forward our knowledge equity goals. At the same time, a straight
> comparison—with the understanding that I cannot see the analytics for the
> @euwikipedia account—reveals more retweets, likes, and comments on the
> @Wikipedia account. I'd like to better understand however if we are
> defining engagement differently. Also, an overall higher engagement rate
> from Twitter's analytics could be a result of the low base effect
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_base_effect> (comparing two accounts
> of different sizes).
>
> Please note that I am managing a family commitment this week. I am happy
> to continue this conversation on Meta-Wiki
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions>
> when I return.
>
> Also, Andy, we will follow up this week regarding your questions
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Twitter> about the
> @WiktionaryUsers and @Wiktionary accounts. We do not currently have access
> but are exploring potential options via Twitter now.
>
> Thank you, all, for your comments.
>
> Lauren
> *Lauren Dickins

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Hi Justice,I'm not trying to measure two accounts. I'm trying to know the number of interactions in the last 28 days from @wikipedia, as Lauren claimed that they are using that number when reporting. But it seems that getting that number is now impossible.It's the only thing I'm asking now, because Lauren claimed that the number of interactions was the metric they are using to measure the success of the strategy.If someone at the Communications Team does know the number of interactions in the last month, we could know if @wikipedia is succesful or not. We know that @euwikipedia is succesful by THAT STANDARD, the one proposed by Lauren to measure their work. Is not the one we use at @euwikipedia, as there are other relevant factors, related to audiences and sociolinguistics. Is @wikipedia who should support the claim they made two weeks ago, not me.Thanks,Galder2022(e)ko abu. 2(a) 19:50 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Justice Okai-Allotey ):Hi Galder,I have been reading the back and forth between you and Lauren, and I think we are making a mistake by using two completely different pages audiences to use as a reference.I don't think the account you reference has the same audience as the Wikipedia page, so it would be a mistake to use whatever metrics to make assumptions or make absolute statements. As long as the audience is different, there will be very different metrics, and the so-called industry metrics are not the holy grail. In other to make informed comments about any account metrics we first have to know what kind of metrics they are collecting and what success looks like regardless of each metric collected.Vanity metrics like they say in this day and age is not all that social media managers are looking for when they managing pages.As a social media manager likes and engagement may not mean anything to me but probably conversions will and this may not fully show in the metrics because those may not be the channels we are using to measure conversions.Industry standards are changing on a regular as far as managing social media accounts are concerned.Thank You.Regards,Justice.On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 3:51 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:Dear Lauren,That's plainly false: the "industry standard" you are using to measure is not related to Twitter engagement measure, because one uses impressions and the other followers. So comparing one measure to the other is not posssible, and we can't claim that we are above industry standards with the data you are providing.You can skip this conversation, you can report to whoever you want, but you can't claim that the numbers are correct, because that is false.Sincerely,Galder2022(e)ko abu. 2(a) 17:24 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson <ldickin...@wikimedia.org>):Hi Galder,Respectfully, we use Twitter's definition of engagement rate. Over the last 28 day period, the Wikipedia account garnered a 3.0% engagement rate. On Meta-Wiki, I previously shared several resources that confirm this is above industry standards, as I thought you were asking as a point of interest. The conversation, since, steered into an 'apples and oranges' comparison of two different accounts with different strategies, audiences, and goals.Again, we will be discussing our social media strategy with members of the Wikimedia communities on the Communications Committee in the near future. For this discussion, I believe it has become circular and detracts from our important work. I hope we can leave things at a place of respectful agreement (or disagreement).LaurenLauren Dickinson (she/her)Senior Communications ManagerWikimedia FoundationOn Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:32 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:






Hello again,

A couple of weeks ago this conversation was moved to Meta. There Lauren,
 from the Social Media team provided a couple of numbers to show how @Wikipedia handle on Twitter is doing "above the industry standards". The problem is that this numbers are plainly false. The team is dividing the number of interactions by the number of impressions,
 instead of the number of followers, that is what the metric was asking for.




I have asked there for the exact data on impressions, in order to calculate the real impact, but once the team has seen that their numbers are wrong, they are using distraction tactics in order to bury the problem.






So, as moving it to Meta seems like a move to forget about this, I would like to discuss the topic again. Can someone in the WMF provide the number of interactions we had in the last 28 days so we can see if, indeed, we are "above the industry standards"?




Thanks




Galder



From: The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 1:55 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
 


I'

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Justice Okai-Allotey]

Hi Galder,

I have been reading the back and forth between you and Lauren, and I think
we are making a mistake by using two completely different pages audiences
to use as a reference.

I don't think the account you reference has the same audience as the
Wikipedia page, so it would be a mistake to use whatever metrics to make
assumptions or make absolute statements. As long as the audience is
different, there will be very different metrics, and the so-called industry
metrics are not the holy grail.

In other to make informed comments about any account metrics we first have
to know what kind of metrics they are collecting and what success looks
like regardless of each metric collected.

Vanity metrics like they say in this day and age is not all that social
media managers are looking for when they managing pages.

As a social media manager likes and engagement may not mean anything to me
but probably conversions will and this may not fully show in the metrics
because those may not be the channels we are using to measure conversions.

Industry standards are changing on a regular as far as managing social
media accounts are concerned.

Thank You.

Regards,
Justice.


On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 3:51 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Lauren,
> That's plainly false: the "industry standard" you are using to measure is
> not related to Twitter engagement measure, because one uses impressions and
> the other followers. So comparing one measure to the other is not
> posssible, and we can't claim that we are above industry standards with the
> data you are providing.
>
> You can skip this conversation, you can report to whoever you want, but
> you can't claim that the numbers are correct, because that is false.
>
> Sincerely,
> Galder
>
>
>
>
> 2022(e)ko abu. 2(a) 17:24 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson <
> ldickin...@wikimedia.org>):
>
> Hi Galder,
>
> Respectfully, we use Twitter's definition of engagement rate
> <https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/using-the-tweet-activity-dashboard>.
> Over the last 28 day period, the Wikipedia account garnered a 3.0%
> engagement rate. On Meta-Wiki
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions>,
> I previously shared several resources that confirm this is above industry
> standards, as I thought you were asking as a point of interest. The
> conversation, since, steered into an 'apples and oranges
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges>' comparison of two
> different accounts with different strategies, audiences, and goals.
>
> Again, we will be discussing our social media strategy with members of the
> Wikimedia communities on the Communications Committee in the near future.
> For this discussion, I believe it has become circular and detracts from our
> important work. I hope we can leave things at a place of respectful
> agreement (or disagreement).
>
> Lauren
> *Lauren Dickinson (she/her)*
> Senior Communications Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:32 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello again,
> A couple of weeks ago this conversation was moved to Meta
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions>.
> There Lauren, from the Social Media team provided a couple of numbers to
> show how @Wikipedia handle on Twitter is doing "above the industry
> standards". The problem is that this numbers are plainly false. The team is
> dividing the number of interactions by the number of impressions, instead
> of the number of followers, that is what the metric was asking for.
>
> I have asked there for the exact data on impressions, in order to
> calculate the real impact, but once the team has seen that their numbers
> are wrong, they are using distraction tactics in order to bury the problem.
>
> So, as moving it to Meta seems like a move to forget about this, I would
> like to discuss the topic again. Can someone in the WMF provide the number
> of interactions we had in the last 28 days so we can see if, indeed, we are
> "above the industry standards"?
>
> Thanks
>
> Galder
> --
> *From:* The Cunctator 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2022 1:55 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> I'm glad this conversation is moving over to meta-wiki. I hope the
> communications staff will recognize their job should be to facilitate the
> volunteers to do the work when it comes to anything other than speaking for
> the Foundation.
>
> On Mon, Jul 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Dear Lauren,That's plainly false: the "industry standard" you are using to measure is not related to Twitter engagement measure, because one uses impressions and the other followers. So comparing one measure to the other is not posssible, and we can't claim that we are above industry standards with the data you are providing.You can skip this conversation, you can report to whoever you want, but you can't claim that the numbers are correct, because that is false.Sincerely,Galder2022(e)ko abu. 2(a) 17:24 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson ):Hi Galder,Respectfully, we use Twitter's definition of engagement rate. Over the last 28 day period, the Wikipedia account garnered a 3.0% engagement rate. On Meta-Wiki, I previously shared several resources that confirm this is above industry standards, as I thought you were asking as a point of interest. The conversation, since, steered into an 'apples and oranges' comparison of two different accounts with different strategies, audiences, and goals.Again, we will be discussing our social media strategy with members of the Wikimedia communities on the Communications Committee in the near future. For this discussion, I believe it has become circular and detracts from our important work. I hope we can leave things at a place of respectful agreement (or disagreement).LaurenLauren Dickinson (she/her)Senior Communications ManagerWikimedia FoundationOn Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:32 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:






Hello again,

A couple of weeks ago this conversation was moved to Meta. There Lauren,
 from the Social Media team provided a couple of numbers to show how @Wikipedia handle on Twitter is doing "above the industry standards". The problem is that this numbers are plainly false. The team is dividing the number of interactions by the number of impressions,
 instead of the number of followers, that is what the metric was asking for.




I have asked there for the exact data on impressions, in order to calculate the real impact, but once the team has seen that their numbers are wrong, they are using distraction tactics in order to bury the problem.






So, as moving it to Meta seems like a move to forget about this, I would like to discuss the topic again. Can someone in the WMF provide the number of interactions we had in the last 28 days so we can see if, indeed, we are "above the industry standards"?




Thanks




Galder



From: The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 1:55 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
 


I'm glad this conversation is moving over to meta-wiki. I hope the communications staff will recognize their job should be to facilitate the volunteers to do the work when it comes to anything other than speaking for the Foundation.


On Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 2:22 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:


Thanks Lauren, I have followed there, because I think we are measuring two very different things when talking about engagement.


Have a good day
Galder 


2022(e)ko uzt. 18(a) 19:48 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson <ldickin...@wikimedia.org>):


Hi Galder, I just left a more detailed reply on 
Meta-Wiki so we can continue the conversation there. In summary, we refer to a few different sources to benchmark our engagement rates on @Wikipedia. According to

Rival IQ, the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is 0.037%; for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054%. According to

Adobe, "most would consider 0.5% to be a good engagement rate for Twitter, with anything above 1% great." @Wikipedia Twitter's engagement rate, according to

the dashboard we access when logged-in to the account, over the last 28 day period is 2.7%. In May and June, it was 2.6% and 2.2%, respectively. I hope the resources shared are helpful for your management of @euwikipedia.


It's difficult to draw direct comparisons between the @euwikipedia and @wikipedia accounts due to the difference in follower size and our more global focus, as well as the objectives we are prioritizing to support the movement but also build resonance among
 groups who can help us to push forward our knowledge equity goals. At the same time, a straight comparison—with the understanding that I cannot see the analytics for the @euwikipedia account—reveals more retweets, likes, and comments on the @Wikipedia account.
 I'd like to better understand however if we are defining engagement differently. Also, an overall higher engagement rate from Twitter's analytics could be a result of the

low base effect (comparing two accounts of different sizes).  

Please note that I am managing a family commitment this week. I am happy to continue this conversation on

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Lauren Dickinson]

Hi Galder,

Respectfully, we use Twitter's definition of engagement rate
<https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/using-the-tweet-activity-dashboard>.
Over the last 28 day period, the Wikipedia account garnered a 3.0%
engagement rate. On Meta-Wiki
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions>,
I previously shared several resources that confirm this is above industry
standards, as I thought you were asking as a point of interest. The
conversation, since, steered into an 'apples and oranges
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges>' comparison of two
different accounts with different strategies, audiences, and goals.

Again, we will be discussing our social media strategy with members of the
Wikimedia communities on the Communications Committee in the near future.
For this discussion, I believe it has become circular and detracts from our
important work. I hope we can leave things at a place of respectful
agreement (or disagreement).

Lauren
*Lauren Dickinson (she/her)*
Senior Communications Manager
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>


On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:32 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hello again,
> A couple of weeks ago this conversation was moved to Meta
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions>.
> There Lauren, from the Social Media team provided a couple of numbers to
> show how @Wikipedia handle on Twitter is doing "above the industry
> standards". The problem is that this numbers are plainly false. The team is
> dividing the number of interactions by the number of impressions, instead
> of the number of followers, that is what the metric was asking for.
>
> I have asked there for the exact data on impressions, in order to
> calculate the real impact, but once the team has seen that their numbers
> are wrong, they are using distraction tactics in order to bury the problem.
>
> So, as moving it to Meta seems like a move to forget about this, I would
> like to discuss the topic again. Can someone in the WMF provide the number
> of interactions we had in the last 28 days so we can see if, indeed, we are
> "above the industry standards"?
>
> Thanks
>
> Galder
> --
> *From:* The Cunctator 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2022 1:55 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> I'm glad this conversation is moving over to meta-wiki. I hope the
> communications staff will recognize their job should be to facilitate the
> volunteers to do the work when it comes to anything other than speaking for
> the Foundation.
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 2:22 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Lauren, I have followed there, because I think we are measuring two
> very different things when talking about engagement.
>
> Have a good day
> Galder
>
> 2022(e)ko uzt. 18(a) 19:48 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson <
> ldickin...@wikimedia.org>):
>
> Hi Galder, I just left a more detailed reply on Meta-Wiki
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions>
> so we can continue the conversation there. In summary, we refer to a few
> different sources to benchmark our engagement rates on @Wikipedia.
> According to Rival IQ
> <https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/>,
> the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is
> 0.037%; for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054%. According to Adobe
> <https://www.adobe.com/express/learn/blog/what-is-a-good-social-media-engagement-rate>,
> "most would consider 0.5% to be a good engagement rate for Twitter, with
> anything above 1% great." @Wikipedia Twitter's engagement rate, according
> to the dashboard
> <https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/using-the-tweet-activity-dashboard>
> we access when logged-in to the account, over the last 28 day period is
> 2.7%. In May and June, it was 2.6% and 2.2%, respectively. I hope the
> resources shared are helpful for your management of @euwikipedia.
>
> It's difficult to draw direct comparisons between the @euwikipedia and
> @wikipedia accounts due to the difference in follower size and our more
> global focus, as well as the objectives we are prioritizing to support the
> movement but also build resonance among groups who can help us to push
> forward our knowledge equity goals. At the same time, a straight
> comparison—with the understanding that I cannot see the analytics for the
> @euwikipedia account—reveals more retweets, likes, and comments on the
&

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Hello again,
A couple of weeks ago this conversation was moved to 
Meta<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions>.
 There Lauren, from the Social Media team provided a couple of numbers to show 
how @Wikipedia handle on Twitter is doing "above the industry standards". The 
problem is that this numbers are plainly false. The team is dividing the number 
of interactions by the number of impressions, instead of the number of 
followers, that is what the metric was asking for.

I have asked there for the exact data on impressions, in order to calculate the 
real impact, but once the team has seen that their numbers are wrong, they are 
using distraction tactics in order to bury the problem.

So, as moving it to Meta seems like a move to forget about this, I would like 
to discuss the topic again. Can someone in the WMF provide the number of 
interactions we had in the last 28 days so we can see if, indeed, we are "above 
the industry standards"?

Thanks

Galder

From: The Cunctator 
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 1:55 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

I'm glad this conversation is moving over to meta-wiki. I hope the 
communications staff will recognize their job should be to facilitate the 
volunteers to do the work when it comes to anything other than speaking for the 
Foundation.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 2:22 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
mailto:galder...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks Lauren, I have followed there, because I think we are measuring two very 
different things when talking about engagement.

Have a good day
Galder

2022(e)ko uzt. 18(a) 19:48 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson 
mailto:ldickin...@wikimedia.org>>):
Hi Galder, I just left a more detailed reply on 
Meta-Wiki<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions>
 so we can continue the conversation there. In summary, we refer to a few 
different sources to benchmark our engagement rates on @Wikipedia. According to 
Rival IQ<https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/>, 
the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all industries is 0.037%; 
for nonprofits specifically, it is 0.054%. According to 
Adobe<https://www.adobe.com/express/learn/blog/what-is-a-good-social-media-engagement-rate>,
 "most would consider 0.5% to be a good engagement rate for Twitter, with 
anything above 1% great." @Wikipedia Twitter's engagement rate, according to 
the 
dashboard<https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/using-the-tweet-activity-dashboard>
 we access when logged-in to the account, over the last 28 day period is 2.7%. 
In May and June, it was 2.6% and 2.2%, respectively. I hope the resources 
shared are helpful for your management of @euwikipedia.

It's difficult to draw direct comparisons between the @euwikipedia and 
@wikipedia accounts due to the difference in follower size and our more global 
focus, as well as the objectives we are prioritizing to support the movement 
but also build resonance among groups who can help us to push forward our 
knowledge equity goals. At the same time, a straight comparison—with the 
understanding that I cannot see the analytics for the @euwikipedia 
account—reveals more retweets, likes, and comments on the @Wikipedia account. 
I'd like to better understand however if we are defining engagement 
differently. Also, an overall higher engagement rate from Twitter's analytics 
could be a result of the low base 
effect<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_base_effect> (comparing two accounts 
of different sizes).

Please note that I am managing a family commitment this week. I am happy to 
continue this conversation on 
Meta-Wiki<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_questions>
 when I return.

Also, Andy, we will follow up this week regarding your 
questions<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Twitter> about the 
@WiktionaryUsers and @Wiktionary accounts. We do not currently have access but 
are exploring potential options via Twitter now.

Thank you, all, for your comments.

Lauren
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Wikimedia-logo_black.svg/54px-Wikimedia-logo_black.svg.png]
  Lauren Dickinson (she/her)
Senior Communications Manager
Wikimedia Foundation<https://wikimediafoundation.org/>


On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 5:16 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
mailto:galder...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the answer, Lauren. I see quite a few interactions with the tweets 
(despite having more than half a million followers). You say that the 
engagement is above the industry standard. Is there any data we can use to 
compare? I'm one of the managers of @euwikipedia and I see we have even more 
engagement than @wikipedia, so I would like to 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[The Cunctator]

ter.com/euwikipedia) we have
> an internal shared spreadsheet where we put in the columns the days and in
> the rows the scheduled time for the tweet. Every day (yes, we have only one
> time zone, what makes things easier) we try to open with two "on this day".
> This is extra easy, because you only need to look to the article about the
> day and choose some that may be interesting or round numbers (100 years ago
> today...). Then we try to tweet every day something about science, then
> social sciences or history, a building, a fiction or artwork and we end the
> day with a third "on this day" that may be more curious. We have two extra
> time sections reserved for news about Wikipedia itself (statistics,
> wikiprojects, featured content...) and something related to news of the
> day/current events. We also tweet about sex whenever we have new content
> every Friday at 23:59. This makes around 8 tweets a day, with some extra
> options if we have something extra to tell, or there is an important recent
> death, etc... Is true that we are not posting in Facebook or Instagram, but
> this is a task we do when we have spare time in our regular jobs: we don't
> have any extra worker to manage them. It takes around 4-5 hours to make a
> full schedule for a month (and it would take less in English Wikipedia,
> where there's plenty of content), and then around 8-10 hours to schedule
> the ~250 tweets we make a month.
>
> If you need help to manage the Twitter account, don't hesitate on
> contacting other members of the community. We can help with this.
>
> Sincerely,
> Galder
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Andy Mabbett 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2022 8:37 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 01:23, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> >
> > +1, not just en:wp. I'd love to see community mods involved in
> maintaining the core social accounts.
>
> We have a Facebook group (not the ideal venue, but it works for those
> of us on that site), "Wikimedia social media hub" [1], for that; but
> WMF staff decided to cease their involvement about 18 months ago.
>
>
> [1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikisocialmediahub
> ___
> 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/2B6DDQRQEVZOSIBUQZQH5AAY7DKMFP42/
> 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/PWD2WQFIZY3NUX2FLMWGA747XICRJ4KS/
> 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/WO7OI3DXUJHSRIJ7ICI7METAF5FOGJKW/
> 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/V57VKWBJDDKW6RVBLCTFMQCNPTHCWS2A/
> 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/3N7EAPGLAMZTB6EGMIWYH3OHLZTBFUQT/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

owing and a consistent above-average engagement rate when compared to industry standards.Lastly, I'll note that we are planning to discuss our refreshed digital communications strategy with ComCom in the coming months. It includes lessons gleaned over the last two years on how to position community work so that it reaches the right audiences and helps to advance movement goals. One of our focuses is on better amplifying the work of volunteers in the movement, and we are eager to get reactions / ideas on ways we can do this even more. I hope this is all helpful context and information. Thanks again for sharing your ideas and feedback with us. LaurenLauren Dickinson (she/her)Senior Communications ManagerWikimedia FoundationOn Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 4:24 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:






Thanks for the answer, Lauren.




I have been looking at the stats of the last 4 weeks in Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, to make an idea of the activity those accounts have. I don't know how many people takes part in the process, but as I read "We" in the answer, I'm going to assume that
 is more than one person to do all of this job.




In Twitter, before my e-mail (after that there was a tweet by Wikimedia Chile that was mentioned by @Wikipedia), the last tweet was two days before. From June 10th to July 10th 34 tweets were done, 5 of them about the concept
 "tea". That makes roughly one tweet a day, but there have been many days without any tweet activity. In Facebook I count 24 posts related to Wikipedia. This is 0,77 posts per day. In Instagram the situation is worse, only 9 posts in one month, is to say, one
 every 3 days. It could be that June 10th to July 10th is a bad moment, but I have looked up previous months, and the trend is the same: most of the days is 1 tweet, there are some days with 0 activity, and some other days
 with 3-4 tweets, usually about the same topic. 





I don't know how long it takes to do that, but based on my experience managing social media, this activity (a tweet a day, 0,7 posts in Facebook a day and 0,3 posts in Instagram, that actually are about the same topic) takes around 30 minutes per day, a little
 bit longer if I need to take extra-extra care to choose the article. I don't know how many workers are in this process, but I assume that the "we" means than is more than one.




Let me help with this, because there are many processes that can booster the activity and make our engagement in social media better. In the French Wikipedia they have a page where people can propose tweets about curious things (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Aide_et_accueil/Twitter/Tweets).
 These tweets are shared with the hashtag 
#WPLSV. 
Viquipedia is another success story, with a great engagement (far better than the @Wikipedia account, by the way).






In the Basque Wikipedia account (https://twitter.com/euwikipedia) we have an internal shared spreadsheet where we put in the columns the days and in the rows the scheduled time for the
 tweet. Every day (yes, we have only one time zone, what makes things easier) we try to open with two "on this day". This is extra easy, because you only need to look to the article about the day and choose some that may be interesting or round numbers (100
 years ago today...). Then we try to tweet every day something about science, then social sciences or history, a building, a fiction or artwork and we end the day with a third "on this day" that may be more curious. We have two extra time sections reserved
 for news about Wikipedia itself (statistics, wikiprojects, featured content...) and something related to news of the day/current events. We also tweet about sex whenever we have new content every Friday at 23:59. This makes around 8 tweets a day, with some
 extra options if we have something extra to tell, or there is an important recent death, etc... Is true that we are not posting in Facebook or Instagram, but this is a task we do when we have spare time in our regular jobs: we don't have any extra worker to
 manage them. It takes around 4-5 hours to make a full schedule for a month (and it would take less in English Wikipedia, where there's plenty of content), and then around 8-10 hours to schedule the ~250 tweets we make a month.






If you need help to manage the Twitter account, don't hesitate on contacting other members of the community. We can help with this.




Sincerely,

Galder











From: Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 8:37 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
 


On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 01:23, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1, not just en:wp. I'd love to see community mods involved in maintaining the

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Lauren Dickinson]

 about sex whenever we have new content
> every Friday at 23:59. This makes around 8 tweets a day, with some extra
> options if we have something extra to tell, or there is an important recent
> death, etc... Is true that we are not posting in Facebook or Instagram, but
> this is a task we do when we have spare time in our regular jobs: we don't
> have any extra worker to manage them. It takes around 4-5 hours to make a
> full schedule for a month (and it would take less in English Wikipedia,
> where there's plenty of content), and then around 8-10 hours to schedule
> the ~250 tweets we make a month.
>
> If you need help to manage the Twitter account, don't hesitate on
> contacting other members of the community. We can help with this.
>
> Sincerely,
> Galder
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Andy Mabbett 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2022 8:37 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 01:23, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> >
> > +1, not just en:wp. I'd love to see community mods involved in
> maintaining the core social accounts.
>
> We have a Facebook group (not the ideal venue, but it works for those
> of us on that site), "Wikimedia social media hub" [1], for that; but
> WMF staff decided to cease their involvement about 18 months ago.
>
>
> [1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikisocialmediahub
> ___
> 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/2B6DDQRQEVZOSIBUQZQH5AAY7DKMFP42/
> 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/PWD2WQFIZY3NUX2FLMWGA747XICRJ4KS/
> 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/WO7OI3DXUJHSRIJ7ICI7METAF5FOGJKW/
> 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/KO34BIJPESNNZYRPEMD4LIYSEXQUM6YR/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

on't know how many workers are in this process, but I assume that the "we" means than is more than one.




Let me help with this, because there are many processes that can booster the activity and make our engagement in social media better. In the French Wikipedia they have a page where people can propose tweets about curious things (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Aide_et_accueil/Twitter/Tweets).
 These tweets are shared with the hashtag 
#WPLSV. 
Viquipedia is another success story, with a great engagement (far better than the @Wikipedia account, by the way).






In the Basque Wikipedia account (https://twitter.com/euwikipedia) we have an internal shared spreadsheet where we put in the columns the days and in the rows the scheduled time for the
 tweet. Every day (yes, we have only one time zone, what makes things easier) we try to open with two "on this day". This is extra easy, because you only need to look to the article about the day and choose some that may be interesting or round numbers (100
 years ago today...). Then we try to tweet every day something about science, then social sciences or history, a building, a fiction or artwork and we end the day with a third "on this day" that may be more curious. We have two extra time sections reserved
 for news about Wikipedia itself (statistics, wikiprojects, featured content...) and something related to news of the day/current events. We also tweet about sex whenever we have new content every Friday at 23:59. This makes around 8 tweets a day, with some
 extra options if we have something extra to tell, or there is an important recent death, etc... Is true that we are not posting in Facebook or Instagram, but this is a task we do when we have spare time in our regular jobs: we don't have any extra worker to
 manage them. It takes around 4-5 hours to make a full schedule for a month (and it would take less in English Wikipedia, where there's plenty of content), and then around 8-10 hours to schedule the ~250 tweets we make a month.






If you need help to manage the Twitter account, don't hesitate on contacting other members of the community. We can help with this.




Sincerely,

Galder











From: Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 8:37 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
 


On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 01:23, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1, not just en:wp. I'd love to see community mods involved in maintaining the core social accounts.

We have a Facebook group (not the ideal venue, but it works for those
of us on that site), "Wikimedia social media hub" [1], for that; but
WMF staff decided to cease their involvement about 18 months ago.


[1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikisocialmediahub
___
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/2B6DDQRQEVZOSIBUQZQH5AAY7DKMFP42/
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/PWD2WQFIZY3NUX2FLMWGA747XICRJ4KS/
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/WO7OI3DXUJHSRIJ7ICI7METAF5FOGJKW/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Ashwin Baindur]

The responses from the Communication department is FoundationSpeak. The
figures mentioned by Galder show that the output from those managing the
@wikiopedia account is pedestrian at best.  From the sentiment of the
responses, it's really time community volunteers got into the act and
tweeted items important to them. I endorse the idea about seperate Twitter
identities for different language communities in Wikipedia. It's essential
work and it would be great if volunteers took up to fill this opportunity
on social media.

AshLin

On Sat, 16 Jul, 2022, 8:42 pm Andy Mabbett, 
wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 23:56, Lauren Dickinson 
> wrote:
> >
> > thanks for these comments!
>
> Please could you also respond (here or on Meta) to the discussion on
> Meta that I linked to above? A reminder of the URL:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Twitter
>
> --
> 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/WOAFUTHLYRJBY7BMN6OKJ22HZQQVN2AO/
> 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/WVVY2FAKIQDAHLM7T7PRRRQOQYD3GB62/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Andy Mabbett]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 23:56, Lauren Dickinson  wrote:
>
> thanks for these comments!

Please could you also respond (here or on Meta) to the discussion on
Meta that I linked to above? A reminder of the URL:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Twitter

-- 
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/WOAFUTHLYRJBY7BMN6OKJ22HZQQVN2AO/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Lauren Dickinson]

make our engagement in social media better. In the French
> Wikipedia they have a page where people can propose tweets about curious
> things (
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Aide_et_accueil/Twitter/Tweets).
> These tweets are shared with the hashtag #WPLSV
> <https://twitter.com/hashtag/WPLSV>. Viquipedia
> <https://twitter.com/Viquipedia/> is another success story, with a great
> engagement (far better than the @Wikipedia account, by the way).
>
> In the Basque Wikipedia account (https://twitter.com/euwikipedia) we have
> an internal shared spreadsheet where we put in the columns the days and in
> the rows the scheduled time for the tweet. Every day (yes, we have only one
> time zone, what makes things easier) we try to open with two "on this day".
> This is extra easy, because you only need to look to the article about the
> day and choose some that may be interesting or round numbers (100 years ago
> today...). Then we try to tweet every day something about science, then
> social sciences or history, a building, a fiction or artwork and we end the
> day with a third "on this day" that may be more curious. We have two extra
> time sections reserved for news about Wikipedia itself (statistics,
> wikiprojects, featured content...) and something related to news of the
> day/current events. We also tweet about sex whenever we have new content
> every Friday at 23:59. This makes around 8 tweets a day, with some extra
> options if we have something extra to tell, or there is an important recent
> death, etc... Is true that we are not posting in Facebook or Instagram, but
> this is a task we do when we have spare time in our regular jobs: we don't
> have any extra worker to manage them. It takes around 4-5 hours to make a
> full schedule for a month (and it would take less in English Wikipedia,
> where there's plenty of content), and then around 8-10 hours to schedule
> the ~250 tweets we make a month.
>
> If you need help to manage the Twitter account, don't hesitate on
> contacting other members of the community. We can help with this.
>
> Sincerely,
> Galder
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Andy Mabbett 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2022 8:37 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 01:23, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> >
> > +1, not just en:wp. I'd love to see community mods involved in
> maintaining the core social accounts.
>
> We have a Facebook group (not the ideal venue, but it works for those
> of us on that site), "Wikimedia social media hub" [1], for that; but
> WMF staff decided to cease their involvement about 18 months ago.
>
>
> [1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikisocialmediahub
> ___
> 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/2B6DDQRQEVZOSIBUQZQH5AAY7DKMFP42/
> 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/PWD2WQFIZY3NUX2FLMWGA747XICRJ4KS/
> 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/EQNMS2Z6MZ6UQKWRCVMHHONTONVGRS24/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Thanks for the answer, Lauren.

I have been looking at the stats of the last 4 weeks in Twitter, Facebook and 
Instagram, to make an idea of the activity those accounts have. I don't know 
how many people takes part in the process, but as I read "We" in the answer, 
I'm going to assume that is more than one person to do all of this job.

In Twitter, before my e-mail (after that there was a tweet by Wikimedia Chile 
that was mentioned by @Wikipedia), the last tweet was two days before. From 
June 10th to July 10th 34 tweets were done, 5 of them about the concept "tea". 
That makes roughly one tweet a day, but there have been many days without any 
tweet activity. In Facebook I count 24 posts related to Wikipedia. This is 0,77 
posts per day. In Instagram the situation is worse, only 9 posts in one month, 
is to say, one every 3 days. It could be that June 10th to July 10th is a bad 
moment, but I have looked up previous months, and the trend is the same: most 
of the days is 1 tweet, there are some days with 0 activity, and some other 
days with 3-4 tweets, usually about the same topic.

I don't know how long it takes to do that, but based on my experience managing 
social media, this activity (a tweet a day, 0,7 posts in Facebook a day and 0,3 
posts in Instagram, that actually are about the same topic) takes around 30 
minutes per day, a little bit longer if I need to take extra-extra care to 
choose the article. I don't know how many workers are in this process, but I 
assume that the "we" means than is more than one.

Let me help with this, because there are many processes that can booster the 
activity and make our engagement in social media better. In the French 
Wikipedia they have a page where people can propose tweets about curious things 
(https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Aide_et_accueil/Twitter/Tweets). These 
tweets are shared with the hashtag #WPLSV<https://twitter.com/hashtag/WPLSV>. 
Viquipedia<https://twitter.com/Viquipedia/> is another success story, with a 
great engagement (far better than the @Wikipedia account, by the way).

In the Basque Wikipedia account (https://twitter.com/euwikipedia) we have an 
internal shared spreadsheet where we put in the columns the days and in the 
rows the scheduled time for the tweet. Every day (yes, we have only one time 
zone, what makes things easier) we try to open with two "on this day". This is 
extra easy, because you only need to look to the article about the day and 
choose some that may be interesting or round numbers (100 years ago today...). 
Then we try to tweet every day something about science, then social sciences or 
history, a building, a fiction or artwork and we end the day with a third "on 
this day" that may be more curious. We have two extra time sections reserved 
for news about Wikipedia itself (statistics, wikiprojects, featured content...) 
and something related to news of the day/current events. We also tweet about 
sex whenever we have new content every Friday at 23:59. This makes around 8 
tweets a day, with some extra options if we have something extra to tell, or 
there is an important recent death, etc... Is true that we are not posting in 
Facebook or Instagram, but this is a task we do when we have spare time in our 
regular jobs: we don't have any extra worker to manage them. It takes around 
4-5 hours to make a full schedule for a month (and it would take less in 
English Wikipedia, where there's plenty of content), and then around 8-10 hours 
to schedule the ~250 tweets we make a month.

If you need help to manage the Twitter account, don't hesitate on contacting 
other members of the community. We can help with this.

Sincerely,
Galder




From: Andy Mabbett 
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 8:37 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 01:23, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> +1, not just en:wp. I'd love to see community mods involved in maintaining 
> the core social accounts.

We have a Facebook group (not the ideal venue, but it works for those
of us on that site), "Wikimedia social media hub" [1], for that; but
WMF staff decided to cease their involvement about 18 months ago.


[1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikisocialmediahub
___
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/2B6DDQRQEVZOSIBUQZQH5AAY7DKMFP42/
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_

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Andy Mabbett]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 01:23, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> +1, not just en:wp. I'd love to see community mods involved in maintaining 
> the core social accounts.

We have a Facebook group (not the ideal venue, but it works for those
of us on that site), "Wikimedia social media hub" [1], for that; but
WMF staff decided to cease their involvement about 18 months ago.


[1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikisocialmediahub
___
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/2B6DDQRQEVZOSIBUQZQH5AAY7DKMFP42/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Samuel Klein]

+1, not just en:wp. I'd love to see community mods involved in maintaining
the core social accounts. We could certainly queue up messages on a
wikipage using existing scripts and tools, in a way that could be
multiplexed across different media channels (and the workflow used by
anyone federating such updates to other platforms). Slight tweaks to
ITN/DYK formats in many languages (optimizing for embeds, replies,
threading) would make great posts. [and we have solid social media stars in
the community who could help as well or guest-curate from time to time]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 6:10 PM Nathan  wrote:

> The English Wikipedia community has managed the Main Page in English for
> many years, including rapidly updated ITN and DYK sections. The prominence
> of the Main Page has declined a little bit as a landing page, but it
> suggests that there may be better alternatives to staff planning tweets out
> a few weeks ahead and taking submissions via a Google form. Perhaps the
> communications team can look into some of these options that might leverage
> the strength and core competencies of the community?
>
> ~Nate
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 6:05 PM Lauren Dickinson 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone, I hope you are all doing well and enjoying the new images
>> from the Webb telescope. They are truly incredible.
>>
>> In response to Lodewijk's question, the Foundation's Communications
>> Department manages the English Wikipedia social media accounts (on
>> Facebook , Twitter
>> , and Instagram
>> ), as well as the Wikimedia
>> Foundation accounts. There is more information about that on Meta-Wiki
>> .
>>
>> We try to plan the content calendar about one to two weeks in advance,
>> but we stay flexible to react to current events and Wikimedia news. We
>> always welcome ideas for articles and content to share from both the
>> Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia channels. You can share ideas with us at
>> any time via this Google Form
>> .
>> Amplifying the work of volunteers in the movement is important to us, and
>> we value suggestions on opportunities for us to do this further.
>>
>> Regarding the Webb telescope news, we are planning to share the related
>> Wikipedia article as this Friday's Article of the Week
>>  on
>> Wikipedia's social media channels, and to highlight that the images are
>> available on Commons. Every Friday, we share an article that is relevant to
>> current global events and conversations (e.g. we shared about Hajj
>>  last week),
>> so we thought the Webb telescope would be a perfect fit for this week.
>>
>> We also look for opportunities to retweet posts from others related to
>> Wikimedia and current topics. For example, we just shared this post from
>> Wikimedia Chile
>>  about the
>> Webb images. With this approach, we can share about the same topic in
>> multiple ways, from a range of perspectives, and celebrate community
>> groups. Another way is by sharing blog posts and media coverage that
>> mention us.
>>
>> With that in mind, another idea I would like to propose is a blog post
>> on Diff  that tells the story of how
>> Wikimedia communities responded to the release of the images and made sure
>> information and the photos were quickly available on Wikimedia projects.
>> This is just an idea. If anyone is interested in writing that blog, please
>> let us know! We can then amplify the post on social media to bring it more
>> visibility.
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
>>
>> Lauren
>> *Lauren Dickinson (she/her)*
>> Senior Communications Manager
>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 1:43 PM effe iets anders <
>> effeietsand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How is @Wikipedia (and similar accounts) being managed right now? I'm
>>> mostly curious about the process how the tweets are decided upon - is this
>>> a staff-driven process or is there some community engagement? Is it planned
>>> out long in advance, or reactive (or somewhere in between)?
>>>
>>> Are there opportunities to better bolster the strengths of our community?
>>>
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 9:30 AM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>>>
 We should all be answering questions :)  The public interest will only
 grow with the glorious images coming out today.

 On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 10:45 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
 galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Good day,
> Yesterday, the James Webb telescope published its first image, called
> "Webb's 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Nathan]

The English Wikipedia community has managed the Main Page in English for
many years, including rapidly updated ITN and DYK sections. The prominence
of the Main Page has declined a little bit as a landing page, but it
suggests that there may be better alternatives to staff planning tweets out
a few weeks ahead and taking submissions via a Google form. Perhaps the
communications team can look into some of these options that might leverage
the strength and core competencies of the community?

~Nate

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 6:05 PM Lauren Dickinson 
wrote:

> Hi everyone, I hope you are all doing well and enjoying the new images
> from the Webb telescope. They are truly incredible.
>
> In response to Lodewijk's question, the Foundation's Communications
> Department manages the English Wikipedia social media accounts (on
> Facebook , Twitter
> , and Instagram
> ), as well as the Wikimedia
> Foundation accounts. There is more information about that on Meta-Wiki
> .
>
> We try to plan the content calendar about one to two weeks in advance, but
> we stay flexible to react to current events and Wikimedia news. We always
> welcome ideas for articles and content to share from both the Wikimedia
> Foundation and Wikipedia channels. You can share ideas with us at any time
> via this Google Form
> .
> Amplifying the work of volunteers in the movement is important to us, and
> we value suggestions on opportunities for us to do this further.
>
> Regarding the Webb telescope news, we are planning to share the related
> Wikipedia article as this Friday's Article of the Week
>  on
> Wikipedia's social media channels, and to highlight that the images are
> available on Commons. Every Friday, we share an article that is relevant to
> current global events and conversations (e.g. we shared about Hajj
>  last week), so
> we thought the Webb telescope would be a perfect fit for this week.
>
> We also look for opportunities to retweet posts from others related to
> Wikimedia and current topics. For example, we just shared this post from
> Wikimedia Chile 
> about the Webb images. With this approach, we can share about the same
> topic in multiple ways, from a range of perspectives, and celebrate
> community groups. Another way is by sharing blog posts and media coverage
> that mention us.
>
> With that in mind, another idea I would like to propose is a blog post on
> Diff  that tells the story of how Wikimedia
> communities responded to the release of the images and made sure
> information and the photos were quickly available on Wikimedia projects.
> This is just an idea. If anyone is interested in writing that blog, please
> let us know! We can then amplify the post on social media to bring it more
> visibility.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
>
> Lauren
> *Lauren Dickinson (she/her)*
> Senior Communications Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 1:43 PM effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
>> How is @Wikipedia (and similar accounts) being managed right now? I'm
>> mostly curious about the process how the tweets are decided upon - is this
>> a staff-driven process or is there some community engagement? Is it planned
>> out long in advance, or reactive (or somewhere in between)?
>>
>> Are there opportunities to better bolster the strengths of our community?
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 9:30 AM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>>
>>> We should all be answering questions :)  The public interest will only
>>> grow with the glorious images coming out today.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 10:45 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
>>> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Good day,
 Yesterday, the James Webb telescope published its first image, called
 "Webb's Frist Deep Field" (
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webb%27s_First_Deep_Field). An article
 about the image existis in 14 languages. The tweet announcing it has
 collected in less than a day more than 77.000 RTs and 275.000 likes (
 https://twitter.com/NASAWebb/status/1546621080298835970). The main
 object of the image didn't have any article at any Wikipedia (not an item
 at Wikidata) yesterday. Now we have an article in 8 languages:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMACS_J0723.3-7327 and a category in
 Commons.

 Well, the Wikipedia twitter handle didn't tweet anything about this
 achievement, and didn't give any contest to the image. (
 https://twitter.com/wikipedia).

 We 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Lauren Dickinson]

Hi everyone, I hope you are all doing well and enjoying the new images from
the Webb telescope. They are truly incredible.

In response to Lodewijk's question, the Foundation's Communications
Department manages the English Wikipedia social media accounts (on Facebook
, Twitter
, and Instagram
), as well as the Wikimedia
Foundation accounts. There is more information about that on Meta-Wiki
.

We try to plan the content calendar about one to two weeks in advance, but
we stay flexible to react to current events and Wikimedia news. We always
welcome ideas for articles and content to share from both the Wikimedia
Foundation and Wikipedia channels. You can share ideas with us at any time
via this Google Form
.
Amplifying the work of volunteers in the movement is important to us, and
we value suggestions on opportunities for us to do this further.

Regarding the Webb telescope news, we are planning to share the related
Wikipedia article as this Friday's Article of the Week
 on
Wikipedia's social media channels, and to highlight that the images are
available on Commons. Every Friday, we share an article that is relevant to
current global events and conversations (e.g. we shared about Hajj
 last week), so
we thought the Webb telescope would be a perfect fit for this week.

We also look for opportunities to retweet posts from others related to
Wikimedia and current topics. For example, we just shared this post from
Wikimedia Chile 
about the Webb images. With this approach, we can share about the same
topic in multiple ways, from a range of perspectives, and celebrate
community groups. Another way is by sharing blog posts and media coverage
that mention us.

With that in mind, another idea I would like to propose is a blog post on
Diff  that tells the story of how Wikimedia
communities responded to the release of the images and made sure
information and the photos were quickly available on Wikimedia projects.
This is just an idea. If anyone is interested in writing that blog, please
let us know! We can then amplify the post on social media to bring it more
visibility.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Lauren
*Lauren Dickinson (she/her)*
Senior Communications Manager
Wikimedia Foundation 


On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 1:43 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> How is @Wikipedia (and similar accounts) being managed right now? I'm
> mostly curious about the process how the tweets are decided upon - is this
> a staff-driven process or is there some community engagement? Is it planned
> out long in advance, or reactive (or somewhere in between)?
>
> Are there opportunities to better bolster the strengths of our community?
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 9:30 AM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
>> We should all be answering questions :)  The public interest will only
>> grow with the glorious images coming out today.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 10:45 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
>> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Good day,
>>> Yesterday, the James Webb telescope published its first image, called
>>> "Webb's Frist Deep Field" (
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webb%27s_First_Deep_Field). An article
>>> about the image existis in 14 languages. The tweet announcing it has
>>> collected in less than a day more than 77.000 RTs and 275.000 likes (
>>> https://twitter.com/NASAWebb/status/1546621080298835970). The main
>>> object of the image didn't have any article at any Wikipedia (not an item
>>> at Wikidata) yesterday. Now we have an article in 8 languages:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMACS_J0723.3-7327 and a category in
>>> Commons.
>>>
>>> Well, the Wikipedia twitter handle didn't tweet anything about this
>>> achievement, and didn't give any contest to the image. (
>>> https://twitter.com/wikipedia).
>>>
>>> We could be answering questions. "By 2030, Wikimedia will become the
>>> essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge". We could be
>>> centering free knowledge at Wikimedia.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Galder
>>> ___
>>> 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/ZOCBTOH4CXJDCV74J7YR6HAVL7EAGOQF/
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Samuel 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Andy Mabbett]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 at 15:45, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
 wrote:

> Subject: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

See also the (unanswered) issue I raised, at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Twitter

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://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/MT5BMPJZSKJJRHJPT2ZJF37VFAJEB4EM/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[effe iets anders]

How is @Wikipedia (and similar accounts) being managed right now? I'm
mostly curious about the process how the tweets are decided upon - is this
a staff-driven process or is there some community engagement? Is it planned
out long in advance, or reactive (or somewhere in between)?

Are there opportunities to better bolster the strengths of our community?

Lodewijk

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 9:30 AM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> We should all be answering questions :)  The public interest will only
> grow with the glorious images coming out today.
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 10:45 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Good day,
>> Yesterday, the James Webb telescope published its first image, called
>> "Webb's Frist Deep Field" (
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webb%27s_First_Deep_Field). An article
>> about the image existis in 14 languages. The tweet announcing it has
>> collected in less than a day more than 77.000 RTs and 275.000 likes (
>> https://twitter.com/NASAWebb/status/1546621080298835970). The main
>> object of the image didn't have any article at any Wikipedia (not an item
>> at Wikidata) yesterday. Now we have an article in 8 languages:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMACS_J0723.3-7327 and a category in
>> Commons.
>>
>> Well, the Wikipedia twitter handle didn't tweet anything about this
>> achievement, and didn't give any contest to the image. (
>> https://twitter.com/wikipedia).
>>
>> We could be answering questions. "By 2030, Wikimedia will become the
>> essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge". We could be
>> centering free knowledge at Wikimedia.
>>
>> Best,
>> Galder
>> ___
>> 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/ZOCBTOH4CXJDCV74J7YR6HAVL7EAGOQF/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
> ___
> 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/3GELHG42LCD3K5Z7OJ6CQEYLHGJ764AH/
> 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/HZNWOQLM3ZBMWSQBJNNFTDTQI4HQ7PLD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Samuel Klein]

We should all be answering questions :)  The public interest will only grow
with the glorious images coming out today.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 10:45 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Good day,
> Yesterday, the James Webb telescope published its first image, called
> "Webb's Frist Deep Field" (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webb%27s_First_Deep_Field). An article
> about the image existis in 14 languages. The tweet announcing it has
> collected in less than a day more than 77.000 RTs and 275.000 likes (
> https://twitter.com/NASAWebb/status/1546621080298835970). The main object
> of the image didn't have any article at any Wikipedia (not an item at
> Wikidata) yesterday. Now we have an article in 8 languages:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMACS_J0723.3-7327 and a category in
> Commons.
>
> Well, the Wikipedia twitter handle didn't tweet anything about this
> achievement, and didn't give any contest to the image. (
> https://twitter.com/wikipedia).
>
> We could be answering questions. "By 2030, Wikimedia will become the
> essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge". We could be
> centering free knowledge at Wikimedia.
>
> Best,
> Galder
> ___
> 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/ZOCBTOH4CXJDCV74J7YR6HAVL7EAGOQF/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
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/3GELHG42LCD3K5Z7OJ6CQEYLHGJ764AH/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org