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 <
galder158(a)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&platfo…)p;excludes=),
and the second most visited next day, just after the less known Andrew
Tate. Also, the account is not ENGLISH Wikipedia. Is called Wikipedia, so
it should take into account, even if it tweets only about English Wikipedia
(as pointed by @Xavier Dengra) a global audience. Because, again, the goal
is *"By 2030, Wikimedia is to become the central infrastructure for Free
Knowledge on the Internet."*. Not only for US centered people, but by a
global audience. Even with that in mind, Pelé was the most visited article
in English Wikipedia.
@Yaroslav: Basque Wikipedia is not one of the few accounts tweeting about
Pelé, and in perspective, there are more Basque tweeting accounts per
speaker, than there are for other larger languages. We are not competing
with major news outlets; we are competing to be "the central infrastructure
for Free Knowledge on the Internet". Wikipedia is doing well on that:
nearly 2,5 million visits in two days for the article about Pelé only in
English. I think that there may be very few web services having 2,5 million
visits for a page about Pelé in two days, if there's any. Also, next day
the most visited article was about Andrew Tate. So, you are right: we are
not a news outlet, but we are visited according to the news. Any strategy
that doesn't have this in mind, will fail.
You also ask how many tweets a day would be enough. I don't have an answer
for this. I would like the communications team to come with one, but they
don't seem either to have one. I don't think that tweeting every hour is
better, but I'll explain why one tweet per day is a bad strategy, based
only in what we know about the Twitter algorithm:
- The Twitter algorithm tends to show a tweet to followers and others
more often if it gets more engagements (RTs, likes, comments...). So,
maximizing engagements seems a something positive if we want to reach to
new people.
- It also shows an account more often if the user interacts with it.
If someone likes, RTs or comments a tweet, it seems that this account will
be shown again soon. That's why you see more often tweets from your friends
than others. And that's why ideological bubbles are created.
- If people are engaged with a tweet, it will be shown more regularly
after a tweet by other people you follow once you scroll down. This is why
if you open a tweet by a far-right politician, you will see below other
tweets by far-right sided politicians and the opposite for left,
libertarian, green or vegans. It shows you similar content, based on
people's interaction.
So, tweeting more doesn't maximize engagement (if you tweet every minute,
you will lose it), but tweeting less minimizes engagement. If you only
tweet once a day, and you don't get too much attention, your next tweet
will be less important for the algorithm, and so on. The only valid
strategy is one that gets people engaged to your tweet, so you get more
impressions, and this drives more interactions, and this drives more
followers. Because, at the end of the day, we want to be "the central
infrastructure for Free Knowledge on the Internet".
I don't know how much is the ideal thing. In Basque Wikipedia our strategy
is to publish 5-6 tweets every day, and then also interact with people
talking about Wikipedia or speaking about articles they have created (like
@viquipedia does, with great success). Our topics from the 5-6 daily tweets
now (2023) are like this: every morning (yes, most of our followers live in
the same time-zone) a biography of someone who was born/died on this day;
then, something that happened 100 years ago. At noon, an artwork. If the
artwork is depicting something interesting, a second tweet linked to that
explaining the artwork itself. Two tweets in the afternoon: the first one,
optional, about something related to Wikipedia itself (Statistics,
projects, some user who has created something cool...) and then
science/technology in a broad sense. At evening, we like to tweet something
related to current events, if this is interesting. We have a shared doc
with the daily tweets and we program them some days in advance. Also, we
use MOA to have them copied to Mastodon.
I don't know, again, if this is the optimal. I know that is better than
one-per-day, because data is obviously better. Engagements, followers and
interactions are better this way, as I have proved above.
Best,
Galder
------------------------------
*From:* F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2023 3:37 PM
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Cc:* F. Xavier Dengra i Grau <xavier.dengra(a)protonmail.com>
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
Hi/Bon dia
Yaroslav: *Also, you say one tweet per day is too little, how may do you
think is normal? If I personally see an account which tweets more than say
10 per day (not counting threads) I start thinking may be it is a spam
generator.*
Since 4 years ago we updated the social media methodology for the Catalan
Wikipedia Twitter account (approx 4.5M native speakers, 10M audience), we
boosted from 15.3K to 45.4K speakers, now being the 4th most followed
language of Wikipedia.
Our method in a nutshell: we have up to 23 knowledge themes that we oblige
ourselves to post at least once every week. The number of our daily tweets
vary from 6 to 10 only in content (i.e., articles). This depends on, ofc,
whether it's a working day vs a weekend or other time aspects (peak hours).
Plus the interactions (RT+kudos) with our wikipedians that share their new
articles tagging us, which has been a massive way to appreciate their task
and to visibilize to others the task of being a volunteer in Wikipedia. In
fact, the latter has been especially critical to bring us huge additional
views and to renew a few of our new, most active editing community
(especially young users!).
If our account, managed by volunteers, can conduct this organized work for
a small-medium size language, why should we accept that a whole staffed
team from the WMF, firstly, rejects to provide engagement data on our
common, biggest handle? And secondly, why should we give up on them
preparing a strategy to improve its scope and objectives?
Regarding the last question, I'd like to add a last thought: never ever in
the 4 years that I've been upfront in the handles in my language, the
@Wikipedia account has given a simple, courtesy RT of any knowledge content
(articles) from the Arabic, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Catalan, Galician,
French, Suda or Portuguese (etc.) existing handles. That should be a key
aspect in our debate.
Because if @Wikipedia is mostly used as the “central account” for the
project, then it should also be very careful 1) to not always post in
English and give some room to interact with the other language handles, 2)
to stop centering their tweets on English-speaking culture, and 3) to post
without clear range of topics to stay balanced. Oppositely, if it is
decided that @Wikipedia is only the English-language handle, then it may
change its profile name to "English Wikipedia" and not continue as the
reference speaker either for the WMF nor for significant news or events.
Best/Salutacions,
Xavier Dengra
------- Original Message -------
On divendres, 13 de gener 2023 a les 14:56, Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt(a)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 <
galder158(a)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 <galder158(a)hotmail.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 16, 2022 3:21 PM
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Subject:* Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in
Twitter
Dear all,
Some weeks ago, we had a discussion here about the different approaches we
have for the @wikipedia account at Twitter. We don't know yet how many
interactions does the account has, but as I said in the discussion, we try
to find ways to measure our work at @euwikipedia. Today I want to share
with you that this account was ranked last week as the most influential
social-movements account in Basque language (
https://umap.eus/ranking/gizartea) and the 10th most influential account
in all categories (
https://umap.eus/ranking/orokorra). This is a good
metric we use to know if we are doing fine or not.
Sincerely,
Galder
------------------------------
*From:* Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk>
*Sent:* Friday, August 5, 2022 8:50 PM
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 18:48, Lauren Dickinson <ldickinson(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Also, Andy, we will follow up this week regarding
your questions
about the @WiktionaryUsers and @Wiktionary accounts.
Three working weeks have passed since the above was written; I've seen
no such follow-up. Have I missed something?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
https://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
--
Boodarwun
Gnangarra
'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardoon ngalang Nyungar koortaboodjar'