LGTM. This does read very well and I'd be keen to reach out - Ed, I'll wait for your call on that!
Joe
On 12 September 2015 at 00:46, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
From @wikimedia: https://twitter.com/terakasorotany/status/640233691478929409
(That's https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jagwar in case someone want to contact him about syndicating the post or such. Chances to cover Wiktionary are rare ... )
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Gregory Varnum greg.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Responses below.
-greg
On Aug 13, 2015, at 12:57 AM, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Thoughts inline
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
from @wikipedia and @mediawiki: https://twitter.com/wikidata/status/631460768249200641
No real issues from mediawiki but this one worries me a bit from @wikipedia. It just sounds a bit too technical/inside baseball. Even I
read
it and went "arbitrary access? WTF is that?" before thinking harder and realizing they mean being able to call within templates etc. I worry
that
the vast majority of our audience would have no idea what this is.
Agree that it is appropriate for @mw - seems less so for @wp
OK, done from @mediawiki only. No strong feelings about that one, but
just
as a general remark I think there is often value in (re)tweeting
something
that might not be 100% accessible to all followers, but gives even
laypeople
sort of an ambient sense of awareness ("OK, I don't fully understand
what's
going on there, but nice that there's apparently progress with Wikidata
and
Wikipedia".)
from @wikipedia:
Fine by me as long as we're ok with calling it Wikipedia's medical encyclopedia (possibly implying it's an official app?).
I’m on the fence about these personally - has mobile weighed in on these set of apps?
You're both raising good points, but Kiwix and Wikiproject Med have a
good
reputation in the movement for what they do, and as a default assumption
I
would trust a major chapter to use the "Wikipedia" mark responsibly and adequately. (I'm actually working in the WMF Reading team, i.e. the engineering department responsible for mobile including the main WP apps, although this RT suggestion does not constitute a papal blessing or
anything
;) I am more concerned about an official WMF-run Twitter account promoting Wikiwand, as it happened recently.
from @wikicommons and perhaps others: https://twitter.com/benglabs/status/629966289574957056 https://twitter.com/Pyb75/status/629670299580125185
LGTM
LGTM from @wc and @wp - maybe @wm
from @mediawiki, the first one perhaps also from @wikipedia: https://twitter.com/brionv/status/629733830547509248
mayyyybe from @wikipedia, fairly technical though. @mediawiki for sure
LGTM for @mediawiki
+1 for just @mw only
from @wikimedia and perhaps others: https://twitter.com/danjarratt/status/631139320997392385
LGTM for @wikimedia/@wikipedia/@wikicommons
+1 for all three
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media