Thanks for your thoughts Michael! Looks like that Twitter account is a bot, based on its use of ellipses. I think we'd need to curate our output more strictly for obvious reasons, not least for length.

best,
Joe

On 6 August 2015 at 19:02, Michael Guss <mguss@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,

Late to the thread, apologies. There has been quite a bit of interest in what I call the "surfacing" of the content from the English Wikipedia homepage as of recent, and I wholeheartedly agree this is a fine idea. Personally, I've been experimenting with our accounts for the reception of "extremely" interesting Wikipedia articles, brought to light by the wonderful people at the Wikipedia subreddit and the Cool Freaks Wikipedia group, and some other sources (which pass the test of being non-offensive, culturally insensitive, or anything which would render a nasty media mention, etc.). That said, I believe we have some "competition" on Twitter with an account called "Wikipedia's DYK" - this is ran by a community member? 

The #DidYouKnow is mostly them, but #DYK is far more popular. But that's Twitter. 

The editorial curation will need to be figured out I think. Ed, Joe, Andrew myself are working on that, but we invite everyone to offer their opinion, suggestions, comments, insights!





On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:33 AM, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Heh, fair point there was a lot of context missing there ;) 

For the record I'm all in favor, and I was doing a cheap joke for the entertainment of those who knew the history :) 

The worst problems are usually something that we will have on our radar, these articles are not hard to quickly review, and the community IS actually very good at reviewing these. When there are DYKs we're not interested in sharing there is no issue skipping them, there are 24 a day :) it's not like we're going to run out.

James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Joe Sutherland <jsutherland@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Okay, fair point. In fairness I think something like that's unlikely to happen in the future :P

(For context for those unaware, he's talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia ... think this may have been pre-Katherine :) )

On 6 August 2015 at 18:26, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Joe Sutherland <jsutherland@wikimedia.org> wrote:
It's gotten a lot better in fairness. Checking the article isn't awful before we publish it on social is also pretty trivial, thankfully.

Joe

Yes.... Yes it has....

BUT DYK that Gibraltar was ceded to Britain "in perpetuity" under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713?

/Ducks/

James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Social-media mailing list
Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media




--
Joe Sutherland
Communications Intern [remote]

_______________________________________________
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




--
Michael Guss
Research Analyst
Wikimediafoundation.org

_______________________________________________
Social-media mailing list
Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media




--
Joe Sutherland
Communications Intern [remote]
m: +44 (0) 7722 916 433 | t: @jrbsu | w: JSutherland