On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey all,
We just published "Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy" to the blog. URL:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Many thanks to everyone involved for this post.
Below are some proposed social media messages. Please tweak as needed.
Twitter (@wikipedia/@wikimedia): • Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy, not reliability https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy, not
reliability
Well to be precise, the study did not actually find that edit rates do not correlate with controversy... How about:
Citation needed: Study finds controversies relate to higher edit rates - but does that really damage reliability? https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
As an alternative or double-down tweet, I think the post's title actually works well as tweet too:
Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Facebook/Google+: • "In true Wikipedian spirit, we believe any research should be assessed and reported with rigor and care." https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
LGTM
thanks, Joe
-- Joe Sutherland Communications Intern [remote] m: +44 (0) 7722 916 433 | t: @jrbsu | w: JSutherland
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media