On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Tilman Bayer <tbayer@wikimedia.org> wrote:

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
>

--
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