Resocialised with swapped copy this morning.

FB: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/posts/10153469378923346

@Wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/634032828301344768
@Wikimedia: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/634032828339064832

WP G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/100123345029543043288/+Wikipedia/posts/cfyWExwpJiK
WMF G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108193079736330787108/108193079736330787108/posts/gdcoH3UMx4p

On 18 August 2015 at 22:21, Joe Sutherland <jsutherland@wikimedia.org> wrote:
We've shared:

FB: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/posts/10153467758388346

@Wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/633750252630114305
@Wikimedia: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/633750252646891520

WP G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/100123345029543043288/+Wikipedia/posts/DZ5s2rKYGYg
WMF G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108193079736330787108/108193079736330787108/posts/HS4GHYDnNEV

On 18 August 2015 at 22:17, Joe Sutherland <jsutherland@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Will get this out now. We can resocialise this tomorrow for more eyeballs.

Joe

On 18 August 2015 at 22:17, Juliet Barbara <jbarbara@wikimedia.org> wrote:
How about we incorporate the headline. Can we do:

Citation needed: despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy


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


--
Juliet Barbara
Senior Communications Manager I Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street I San Francisco, CA 94105
jbarbara@wikimedia.org I +1 (512) 750-5677



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




--
Joe Sutherland
Communications Intern [remote]



--
Joe Sutherland
Communications Intern [remote]



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