Hey all,
We just published "Texans on a quest to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of their state’s revolution" to the blog. URL:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/06/30/improving-wikipedia-texas-revolution/
Many thanks to Ed for writing the post and to Alex for the suggestions.
Below are some proposed social media messages. Please tweak as needed.
*Twitter (@wikimedia/@wikipedia):*
• This #Wikipedia editor devoted hundreds of hours to one article. • Two women are taking the lead on improving #Wikipedia's articles on the #Texas Revolution. Here's one of them. • Ever wonder why #Wikipedia's articles on the #Texas Revolution are so good? • 80 hours identifying sources, who knows how long reading them, and 300 hours of writing. And that's just one person.
*Facebook/Google+:*
• This #Wikipedia editor devoted hundreds of hours to one article. • Ever wonder why #Wikipedia's articles on the #Texas Revolution are so good? 80 hours identifying sources, an untold number of hours reading them, and 300 hours of writing. That's just one of the people who worked on it. • 80 hours identifying sources, an untold number of hours reading them, and 300 hours of writing. And that's just one of the people who worked on it.
thanks, Joe
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/06/30/improving-wikipedia-texas-revolution/
*Twitter (@wikimedia/@wikipedia):*
• This #Wikipedia editor devoted hundreds of hours to one article. • Two women are taking the lead on improving #Wikipedia's articles on the #Texas Revolution. Here's one of them. • Ever wonder why #Wikipedia's articles on the #Texas Revolution are so good? • 80 hours identifying sources, who knows how long reading them, and 300 hours of writing. And that's just one person.
I love the last one but would love to incorporate the 1 article piece too I think that resonates. How about:
- 80 hours finding sources, who knows how long reading them, and 300 hours writing. And that's just 1 person 1 article https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/06/30/improving-wikipedia-texas-revolution/ - Note: Removed the period at the end of the 2nd sentence... just to keep it in limit
*Facebook/Google+:*
• This #Wikipedia editor devoted hundreds of hours to one article. • Ever wonder why #Wikipedia's articles on the #Texas Revolution are so good? 80 hours identifying sources, an untold number of hours reading them, and 300 hours of writing. That's just one of the people who worked on it. • 80 hours identifying sources, an untold number of hours reading them, and 300 hours of writing. And that's just one of the people who worked on it.
thanks, Joe
I'm thinking #2
I proposed a good deal of these because I'd like to start socializing our articles more than once each (as discussed in our Monday meeting)—more so for the picks and news, but at least twice here.
On the Twitter suggestion, how about this? 80 hours finding sources, who knows how long reading them, and 300 hours writing: one person, one article. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/06/30/improving-wikipedia-texas-revolution/
--Ed
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:14 PM, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org wrote:
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Joe Sutherland <jsutherland@wikimedia.org
wrote:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/06/30/improving-wikipedia-texas-revolution/
*Twitter (@wikimedia/@wikipedia):*
• This #Wikipedia editor devoted hundreds of hours to one article. • Two women are taking the lead on improving #Wikipedia's articles on the #Texas Revolution. Here's one of them. • Ever wonder why #Wikipedia's articles on the #Texas Revolution are so good? • 80 hours identifying sources, who knows how long reading them, and 300 hours of writing. And that's just one person.
I love the last one but would love to incorporate the 1 article piece too I think that resonates. How about:
- 80 hours finding sources, who knows how long reading them, and 300
hours writing. And that's just 1 person 1 article https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/06/30/improving-wikipedia-texas-revolution/
- Note: Removed the period at the end of the 2nd sentence... just to keep it in limit
*Facebook/Google+:*
• This #Wikipedia editor devoted hundreds of hours to one article. • Ever wonder why #Wikipedia's articles on the #Texas Revolution are so good? 80 hours identifying sources, an untold number of hours reading them, and 300 hours of writing. That's just one of the people who worked on it. • 80 hours identifying sources, an untold number of hours reading them, and 300 hours of writing. And that's just one of the people who worked on it.
thanks, Joe
I'm thinking #2
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
that WFM, the other draft in my head was essentially that.
Yeah, I like the idea of doing a couple of them, For Twitter my other favorites are #1 and #2. For F/G I'm generally happy with them all (but like sneaking in the 1 person 1 article bit)
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
I proposed a good deal of these because I'd like to start socializing our articles more than once each (as discussed in our Monday meeting)—more so for the picks and news, but at least twice here.
On the Twitter suggestion, how about this? 80 hours finding sources, who knows how long reading them, and 300 hours writing: one person, one article. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/06/30/improving-wikipedia-texas-revolution/
--Ed
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:14 PM, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org
wrote:
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Joe Sutherland < jsutherland@wikimedia.org> wrote:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/06/30/improving-wikipedia-texas-revolution/
*Twitter (@wikimedia/@wikipedia):*
• This #Wikipedia editor devoted hundreds of hours to one article. • Two women are taking the lead on improving #Wikipedia's articles on the #Texas Revolution. Here's one of them. • Ever wonder why #Wikipedia's articles on the #Texas Revolution are so good? • 80 hours identifying sources, who knows how long reading them, and 300 hours of writing. And that's just one person.
I love the last one but would love to incorporate the 1 article piece too I think that resonates. How about:
- 80 hours finding sources, who knows how long reading them, and 300
hours writing. And that's just 1 person 1 article https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/06/30/improving-wikipedia-texas-revolution/
- Note: Removed the period at the end of the 2nd sentence... just to keep it in limit
*Facebook/Google+:*
• This #Wikipedia editor devoted hundreds of hours to one article. • Ever wonder why #Wikipedia's articles on the #Texas Revolution are so good? 80 hours identifying sources, an untold number of hours reading them, and 300 hours of writing. That's just one of the people who worked on it. • 80 hours identifying sources, an untold number of hours reading them, and 300 hours of writing. And that's just one of the people who worked on it.
thanks, Joe
I'm thinking #2
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Intern Wikimedia Foundation
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
James- agreed. At the least, we need to push out two or more for Twitter—I think it's an underutilized resource.
@Michael, can you post some of these tomorrow? Joe will be on a plane over the Atlantic Ocean.
--Ed
Hi Ed,
I have already scheduled these for tomorrow morning to meet the most traffic.
On Tuesday, June 30, 2015, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
James- agreed. At the least, we need to push out two or more for Twitter—I think it's an underutilized resource.
@Michael, can you post some of these tomorrow? Joe will be on a plane over the Atlantic Ocean.
--Ed
Sometime, Michael, you're going to have to miss a beat ... ... but it will not be this day. :-)
Thank you very much!
--Ed
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Ed,
I have already scheduled these for tomorrow morning to meet the most traffic.
On Tuesday, June 30, 2015, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
James- agreed. At the least, we need to push out two or more for Twitter—I think it's an underutilized resource.
@Michael, can you post some of these tomorrow? Joe will be on a plane over the Atlantic Ocean.
--Ed
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
Good morning,
The following has been shared:
Fb: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/posts/10153356481158346
@wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/616285297991655425
@wikimedia: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/616285818139856896
Wikipedia G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/100123345029543043288/+Wikipedia/posts/FBpBEVG...
Wikimedia G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108193079736330787108/108193079736330787108/po...
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sometime, Michael, you're going to have to miss a beat ... ... but it will not be this day. :-)
Thank you very much!
--Ed
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Ed,
I have already scheduled these for tomorrow morning to meet the most traffic.
On Tuesday, June 30, 2015, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
James- agreed. At the least, we need to push out two or more for Twitter—I think it's an underutilized resource.
@Michael, can you post some of these tomorrow? Joe will be on a plane over the Atlantic Ocean.
--Ed
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Intern Wikimedia Foundation
Furthermore, we'll be consistently resharing stories from now on.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Good morning,
The following has been shared:
Fb: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/posts/10153356481158346
@wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/616285297991655425
@wikimedia: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/616285818139856896
Wikipedia G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/100123345029543043288/+Wikipedia/posts/FBpBEVG...
Wikimedia G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108193079736330787108/108193079736330787108/po...
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sometime, Michael, you're going to have to miss a beat ... ... but it will not be this day. :-)
Thank you very much!
--Ed
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Ed,
I have already scheduled these for tomorrow morning to meet the most traffic.
On Tuesday, June 30, 2015, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
James- agreed. At the least, we need to push out two or more for Twitter—I think it's an underutilized resource.
@Michael, can you post some of these tomorrow? Joe will be on a plane over the Atlantic Ocean.
--Ed
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Intern Wikimedia Foundation
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
Glad to see the post shared! Love it!
It occurs to me as someone who has written several blog posts, and supported several others: I am always dis-appointed a bit on the number of comments on the blog post itself: but it seems that a lot of the commenting/visibility will happen elsewhere. Is there a way to surface both page views on the blog alongside number of likes/retweets, etc. I think it would be great to get a sense of scale for community participation in reading/hearing the stories on the platform itself (and maybe provide a different incentive structure/invitation for participating in the blog, by marking shares/retweets, etc as valid responses to the post).
Cheers,
Alex Stinson
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Furthermore, we'll be consistently resharing stories from now on.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Good morning,
The following has been shared:
Fb: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/posts/10153356481158346
@wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/616285297991655425
@wikimedia: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/616285818139856896
Wikipedia G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/100123345029543043288/+Wikipedia/posts/FBpBEVG...
Wikimedia G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108193079736330787108/108193079736330787108/po...
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sometime, Michael, you're going to have to miss a beat ... ... but it will not be this day. :-)
Thank you very much!
--Ed
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Ed,
I have already scheduled these for tomorrow morning to meet the most traffic.
On Tuesday, June 30, 2015, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
James- agreed. At the least, we need to push out two or more for Twitter—I think it's an underutilized resource.
@Michael, can you post some of these tomorrow? Joe will be on a plane over the Atlantic Ocean.
--Ed
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Intern Wikimedia Foundation
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
Are we still planning to resocialize this story? We've still only had the two posts (one each for Twitter/Facebook).
I believe that we're tracking likes and shares now, Alex, but it's hard to gauge *community *participation. The Signpost, for instance, gets plenty of comments because it's on-wiki and everyone has an account there. Perhaps the requirement for a WordPress account is too high a bar?
--Ed
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Alex Stinson astinson@wikimedia.org wrote:
Glad to see the post shared! Love it!
It occurs to me as someone who has written several blog posts, and supported several others: I am always dis-appointed a bit on the number of comments on the blog post itself: but it seems that a lot of the commenting/visibility will happen elsewhere. Is there a way to surface both page views on the blog alongside number of likes/retweets, etc. I think it would be great to get a sense of scale for community participation in reading/hearing the stories on the platform itself (and maybe provide a different incentive structure/invitation for participating in the blog, by marking shares/retweets, etc as valid responses to the post).
Cheers,
Alex Stinson
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Furthermore, we'll be consistently resharing stories from now on.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Good morning,
The following has been shared:
Fb: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/posts/10153356481158346
@wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/616285297991655425
@wikimedia: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/616285818139856896
Wikipedia G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/100123345029543043288/+Wikipedia/posts/FBpBEVG...
Wikimedia G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108193079736330787108/108193079736330787108/po...
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sometime, Michael, you're going to have to miss a beat ... ... but it will not be this day. :-)
Thank you very much!
--Ed
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Ed,
I have already scheduled these for tomorrow morning to meet the most traffic.
On Tuesday, June 30, 2015, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
James- agreed. At the least, we need to push out two or more for Twitter—I think it's an underutilized resource.
@Michael, can you post some of these tomorrow? Joe will be on a plane over the Atlantic Ocean.
--Ed
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Intern Wikimedia Foundation
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
On 6 July 2015 at 14:00, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Are we still planning to resocialize this story? We've still only had the two posts (one each for Twitter/Facebook).
I believe that we're tracking likes and shares now, Alex, but it's hard to gauge *community *participation. The Signpost, for instance, gets plenty of comments because it's on-wiki and everyone has an account there. Perhaps the requirement for a WordPress account is too high a bar?
Spam is a real issue with stuff like this, and I think social media allows for easy enough commenting?
Joe
--Ed
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Alex Stinson astinson@wikimedia.org wrote:
Glad to see the post shared! Love it!
It occurs to me as someone who has written several blog posts, and supported several others: I am always dis-appointed a bit on the number of comments on the blog post itself: but it seems that a lot of the commenting/visibility will happen elsewhere. Is there a way to surface both page views on the blog alongside number of likes/retweets, etc. I think it would be great to get a sense of scale for community participation in reading/hearing the stories on the platform itself (and maybe provide a different incentive structure/invitation for participating in the blog, by marking shares/retweets, etc as valid responses to the post).
Cheers,
Alex Stinson
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Furthermore, we'll be consistently resharing stories from now on.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Good morning,
The following has been shared:
Fb: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/posts/10153356481158346
@wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/616285297991655425
@wikimedia: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/616285818139856896
Wikipedia G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/100123345029543043288/+Wikipedia/posts/FBpBEVG...
Wikimedia G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108193079736330787108/108193079736330787108/po...
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sometime, Michael, you're going to have to miss a beat ... ... but it will not be this day. :-)
Thank you very much!
--Ed
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Ed,
I have already scheduled these for tomorrow morning to meet the most traffic.
On Tuesday, June 30, 2015, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
> James- agreed. At the least, we need to push out two or more for > Twitter—I think it's an underutilized resource. > > @Michael, can you post some of these tomorrow? Joe will be on a > plane over the Atlantic Ocean. > > --Ed > >
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Intern Wikimedia Foundation
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Intern Wikimedia Foundation
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
I'm not advocating for open commenting! That would be a lot of extra work for all of us. Social media is easy, but many community members won't comment because they don't use their real names on-wiki.
--Ed
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 6 July 2015 at 14:00, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Are we still planning to resocialize this story? We've still only had the two posts (one each for Twitter/Facebook).
I believe that we're tracking likes and shares now, Alex, but it's hard to gauge *community *participation. The Signpost, for instance, gets plenty of comments because it's on-wiki and everyone has an account there. Perhaps the requirement for a WordPress account is too high a bar?
Spam is a real issue with stuff like this, and I think social media allows for easy enough commenting?
Joe
--Ed
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Alex Stinson astinson@wikimedia.org wrote:
Glad to see the post shared! Love it!
It occurs to me as someone who has written several blog posts, and supported several others: I am always dis-appointed a bit on the number of comments on the blog post itself: but it seems that a lot of the commenting/visibility will happen elsewhere. Is there a way to surface both page views on the blog alongside number of likes/retweets, etc. I think it would be great to get a sense of scale for community participation in reading/hearing the stories on the platform itself (and maybe provide a different incentive structure/invitation for participating in the blog, by marking shares/retweets, etc as valid responses to the post).
Cheers,
Alex Stinson
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Furthermore, we'll be consistently resharing stories from now on.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Good morning,
The following has been shared:
Fb: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/posts/10153356481158346
@wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/616285297991655425
@wikimedia: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/616285818139856896
Wikipedia G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/100123345029543043288/+Wikipedia/posts/FBpBEVG...
Wikimedia G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108193079736330787108/108193079736330787108/po...
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sometime, Michael, you're going to have to miss a beat ... ... but it will not be this day. :-)
Thank you very much!
--Ed
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
> Hi Ed, > > I have already scheduled these for tomorrow morning to meet the most > traffic. > > > On Tuesday, June 30, 2015, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote: > >> James- agreed. At the least, we need to push out two or more for >> Twitter—I think it's an underutilized resource. >> >> @Michael, can you post some of these tomorrow? Joe will be on a >> plane over the Atlantic Ocean. >> >> --Ed >> >> > > > -- > Michael Guss > Research Analyst > Wikimediafoundation.org > mguss@wikimedia.org > >
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Intern Wikimedia Foundation
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Intern Wikimedia Foundation
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 http://twitter.com/jrbsu | w: JSutherland https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JSutherland_(WMF)
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
oh for an openID provider on SUL........
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not advocating for open commenting! That would be a lot of extra work for all of us. Social media is easy, but many community members won't comment because they don't use their real names on-wiki.
--Ed
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 6 July 2015 at 14:00, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Are we still planning to resocialize this story? We've still only had the two posts (one each for Twitter/Facebook).
I believe that we're tracking likes and shares now, Alex, but it's hard to gauge *community *participation. The Signpost, for instance, gets plenty of comments because it's on-wiki and everyone has an account there. Perhaps the requirement for a WordPress account is too high a bar?
Spam is a real issue with stuff like this, and I think social media allows for easy enough commenting?
Joe
--Ed
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Alex Stinson astinson@wikimedia.org wrote:
Glad to see the post shared! Love it!
It occurs to me as someone who has written several blog posts, and supported several others: I am always dis-appointed a bit on the number of comments on the blog post itself: but it seems that a lot of the commenting/visibility will happen elsewhere. Is there a way to surface both page views on the blog alongside number of likes/retweets, etc. I think it would be great to get a sense of scale for community participation in reading/hearing the stories on the platform itself (and maybe provide a different incentive structure/invitation for participating in the blog, by marking shares/retweets, etc as valid responses to the post).
Cheers,
Alex Stinson
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Furthermore, we'll be consistently resharing stories from now on.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Good morning,
The following has been shared:
Fb: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/posts/10153356481158346
@wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/616285297991655425
@wikimedia: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/616285818139856896
Wikipedia G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/100123345029543043288/+Wikipedia/posts/FBpBEVG...
Wikimedia G+ : https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108193079736330787108/108193079736330787108/po...
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
> Sometime, Michael, you're going to have to miss a beat ... ... but > it will not be this day. :-) > > Thank you very much! > > --Ed > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org > wrote: > >> Hi Ed, >> >> I have already scheduled these for tomorrow morning to meet the >> most traffic. >> >> >> On Tuesday, June 30, 2015, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote: >> >>> James- agreed. At the least, we need to push out two or more for >>> Twitter—I think it's an underutilized resource. >>> >>> @Michael, can you post some of these tomorrow? Joe will be on a >>> plane over the Atlantic Ocean. >>> >>> --Ed >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Michael Guss >> Research Analyst >> Wikimediafoundation.org >> mguss@wikimedia.org >> >> > > > -- > Ed Erhart > Editorial Intern > Wikimedia Foundation >
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Intern Wikimedia Foundation
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 http://twitter.com/jrbsu | w: JSutherland https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JSutherland_(WMF)
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Intern Wikimedia Foundation
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
It'd certainly help make the blog more prevalent in community circles.
--Ed
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 8:36 PM, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org wrote:
oh for an openID provider on SUL........
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not advocating for open commenting! That would be a lot of extra work for all of us. Social media is easy, but many community members won't comment because they don't use their real names on-wiki.
--Ed
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Joe Sutherland <jsutherland@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On 6 July 2015 at 14:00, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Are we still planning to resocialize this story? We've still only had the two posts (one each for Twitter/Facebook).
I believe that we're tracking likes and shares now, Alex, but it's hard to gauge *community *participation. The Signpost, for instance, gets plenty of comments because it's on-wiki and everyone has an account there. Perhaps the requirement for a WordPress account is too high a bar?
Spam is a real issue with stuff like this, and I think social media allows for easy enough commenting?
Joe
--Ed
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Alex Stinson astinson@wikimedia.org wrote:
Glad to see the post shared! Love it!
It occurs to me as someone who has written several blog posts, and supported several others: I am always dis-appointed a bit on the number of comments on the blog post itself: but it seems that a lot of the commenting/visibility will happen elsewhere. Is there a way to surface both page views on the blog alongside number of likes/retweets, etc. I think it would be great to get a sense of scale for community participation in reading/hearing the stories on the platform itself (and maybe provide a different incentive structure/invitation for participating in the blog, by marking shares/retweets, etc as valid responses to the post).
Cheers,
Alex Stinson
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Furthermore, we'll be consistently resharing stories from now on.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
> Good morning, > > The following has been shared: > > Fb: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/posts/10153356481158346 > > @wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/616285297991655425 > > @wikimedia: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/616285818139856896 > > Wikipedia G+ : > https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/100123345029543043288/+Wikipedia/posts/FBpBEVG... > > Wikimedia G+ : > https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108193079736330787108/108193079736330787108/po... > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org > wrote: > >> Sometime, Michael, you're going to have to miss a beat ... ... but >> it will not be this day. :-) >> >> Thank you very much! >> >> --Ed >> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Michael Guss <mguss@wikimedia.org >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi Ed, >>> >>> I have already scheduled these for tomorrow morning to meet the >>> most traffic. >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, June 30, 2015, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org >>> wrote: >>> >>>> James- agreed. At the least, we need to push out two or more for >>>> Twitter—I think it's an underutilized resource. >>>> >>>> @Michael, can you post some of these tomorrow? Joe will be on a >>>> plane over the Atlantic Ocean. >>>> >>>> --Ed >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Michael Guss >>> Research Analyst >>> Wikimediafoundation.org >>> mguss@wikimedia.org >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Ed Erhart >> Editorial Intern >> Wikimedia Foundation >> > > > > -- > Michael Guss > Research Analyst > Wikimediafoundation.org > mguss@wikimedia.org >
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Intern Wikimedia Foundation
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 http://twitter.com/jrbsu | w: JSutherland https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JSutherland_(WMF)
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Intern Wikimedia Foundation
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
social-media@lists.wikimedia.org