I like the concept.
See also the thread "[Social-media] Wikipedia Picks: disaster, trial by battle, and more"
Pine On Aug 6, 2015 9:26 AM, "Joe Sutherland" jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey all,
I think this has been proposed before on this list, but I'm bringing it up again :)
We could potentially borrow DYK entries from Wikipedia's front page for use on social. Here's some benefits to this:
- It's cheap, and requires only the avoidance of anything controversial/potentially promotional, - It's a good way to keep our social feeds active, - Wikipedia articles generally do very well on social media, as Michael can attest, and - It's a great way to get more eyes on newly improved articles, which is good for the community.
Some of them might need to be trimmed, but this is a potential one for Facebook as an example: • that the woman in Vilhelm Hammershøi's Interior with Young Woman Seen from the Back is the painter's wife, whom he often painted facing away from the viewer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_with_Young_Woman_Seen_from_the_Back
What do we think of this? (Forgive me if we already have an answer for this!)
best, Joe
Ah, cool. Also, my example should have started with "Did you know" or "DYK" (or "#DidYouKnow" or "#DYK"? :) )
On 6 August 2015 at 18:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I like the concept.
See also the thread "[Social-media] Wikipedia Picks: disaster, trial by battle, and more"
Pine On Aug 6, 2015 9:26 AM, "Joe Sutherland" jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey all,
I think this has been proposed before on this list, but I'm bringing it up again :)
We could potentially borrow DYK entries from Wikipedia's front page for use on social. Here's some benefits to this:
- It's cheap, and requires only the avoidance of anything
controversial/potentially promotional,
- It's a good way to keep our social feeds active,
- Wikipedia articles generally do very well on social media, as
Michael can attest, and
- It's a great way to get more eyes on newly improved articles, which
is good for the community.
Some of them might need to be trimmed, but this is a potential one for Facebook as an example: • that the woman in Vilhelm Hammershøi's Interior with Young Woman Seen from the Back is the painter's wife, whom he often painted facing away from the viewer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_with_Young_Woman_Seen_from_the_Back
What do we think of this? (Forgive me if we already have an answer for this!)
best, Joe
-- *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
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
#TIL ? :-)
I think this is a great idea as long as we make sure the article's okay. I'm not fully convinced that en.wp's DYK is a thorough check.
--Ed
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Ah, cool. Also, my example should have started with "Did you know" or "DYK" (or "#DidYouKnow" or "#DYK"? :) )
On 6 August 2015 at 18:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I like the concept.
See also the thread "[Social-media] Wikipedia Picks: disaster, trial by battle, and more"
Pine On Aug 6, 2015 9:26 AM, "Joe Sutherland" jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey all,
I think this has been proposed before on this list, but I'm bringing it up again :)
We could potentially borrow DYK entries from Wikipedia's front page for use on social. Here's some benefits to this:
- It's cheap, and requires only the avoidance of anything
controversial/potentially promotional,
- It's a good way to keep our social feeds active,
- Wikipedia articles generally do very well on social media, as
Michael can attest, and
- It's a great way to get more eyes on newly improved articles, which
is good for the community.
Some of them might need to be trimmed, but this is a potential one for Facebook as an example: • that the woman in Vilhelm Hammershøi's Interior with Young Woman Seen from the Back is the painter's wife, whom he often painted facing away from the viewer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_with_Young_Woman_Seen_from_the_Back
What do we think of this? (Forgive me if we already have an answer for this!)
best, Joe
-- *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
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
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
On 6 August 2015 at 18:16, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
#TIL ? :-)
I think this is a great idea as long as we make sure the article's okay. I'm not fully convinced that en.wp's DYK is a thorough check.
--Ed
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Joe Sutherland <jsutherland@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Ah, cool. Also, my example should have started with "Did you know" or "DYK" (or "#DidYouKnow" or "#DYK"? :) )
On 6 August 2015 at 18:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I like the concept.
See also the thread "[Social-media] Wikipedia Picks: disaster, trial by battle, and more"
Pine On Aug 6, 2015 9:26 AM, "Joe Sutherland" jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey all,
I think this has been proposed before on this list, but I'm bringing it up again :)
We could potentially borrow DYK entries from Wikipedia's front page for use on social. Here's some benefits to this:
- It's cheap, and requires only the avoidance of anything
controversial/potentially promotional,
- It's a good way to keep our social feeds active,
- Wikipedia articles generally do very well on social media, as
Michael can attest, and
- It's a great way to get more eyes on newly improved articles,
which is good for the community.
Some of them might need to be trimmed, but this is a potential one for Facebook as an example: • that the woman in Vilhelm Hammershøi's Interior with Young Woman Seen from the Back is the painter's wife, whom he often painted facing away from the viewer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_with_Young_Woman_Seen_from_the_Back
What do we think of this? (Forgive me if we already have an answer for this!)
best, Joe
-- *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
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
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar was ceded to Britain "in perpetuity" under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713?
/Ducks/
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar was ceded to Britain "in perpetuity" under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713?
/Ducks/
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
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 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar was ceded to Britain "in perpetuity" under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713?
/Ducks/
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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
This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-24/News_and_notes sums it up pretty well, for those on the list without the benefit of context. Sigh. :-)
Michael, Andrew, and I also discussed setting up a page where Wikipedians of all languages could come and propose social posts for us that link to articles they've written. I figured that we could adopt the DYK/TIL format for that.
--Ed
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:33 PM, 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 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar was ceded to Britain "in perpetuity" under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713?
/Ducks/
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
This sums it up pretty well, for those on the list without the benefit of context. Sigh. :-)
Michael, Andrew, and I also discussed setting up a page where Wikipedians of all languages could come and propose social posts for us that link to articles they've written. I figured that we could adopt the DYK/TIL format for that.
As in indicated in the previous email, we set up such a page back in 2013 and ran it for a while, see e.g. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Calendar/2014/01 Back then we drafted and reviewed in parallel on that Meta page and on this mailing list, which involved a significant amount of overhead. Also, because few people besides Matthew and myself were checking their Meta watchlist often enough, this mailing list proved to be a much more reliable venue for people to post SM ideas for review and get a timely response. That's why the Meta page became inactive, in contrast to this mailing list. Having said that, it might be worth another try, assuming you have a critical mass of SM team members who are living the wiki lifestyle to a sufficient degree in order to ensure that submissions there get noticed and reviewed like they do here ;)
--Ed
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:33 PM, 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 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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
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
-- 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 just gonna jump into this really quickly
Love all this invested interest in our content curation and distribution btw. : )
Hi Tilman, I remember those days back in 2012, 2013, and even early 2014 when we were doing that. I didn't have access to our accounts then, but I do remember helping you guys draft that sm; I also remember using that meta page and having phased out as well. Such a different time those days....
"This is still true today, but using that logic we should only ever tweet/post about the blog." <- I'm certainly glad this has changed.
"Our social platforms are strong but achieve really quite awful engagement at the moment (almost 5 million Facebook likes, yet only something like 50,000 impressions on average). Working on increasing the posting quantity and quality should improve that."
My caveat for the above is that, as you may know, our accounts are deliberately slated by Fb's Edgerank algorithm because we are a major brand with a verified account; hence, we have our total reach cut to a very low percentage of what it ought to be (down 90%). Furthermore, if you are to look at our dashboard, our "awful" engagement is being offset by our increased distribution of the content our followers except from official Wikipedia digital properties in the first place: Wikipedia articles. Whereas a bulk of blog content may peak about 1% engagement rate, it is evident by sheer URL clicks (over 7,000 for a Wikipedia article shared last week, whereas the average is about 482 for a post) and people reached (said post reaching nearly 400,000, with 2% engagement).
"Impressions" is actually not the right term just a FYI; "Impressions" is referential to the number of times a post is seen on the network, which is the main "reach metric" we have available for us on Twitter.
/ducks
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
This sums it up pretty well, for those on the list without the benefit of context. Sigh. :-)
Michael, Andrew, and I also discussed setting up a page where
Wikipedians of
all languages could come and propose social posts for us that link to articles they've written. I figured that we could adopt the DYK/TIL
format
for that.
As in indicated in the previous email, we set up such a page back in 2013 and ran it for a while, see e.g. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Calendar/2014/01 Back then we drafted and reviewed in parallel on that Meta page and on this mailing list, which involved a significant amount of overhead. Also, because few people besides Matthew and myself were checking their Meta watchlist often enough, this mailing list proved to be a much more reliable venue for people to post SM ideas for review and get a timely response. That's why the Meta page became inactive, in contrast to this mailing list. Having said that, it might be worth another try, assuming you have a critical mass of SM team members who are living the wiki lifestyle to a sufficient degree in order to ensure that submissions there get noticed and reviewed like they do here ;)
--Ed
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:33 PM, 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 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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
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
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Intern Wikimedia Foundation
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
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" https://twitter.com/DidYouKnowWP?lang=en - 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 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar was ceded to Britain "in perpetuity" under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713?
/Ducks/
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
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" https://twitter.com/DidYouKnowWP?lang=en - 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 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar was ceded to Britain "in perpetuity" under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713?
/Ducks/
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
I like this, let's use #DYK.
"too much stuff the social channels are really only useful for blog posts and we don't want to be unprofessional by doing more social stuff that's for those other more commercial organizations". That this was an argument mades me a little sad.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
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" https://twitter.com/DidYouKnowWP?lang=en - 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 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar was ceded to Britain "in perpetuity" under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713?
/Ducks/
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.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 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
To refresh memories (or maybe James wasn't around back then), we actually did this kind of SM pretty intensively for about half a year in 2013/14 - including DYKs (mostly custom-crafted by the SM team), but also with "On this Day", Wiktionary words of the day and such. See e.g. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Calendar/2014/01 , https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Calendar/2014/02 and surrounding months.
I don't recall a rule that the social media channels could only be used for blog posts. What's true though - and that was also a major factor why that experiment ended: Those custom-crafted SM messages about project content required significant effort to draft and review (even so, we sometimes got called out by followers or community members for inaccuracies, typos etc. that slipped through). And on the other hand, the aim to send them out daily often distracted from the SM promotion of blog posts, which often was lagging for several days during that time or dropped altogether, when we also had less capacity overall.
So I think Joe's first point is spot on, about saving work by reusing the already carefully crafted and reviewed hooks by the ENWP DYK community. It's something I encouraged a few times myself back then (also regarding On This Day), but it wasn't practiced consistently.
Another point we should be aware of is that unlike many other websites that practice this kind of thing on their SM channels, we can't realistically hope to significantly increase the overall readership of Wikipedia through DYK tweets. I'm looking forward to an evaluation of this new experiment (I know that the SM team has made huge strides this year in systematically measuring its impact). But keep in mind that our projects get about half a billion - 500 million - pageviews per day. So even if we have a outrageously successful DYK tweet or FB message that goes viral and achieves, say, 10,000 clicks (back then the best numbers I seem to recall were in the hundreds), that would still be a minuscule increase of 0.002% that day. There may be other benefits, such as gaining followers, but it would be good to try and quantify them too.
On the other hand though, we can make more of a difference for sister projects like Wikivoyage or Wiktionary, which have good content too but much less traffic, and also still lack in brand recognition even among many of our followers. I think it's a fine to tweet interesting Wiktionary Words of the Day, or to highlight the monthly featured topics from Wikivoyage.
Similarly, we also have a much higher potential for noticable impact when it comes to raising awareness and appreciation of the work of editors and the whole movement (i.e. the community behind the content). Therefore a big +1 to James' idea to do a blog post about the DYK process itself.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
I like this, let's use #DYK.
"too much stuff the social channels are really only useful for blog posts and we don't want to be unprofessional by doing more social stuff that's for those other more commercial organizations". That this was an argument mades me a little sad.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
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 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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
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 mguss@wikimedia.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
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- Katherine Maher Chief Communications Officer Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94105
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher@wikimedia.org
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
Hi Tilman,
On 6 August 2015 at 23:18, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
To refresh memories (or maybe James wasn't around back then), we actually did this kind of SM pretty intensively for about half a year in 2013/14 - including DYKs (mostly custom-crafted by the SM team), but also with "On this Day", Wiktionary words of the day and such. See e.g. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Calendar/2014/01 , https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Calendar/2014/02 and surrounding months.
I don't recall a rule that the social media channels could only be used for blog posts. What's true though - and that was also a major factor why that experiment ended: Those custom-crafted SM messages about project content required significant effort to draft and review (even so, we sometimes got called out by followers or community members for inaccuracies, typos etc. that slipped through). And on the other hand, the aim to send them out daily often distracted from the SM promotion of blog posts, which often was lagging for several days during that time or dropped altogether, when we also had less capacity overall.
So I think Joe's first point is spot on, about saving work by reusing the already carefully crafted and reviewed hooks by the ENWP DYK community. It's something I encouraged a few times myself back then (also regarding On This Day), but it wasn't practiced consistently.
Another point we should be aware of is that unlike many other websites that practice this kind of thing on their SM channels, we can't realistically hope to significantly increase the overall readership of Wikipedia through DYK tweets. I'm looking forward to an evaluation of this new experiment (I know that the SM team has made huge strides this year in systematically measuring its impact). But keep in mind that our projects get about half a billion - 500 million - pageviews per day. So even if we have a outrageously successful DYK tweet or FB message that goes viral and achieves, say, 10,000 clicks (back then the best numbers I seem to recall were in the hundreds), that would still be a minuscule increase of 0.002% that day. There may be other benefits, such as gaining followers, but it would be good to try and quantify them too.
This is still true today, but using that logic we should only ever tweet/post about the blog ;) Our social platforms are strong but achieve really quite awful engagement at the moment (almost 5 million Facebook likes, yet only something like 50,000 impressions on average). Working on increasing the posting quantity and quality should improve that.
On the other hand though, we can make more of a difference for sister
projects like Wikivoyage or Wiktionary, which have good content too but much less traffic, and also still lack in brand recognition even among many of our followers. I think it's a fine to tweet interesting Wiktionary Words of the Day, or to highlight the monthly featured topics from Wikivoyage.
Similarly, we also have a much higher potential for noticable impact when it comes to raising awareness and appreciation of the work of editors and the whole movement (i.e. the community behind the content). Therefore a big +1 to James' idea to do a blog post about the DYK process itself.
Another +1 from me there. ;)
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
I like this, let's use #DYK.
"too much stuff the social channels are really only useful for blog posts and we don't want to be unprofessional by doing more social stuff that's
for
those other more commercial organizations". That this was an argument
mades
me a little sad.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Joe Sutherland <
jsutherland@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
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
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 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
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 > (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur > > _______________________________________________ > 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
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 mguss@wikimedia.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
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- Katherine Maher Chief Communications Officer Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94105
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher@wikimedia.org
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
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Tilman,
On 6 August 2015 at 23:18, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
To refresh memories (or maybe James wasn't around back then), we actually did this kind of SM pretty intensively for about half a year in 2013/14 - including DYKs (mostly custom-crafted by the SM team), but also with "On this Day", Wiktionary words of the day and such. See e.g. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Calendar/2014/01 , https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Calendar/2014/02 and surrounding months.
I don't recall a rule that the social media channels could only be used for blog posts. What's true though - and that was also a major factor why that experiment ended: Those custom-crafted SM messages about project content required significant effort to draft and review (even so, we sometimes got called out by followers or community members for inaccuracies, typos etc. that slipped through). And on the other hand, the aim to send them out daily often distracted from the SM promotion of blog posts, which often was lagging for several days during that time or dropped altogether, when we also had less capacity overall.
So I think Joe's first point is spot on, about saving work by reusing the already carefully crafted and reviewed hooks by the ENWP DYK community. It's something I encouraged a few times myself back then (also regarding On This Day), but it wasn't practiced consistently.
Another point we should be aware of is that unlike many other websites that practice this kind of thing on their SM channels, we can't realistically hope to significantly increase the overall readership of Wikipedia through DYK tweets. I'm looking forward to an evaluation of this new experiment (I know that the SM team has made huge strides this year in systematically measuring its impact). But keep in mind that our projects get about half a billion - 500 million - pageviews per day. So even if we have a outrageously successful DYK tweet or FB message that goes viral and achieves, say, 10,000 clicks (back then the best numbers I seem to recall were in the hundreds), that would still be a minuscule increase of 0.002% that day. There may be other benefits, such as gaining followers, but it would be good to try and quantify them too.
This is still true today, but using that logic we should only ever tweet/post about the blog ;) Our social platforms are strong but achieve really quite awful engagement at the moment (almost 5 million Facebook likes, yet only something like 50,000 impressions on average). Working on increasing the posting quantity and quality should improve that.
Good observation about engagement metrics, but I think that's a separate issue. Not all clicks are equal in terms of impact - it could mean someone who is enticed by one of our tweets to read a blog post that changes their thinking about Wikipedia and its community, or someone who has already seen 2000 Wikipedia articles in their life and now sees the 2001st. Which is the more worthwhile outcome? And it doesn't need to be blog posts; there's a lot of other content (also from elsewhere in the movement) that we can link to and often already do. Just to give another example: we could do much more in terms of posting practical information and insights about Wikipedia for readers (*puts Reading team hat on*), much like the former https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tip_of_the_day but more focussed on the general public.
social-media@lists.wikimedia.org