Hi all,
"Should I pay for a Wikipedia article?" is prepped and scheduled to go out at 7:30am PST tomorrow, assuming the blog's time zone is PST. A preview for those with WordPress access is available https://wikimediablog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=42186&action=edit, or there is a draft Google Doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qkM5ypjjg2mz0jhhOYAO-bFZ7CP2frwcfQFsYcMeows/edit. The image comes from Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Community_Noun_project_26111.svg.
Thanks go to Gamaliel for the post.
Proposed social media messages follow:
*Twitter:*
- Considering paying for a Wikipedia article? Check out a reference guide first:
*Facebook/Google+:*
- Wikipedia's rules on editing for money are numerous. Here's a summary: - As Jimmy Wales says, "If anybody emails you asking for money pretending to be Wikipedia, alarm bells should ring ... Everything about Wikipedia is free."
As always, I'm open to suggestions and improvements, and I'm fairly certain that someone here can come up with better posts!
Hey,
I'm not convinced that Twitter copy is ideal :) How is:
• Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? [link] • Thinking of paying for a Wikipedia article? Read this first. [link]
Both are still perhaps a little risqué but not as misleading. Let me know what you think and we can get this scheduled for Monday morning.
Joe
On 18 September 2015 at 22:45, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
"Should I pay for a Wikipedia article?" is prepped and scheduled to go out at 7:30am PST tomorrow, assuming the blog's time zone is PST. A preview for those with WordPress access is available https://wikimediablog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=42186&action=edit, or there is a draft Google Doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qkM5ypjjg2mz0jhhOYAO-bFZ7CP2frwcfQFsYcMeows/edit. The image comes from Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Community_Noun_project_26111.svg .
Thanks go to Gamaliel for the post.
Proposed social media messages follow:
*Twitter:*
- Considering paying for a Wikipedia article? Check out a reference
guide first:
*Facebook/Google+:*
- Wikipedia's rules on editing for money are numerous. Here's a
summary:
- As Jimmy Wales says, "If anybody emails you asking for money
pretending to be Wikipedia, alarm bells should ring ... Everything about Wikipedia is free."
As always, I'm open to suggestions and improvements, and I'm fairly certain that someone here can come up with better posts!
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
Hi Joe,
Yeah let's get people to read this :)
I like the second option.
Maybe even say something like "Thinking of paying for a Wikipedia article? Don't."
On Friday, September 18, 2015, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey,
I'm not convinced that Twitter copy is ideal :) How is:
• Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? [link] • Thinking of paying for a Wikipedia article? Read this first. [link]
Both are still perhaps a little risqué but not as misleading. Let me know what you think and we can get this scheduled for Monday morning.
Joe
On 18 September 2015 at 22:45, Ed Erhart <eerhart@wikimedia.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','eerhart@wikimedia.org');> wrote:
Hi all,
"Should I pay for a Wikipedia article?" is prepped and scheduled to go out at 7:30am PST tomorrow, assuming the blog's time zone is PST. A preview for those with WordPress access is available https://wikimediablog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=42186&action=edit, or there is a draft Google Doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qkM5ypjjg2mz0jhhOYAO-bFZ7CP2frwcfQFsYcMeows/edit. The image comes from Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Community_Noun_project_26111.svg .
Thanks go to Gamaliel for the post.
Proposed social media messages follow:
*Twitter:*
- Considering paying for a Wikipedia article? Check out a reference
guide first:
*Facebook/Google+:*
- Wikipedia's rules on editing for money are numerous. Here's a
summary:
- As Jimmy Wales says, "If anybody emails you asking for money
pretending to be Wikipedia, alarm bells should ring ... Everything about Wikipedia is free."
As always, I'm open to suggestions and improvements, and I'm fairly certain that someone here can come up with better posts!
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- *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)
The issue is that I don't think the message is "don't", the message is more like "only if you understand the community views on it". That makes a bit trickier to get something engaging but which is also true to the message of the post ;)
Joe
On 19 September 2015 at 04:30, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Joe,
Yeah let's get people to read this :)
I like the second option.
Maybe even say something like "Thinking of paying for a Wikipedia article? Don't."
On Friday, September 18, 2015, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey,
I'm not convinced that Twitter copy is ideal :) How is:
• Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? [link] • Thinking of paying for a Wikipedia article? Read this first. [link]
Both are still perhaps a little risqué but not as misleading. Let me know what you think and we can get this scheduled for Monday morning.
Joe
On 18 September 2015 at 22:45, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
"Should I pay for a Wikipedia article?" is prepped and scheduled to go out at 7:30am PST tomorrow, assuming the blog's time zone is PST. A preview for those with WordPress access is available https://wikimediablog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=42186&action=edit, or there is a draft Google Doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qkM5ypjjg2mz0jhhOYAO-bFZ7CP2frwcfQFsYcMeows/edit. The image comes from Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Community_Noun_project_26111.svg .
Thanks go to Gamaliel for the post.
Proposed social media messages follow:
*Twitter:*
- Considering paying for a Wikipedia article? Check out a reference
guide first:
*Facebook/Google+:*
- Wikipedia's rules on editing for money are numerous. Here's a
summary:
- As Jimmy Wales says, "If anybody emails you asking for money
pretending to be Wikipedia, alarm bells should ring ... Everything about Wikipedia is free."
As always, I'm open to suggestions and improvements, and I'm fairly certain that someone here can come up with better posts!
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- *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)
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
Yeah, I'd be concerned (at least with this post) about making a very clear "Don't" (as much as I, personally, would agree with the statement :) ).
I like Ed's FB/G+ copy (especially the 2nd/Jimmy quote). I'd go with Joe's copy for Twitter, like both 1 & 2, I'd probably drop "first" (I'd just go with "Read this", feel like it sounds more like a command) but aren't fussed either way :).
James Alexander Manager Trust & Safety Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
The issue is that I don't think the message is "don't", the message is more like "only if you understand the community views on it". That makes a bit trickier to get something engaging but which is also true to the message of the post ;)
Joe
On 19 September 2015 at 04:30, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Joe,
Yeah let's get people to read this :)
I like the second option.
Maybe even say something like "Thinking of paying for a Wikipedia article? Don't."
On Friday, September 18, 2015, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey,
I'm not convinced that Twitter copy is ideal :) How is:
• Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? [link] • Thinking of paying for a Wikipedia article? Read this first. [link]
Both are still perhaps a little risqué but not as misleading. Let me know what you think and we can get this scheduled for Monday morning.
Joe
On 18 September 2015 at 22:45, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
"Should I pay for a Wikipedia article?" is prepped and scheduled to go out at 7:30am PST tomorrow, assuming the blog's time zone is PST. A preview for those with WordPress access is available https://wikimediablog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=42186&action=edit, or there is a draft Google Doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qkM5ypjjg2mz0jhhOYAO-bFZ7CP2frwcfQFsYcMeows/edit. The image comes from Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Community_Noun_project_26111.svg .
Thanks go to Gamaliel for the post.
Proposed social media messages follow:
*Twitter:*
- Considering paying for a Wikipedia article? Check out a reference
guide first:
*Facebook/Google+:*
- Wikipedia's rules on editing for money are numerous. Here's a
summary:
- As Jimmy Wales says, "If anybody emails you asking for money
pretending to be Wikipedia, alarm bells should ring ... Everything about Wikipedia is free."
As always, I'm open to suggestions and improvements, and I'm fairly certain that someone here can come up with better posts!
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- *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)
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- *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)
"Check this out first" sounds friendlier but is longer, so "Read this" as James suggested might be best. Otherwise I agree that Ed's FB posts are good and Joe's tweets are good.
My meme with Jimmy's quote raised the most questions on FB (although they are addressed well in the article already for those that then actually read it). So fair warning on that. ;)
I think that this article is both great to be putting out and important to spread far and wide. I would encourage affiliates to retweet and repost this as well.
-greg
_______________ Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
On Sep 19, 2015, at 12:08 AM, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yeah, I'd be concerned (at least with this post) about making a very clear "Don't" (as much as I, personally, would agree with the statement :) ).
I like Ed's FB/G+ copy (especially the 2nd/Jimmy quote). I'd go with Joe's copy for Twitter, like both 1 & 2, I'd probably drop "first" (I'd just go with "Read this", feel like it sounds more like a command) but aren't fussed either way :).
James Alexander Manager Trust & Safety Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote: The issue is that I don't think the message is "don't", the message is more like "only if you understand the community views on it". That makes a bit trickier to get something engaging but which is also true to the message of the post ;)
Joe
On 19 September 2015 at 04:30, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi Joe,
Yeah let's get people to read this :)
I like the second option.
Maybe even say something like "Thinking of paying for a Wikipedia article? Don't."
On Friday, September 18, 2015, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote: Hey,
I'm not convinced that Twitter copy is ideal :) How is:
• Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? [link] • Thinking of paying for a Wikipedia article? Read this first. [link]
Both are still perhaps a little risqué but not as misleading. Let me know what you think and we can get this scheduled for Monday morning.
Joe
On 18 September 2015 at 22:45, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi all,
"Should I pay for a Wikipedia article?" is prepped and scheduled to go out at 7:30am PST tomorrow, assuming the blog's time zone is PST. A preview for those with WordPress access is available, or there is a draft Google Doc. The image comes from Commons.
Thanks go to Gamaliel for the post.
Proposed social media messages follow:
Twitter: Considering paying for a Wikipedia article? Check out a reference guide first: Facebook/Google+: Wikipedia's rules on editing for money are numerous. Here's a summary: As Jimmy Wales says, "If anybody emails you asking for money pretending to be Wikipedia, alarm bells should ring ... Everything about Wikipedia is free."
As always, I'm open to suggestions and improvements, and I'm fairly certain that someone here can come up with better posts!
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- Joe Sutherland Communications Intern [remote] m: +44 (0) 7722 916 433 | t: @jrbsu | w: JSutherland
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- 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
On 18 September 2015 at 22:45, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Everything about Wikipedia is free.
Perpetuating this falsehood is harmful to Wikimedians in Residence and potentially to salaried WMF staff and the annual fundraising drive.
Agreed that we should drop any suggestions that everyone who creates content or does other work is doing so for free. Wikipedia is free (of financial obligation) as in free to read and share, not as in free to create, store, maintain, defend, reseaech, and develop.
Pine
I guess a further refinement: it can be free of financial obligation in order to participate in Wikipedia in many ways, but plenty of people and organizations are being paid for their involvement, so we need to be careful about the messaging.
Pine On Sep 19, 2015 1:38 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed that we should drop any suggestions that everyone who creates content or does other work is doing so for free. Wikipedia is free (of financial obligation) as in free to read and share, not as in free to create, store, maintain, defend, reseaech, and develop.
Pine
Hi all,
This is now published after a snafu with WordPress' scheduling mechanism. Further proposed Facebook posts:
- "Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia—not a commercial directory." - No, you should not hire a paid editor who does not disclose that fact on Wikipedia.
--Ed
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I guess a further refinement: it can be free of financial obligation in order to participate in Wikipedia in many ways, but plenty of people and organizations are being paid for their involvement, so we need to be careful about the messaging.
Pine On Sep 19, 2015 1:38 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed that we should drop any suggestions that everyone who creates content or does other work is doing so for free. Wikipedia is free (of financial obligation) as in free to read and share, not as in free to create, store, maintain, defend, reseaech, and develop.
Pine
I like the second social media message best. The first is a little ambiguous.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
This is now published after a snafu with WordPress' scheduling mechanism. Further proposed Facebook posts:
- "Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia—not a commercial
directory."
- No, you should not hire a paid editor who does not disclose that
fact on Wikipedia.
--Ed
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I guess a further refinement: it can be free of financial obligation in order to participate in Wikipedia in many ways, but plenty of people and organizations are being paid for their involvement, so we need to be careful about the messaging.
Pine On Sep 19, 2015 1:38 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed that we should drop any suggestions that everyone who creates content or does other work is doing so for free. Wikipedia is free (of financial obligation) as in free to read and share, not as in free to create, store, maintain, defend, reseaech, and develop.
Pine
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
How about something straightforward like:
Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? Find out here. [LINK]
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
This is now published after a snafu with WordPress' scheduling mechanism. Further proposed Facebook posts:
- "Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia—not a commercial
directory."
- No, you should not hire a paid editor who does not disclose that
fact on Wikipedia.
--Ed
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I guess a further refinement: it can be free of financial obligation in order to participate in Wikipedia in many ways, but plenty of people and organizations are being paid for their involvement, so we need to be careful about the messaging.
Pine On Sep 19, 2015 1:38 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed that we should drop any suggestions that everyone who creates content or does other work is doing so for free. Wikipedia is free (of financial obligation) as in free to read and share, not as in free to create, store, maintain, defend, reseaech, and develop.
Pine
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
I like that for FB and Twitter.
-greg
_______________ Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org wrote:
How about something straightforward like:
Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? Find out here. [LINK]
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi all,
This is now published after a snafu with WordPress' scheduling mechanism. Further proposed Facebook posts: "Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia—not a commercial directory." No, you should not hire a paid editor who does not disclose that fact on Wikipedia. --Ed
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: I guess a further refinement: it can be free of financial obligation in order to participate in Wikipedia in many ways, but plenty of people and organizations are being paid for their involvement, so we need to be careful about the messaging.
Pine
On Sep 19, 2015 1:38 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: Agreed that we should drop any suggestions that everyone who creates content or does other work is doing so for free. Wikipedia is free (of financial obligation) as in free to read and share, not as in free to create, store, maintain, defend, reseaech, and develop.
Pine
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- 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
@Juliet, that's already in the title of the article which appears as a preview on Facebook. That works great for Twitter, though.
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Gregory Varnum greg.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
I like that for FB and Twitter.
-greg
Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org wrote:
How about something straightforward like:
Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? Find out here. [LINK]
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
This is now published after a snafu with WordPress' scheduling mechanism. Further proposed Facebook posts:
- "Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia—not a commercial
directory."
- No, you should not hire a paid editor who does not disclose that
fact on Wikipedia.
--Ed
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I guess a further refinement: it can be free of financial obligation in order to participate in Wikipedia in many ways, but plenty of people and organizations are being paid for their involvement, so we need to be careful about the messaging.
Pine On Sep 19, 2015 1:38 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed that we should drop any suggestions that everyone who creates content or does other work is doing so for free. Wikipedia is free (of financial obligation) as in free to read and share, not as in free to create, store, maintain, defend, reseaech, and develop.
Pine
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- *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
Ok, for FB what about:
Thinking about paying for a Wikipedia article? Read this editor's advice first.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
@Juliet, that's already in the title of the article which appears as a preview on Facebook. That works great for Twitter, though.
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Gregory Varnum greg.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
I like that for FB and Twitter.
-greg
Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org wrote:
How about something straightforward like:
Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? Find out here. [LINK]
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
This is now published after a snafu with WordPress' scheduling mechanism. Further proposed Facebook posts:
- "Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia—not a commercial
directory."
- No, you should not hire a paid editor who does not disclose that
fact on Wikipedia.
--Ed
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I guess a further refinement: it can be free of financial obligation in order to participate in Wikipedia in many ways, but plenty of people and organizations are being paid for their involvement, so we need to be careful about the messaging.
Pine On Sep 19, 2015 1:38 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed that we should drop any suggestions that everyone who creates content or does other work is doing so for free. Wikipedia is free (of financial obligation) as in free to read and share, not as in free to create, store, maintain, defend, reseaech, and develop.
Pine
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- *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
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
We could probably just go with "Read this editor's advice first," as the previewed title will contain the rest, but I'm not sure if that's best practice for Facebook. Michael, Joe, your thoughts?
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org wrote:
Ok, for FB what about:
Thinking about paying for a Wikipedia article? Read this editor's advice first.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
@Juliet, that's already in the title of the article which appears as a preview on Facebook. That works great for Twitter, though.
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Gregory Varnum greg.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
I like that for FB and Twitter.
-greg
Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org wrote:
How about something straightforward like:
Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? Find out here. [LINK]
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
This is now published after a snafu with WordPress' scheduling mechanism. Further proposed Facebook posts:
- "Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia—not a commercial
directory."
- No, you should not hire a paid editor who does not disclose that
fact on Wikipedia.
--Ed
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I guess a further refinement: it can be free of financial obligation in order to participate in Wikipedia in many ways, but plenty of people and organizations are being paid for their involvement, so we need to be careful about the messaging.
Pine On Sep 19, 2015 1:38 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed that we should drop any suggestions that everyone who creates content or does other work is doing so for free. Wikipedia is free (of financial obligation) as in free to read and share, not as in free to create, store, maintain, defend, reseaech, and develop.
Pine
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- *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
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- *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
Hi Ed, that is perfectly fine and is really a staple for "attention-grabbing" while simultaneously using the title of the blog post within the Facebook preview as complementary copy. I speak more from a social media/ marketing perspective, of course.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
We could probably just go with "Read this editor's advice first," as the previewed title will contain the rest, but I'm not sure if that's best practice for Facebook. Michael, Joe, your thoughts?
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org wrote:
Ok, for FB what about:
Thinking about paying for a Wikipedia article? Read this editor's advice first.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
@Juliet, that's already in the title of the article which appears as a preview on Facebook. That works great for Twitter, though.
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Gregory Varnum greg.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
I like that for FB and Twitter.
-greg
Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org wrote:
How about something straightforward like:
Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? Find out here. [LINK]
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
This is now published after a snafu with WordPress' scheduling mechanism. Further proposed Facebook posts:
- "Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia—not a commercial
directory."
- No, you should not hire a paid editor who does not disclose that
fact on Wikipedia.
--Ed
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I guess a further refinement: it can be free of financial obligation in order to participate in Wikipedia in many ways, but plenty of people and organizations are being paid for their involvement, so we need to be careful about the messaging.
Pine On Sep 19, 2015 1:38 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
> Agreed that we should drop any suggestions that everyone who creates > content or does other work is doing so for free. Wikipedia is free (of > financial obligation) as in free to read and share, not as in free to > create, store, maintain, defend, reseaech, and develop. > > Pine >
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- *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
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- *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
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
That was exactly the perspective I was looking for! Given that it's good practice, can we get those posts scheduled for tomorrow?
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Ed, that is perfectly fine and is really a staple for "attention-grabbing" while simultaneously using the title of the blog post within the Facebook preview as complementary copy. I speak more from a social media/ marketing perspective, of course.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
We could probably just go with "Read this editor's advice first," as the previewed title will contain the rest, but I'm not sure if that's best practice for Facebook. Michael, Joe, your thoughts?
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org wrote:
Ok, for FB what about:
Thinking about paying for a Wikipedia article? Read this editor's advice first.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
@Juliet, that's already in the title of the article which appears as a preview on Facebook. That works great for Twitter, though.
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Gregory Varnum greg.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
I like that for FB and Twitter.
-greg
Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org wrote:
How about something straightforward like:
Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? Find out here. [LINK]
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
This is now published after a snafu with WordPress' scheduling mechanism. Further proposed Facebook posts:
- "Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia—not a commercial
directory."
- No, you should not hire a paid editor who does not disclose
that fact on Wikipedia.
--Ed
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
> I guess a further refinement: it can be free of financial obligation > in order to participate in Wikipedia in many ways, but plenty of people and > organizations are being paid for their involvement, so we need to be > careful about the messaging. > > Pine > On Sep 19, 2015 1:38 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: > >> Agreed that we should drop any suggestions that everyone who >> creates content or does other work is doing so for free. Wikipedia is free >> (of financial obligation) as in free to read and share, not as in free to >> create, store, maintain, defend, reseaech, and develop. >> >> Pine >> >
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- *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
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- *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
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
I'll get them scheduled.
Joe
On 22 September 2015 at 01:59, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
That was exactly the perspective I was looking for! Given that it's good practice, can we get those posts scheduled for tomorrow?
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Ed, that is perfectly fine and is really a staple for "attention-grabbing" while simultaneously using the title of the blog post within the Facebook preview as complementary copy. I speak more from a social media/ marketing perspective, of course.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
We could probably just go with "Read this editor's advice first," as the previewed title will contain the rest, but I'm not sure if that's best practice for Facebook. Michael, Joe, your thoughts?
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org wrote:
Ok, for FB what about:
Thinking about paying for a Wikipedia article? Read this editor's advice first.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
@Juliet, that's already in the title of the article which appears as a preview on Facebook. That works great for Twitter, though.
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Gregory Varnum <greg.varnum@gmail.com
wrote:
I like that for FB and Twitter.
-greg
Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org wrote:
How about something straightforward like:
Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? Find out here. [LINK]
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
> Hi all, > > This is now published after a snafu with WordPress' scheduling > mechanism. Further proposed Facebook posts: > > - "Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia—not a commercial > directory." > - No, you should not hire a paid editor who does not disclose > that fact on Wikipedia. > > --Ed > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: > >> I guess a further refinement: it can be free of financial >> obligation in order to participate in Wikipedia in many ways, but plenty of >> people and organizations are being paid for their involvement, so we need >> to be careful about the messaging. >> >> Pine >> On Sep 19, 2015 1:38 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Agreed that we should drop any suggestions that everyone who >>> creates content or does other work is doing so for free. Wikipedia is free >>> (of financial obligation) as in free to read and share, not as in free to >>> create, store, maintain, defend, reseaech, and develop. >>> >>> Pine >>> >> > > > -- > Ed Erhart > Editorial Associate > Wikimedia Foundation >
-- *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
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- *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
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
We shared:
FB: https://www.facebook.com/33138223345/posts/10153550229073346?_rdr=p
@Wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/646331631557574656 @Wikimedia: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/646331673475481600
WP G+: https://plus.google.com/+Wikipedia/posts/b3BjD3gpnAj WMF G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108193079736330787108/108193079736330787108/po...
On 22 September 2015 at 02:00, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'll get them scheduled.
Joe
On 22 September 2015 at 01:59, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
That was exactly the perspective I was looking for! Given that it's good practice, can we get those posts scheduled for tomorrow?
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Ed, that is perfectly fine and is really a staple for "attention-grabbing" while simultaneously using the title of the blog post within the Facebook preview as complementary copy. I speak more from a social media/ marketing perspective, of course.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
We could probably just go with "Read this editor's advice first," as the previewed title will contain the rest, but I'm not sure if that's best practice for Facebook. Michael, Joe, your thoughts?
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Juliet Barbara <jbarbara@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Ok, for FB what about:
Thinking about paying for a Wikipedia article? Read this editor's advice first.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org wrote:
@Juliet, that's already in the title of the article which appears as a preview on Facebook. That works great for Twitter, though.
--Ed
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Gregory Varnum < greg.varnum@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like that for FB and Twitter. > > -greg > > _______________ > Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later. > > On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org > wrote: > > How about something straightforward like: > > Should you pay for a Wikipedia article? Find out here. [LINK] > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Ed Erhart eerhart@wikimedia.org > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> This is now published after a snafu with WordPress' scheduling >> mechanism. Further proposed Facebook posts: >> >> - "Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia—not a commercial >> directory." >> - No, you should not hire a paid editor who does not disclose >> that fact on Wikipedia. >> >> --Ed >> >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> I guess a further refinement: it can be free of financial >>> obligation in order to participate in Wikipedia in many ways, but plenty of >>> people and organizations are being paid for their involvement, so we need >>> to be careful about the messaging. >>> >>> Pine >>> On Sep 19, 2015 1:38 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> Agreed that we should drop any suggestions that everyone who >>>> creates content or does other work is doing so for free. Wikipedia is free >>>> (of financial obligation) as in free to read and share, not as in free to >>>> create, store, maintain, defend, reseaech, and develop. >>>> >>>> Pine >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Ed Erhart >> Editorial Associate >> Wikimedia Foundation >> > > > > -- > *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 > >
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- *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
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org
-- Ed Erhart Editorial Associate Wikimedia Foundation
-- *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@lists.wikimedia.org