Hey all,
We just published "Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy" to the blog. URL:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Many thanks to everyone involved for this post.
Below are some proposed social media messages. Please tweak as needed.
*Twitter (@wikipedia/@wikimedia):* • Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy, not reliability https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
*Facebook/Google+:* • "In true Wikipedian spirit, we believe any research should be assessed and reported with rigor and care." https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
thanks, Joe
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey all,
We just published "Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy" to the blog. URL:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Many thanks to everyone involved for this post.
Below are some proposed social media messages. Please tweak as needed.
Twitter (@wikipedia/@wikimedia): • Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy, not reliability https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy, not
reliability
Well to be precise, the study did not actually find that edit rates do not correlate with controversy... How about:
Citation needed: Study finds controversies relate to higher edit rates - but does that really damage reliability? https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
As an alternative or double-down tweet, I think the post's title actually works well as tweet too:
Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Facebook/Google+: • "In true Wikipedian spirit, we believe any research should be assessed and reported with rigor and care." https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
LGTM
thanks, Joe
-- Joe Sutherland Communications Intern [remote] m: +44 (0) 7722 916 433 | t: @jrbsu | w: JSutherland
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
How about we incorporate the headline. Can we do:
Citation needed: despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Joe Sutherland <jsutherland@wikimedia.org javascript:;> wrote:
Hey all,
We just published "Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause
inaccuracy"
to the blog. URL:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Many thanks to everyone involved for this post.
Below are some proposed social media messages. Please tweak as needed.
Twitter (@wikipedia/@wikimedia): • Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy, not reliability https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy, not
reliability
Well to be precise, the study did not actually find that edit rates do not correlate with controversy... How about:
Citation needed: Study finds controversies relate to higher edit rates
- but does that really damage reliability?
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
As an alternative or double-down tweet, I think the post's title actually works well as tweet too:
Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Facebook/Google+: • "In true Wikipedian spirit, we believe any research should be assessed
and
reported with rigor and care." https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
LGTM
thanks, Joe
-- Joe Sutherland Communications Intern [remote] m: +44 (0) 7722 916 433 | t: @jrbsu | w: JSutherland
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; 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 javascript:; https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
Will get this out now. We can resocialise this tomorrow for more eyeballs.
Joe
On 18 August 2015 at 22:17, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org wrote:
How about we incorporate the headline. Can we do:
Citation needed: despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey all,
We just published "Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause
inaccuracy"
to the blog. URL:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Many thanks to everyone involved for this post.
Below are some proposed social media messages. Please tweak as needed.
Twitter (@wikipedia/@wikimedia): • Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy,
not
reliability https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy, not
reliability
Well to be precise, the study did not actually find that edit rates do not correlate with controversy... How about:
Citation needed: Study finds controversies relate to higher edit rates
- but does that really damage reliability?
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
As an alternative or double-down tweet, I think the post's title actually works well as tweet too:
Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Facebook/Google+: • "In true Wikipedian spirit, we believe any research should be
assessed and
reported with rigor and care." https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
LGTM
thanks, Joe
-- Joe Sutherland Communications Intern [remote] m: +44 (0) 7722 916 433 | t: @jrbsu | w: JSutherland
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- *Juliet Barbara* Senior Communications Manager I Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street I San Francisco, CA 94105 jbarbara@wikimedia.org I +1 (512) 750-5677
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
We've shared:
FB: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/posts/10153467758388346
@Wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/633750252630114305 @Wikimedia: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/633750252646891520
WP G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/100123345029543043288/+Wikipedia/posts/DZ5s2rK... WMF G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108193079736330787108/108193079736330787108/po...
On 18 August 2015 at 22:17, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Will get this out now. We can resocialise this tomorrow for more eyeballs.
Joe
On 18 August 2015 at 22:17, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org wrote:
How about we incorporate the headline. Can we do:
Citation needed: despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey all,
We just published "Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause
inaccuracy"
to the blog. URL:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Many thanks to everyone involved for this post.
Below are some proposed social media messages. Please tweak as needed.
Twitter (@wikipedia/@wikimedia): • Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy,
not
reliability https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy, not
reliability
Well to be precise, the study did not actually find that edit rates do not correlate with controversy... How about:
Citation needed: Study finds controversies relate to higher edit rates
- but does that really damage reliability?
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
As an alternative or double-down tweet, I think the post's title actually works well as tweet too:
Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Facebook/Google+: • "In true Wikipedian spirit, we believe any research should be
assessed and
reported with rigor and care." https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
LGTM
thanks, Joe
-- Joe Sutherland Communications Intern [remote] m: +44 (0) 7722 916 433 | t: @jrbsu | w: JSutherland
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- *Juliet Barbara* Senior Communications Manager I Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street I San Francisco, CA 94105 jbarbara@wikimedia.org I +1 (512) 750-5677
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- *Joe Sutherland* Communications Intern [remote] m: +44 (0) 7722 916 433 | t: @jrbsu http://twitter.com/jrbsu | w: JSutherland https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JSutherland_(WMF)
Resocialised with swapped copy this morning.
FB: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/posts/10153469378923346
@Wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/634032828301344768 @Wikimedia: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/634032828339064832
WP G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/100123345029543043288/+Wikipedia/posts/cfyWExw... WMF G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108193079736330787108/108193079736330787108/po...
On 18 August 2015 at 22:21, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
We've shared:
FB: https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/posts/10153467758388346
@Wikipedia: https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/633750252630114305 @Wikimedia: https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/633750252646891520
WP G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/100123345029543043288/+Wikipedia/posts/DZ5s2rK... WMF G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108193079736330787108/108193079736330787108/po...
On 18 August 2015 at 22:17, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Will get this out now. We can resocialise this tomorrow for more eyeballs.
Joe
On 18 August 2015 at 22:17, Juliet Barbara jbarbara@wikimedia.org wrote:
How about we incorporate the headline. Can we do:
Citation needed: despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Joe Sutherland jsutherland@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey all,
We just published "Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause
inaccuracy"
to the blog. URL:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Many thanks to everyone involved for this post.
Below are some proposed social media messages. Please tweak as needed.
Twitter (@wikipedia/@wikimedia): • Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy,
not
reliability https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Citation needed: study finds edit rates correlate with controversy, not
reliability
Well to be precise, the study did not actually find that edit rates do not correlate with controversy... How about:
Citation needed: Study finds controversies relate to higher edit rates
- but does that really damage reliability?
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
As an alternative or double-down tweet, I think the post's title actually works well as tweet too:
Despite headlines, frequent edits don’t cause inaccuracy https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
Facebook/Google+: • "In true Wikipedian spirit, we believe any research should be
assessed and
reported with rigor and care." https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/18/controversy-and-edit-rates/
LGTM
thanks, Joe
-- Joe Sutherland Communications Intern [remote] m: +44 (0) 7722 916 433 | t: @jrbsu | w: JSutherland
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- *Juliet Barbara* Senior Communications Manager I Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street I San Francisco, CA 94105 jbarbara@wikimedia.org I +1 (512) 750-5677
Social-media mailing list Social-media@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
-- *Joe Sutherland* Communications Intern [remote] m: +44 (0) 7722 916 433 | t: @jrbsu http://twitter.com/jrbsu | w: JSutherland https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JSutherland_(WMF)
-- *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