I support WMF to leave Twitter altogether, we should only be present on
serious social media platform, and Twitter is no longer serious, and we
have very few readers on Twitter.
And the way to leave should be first to get passive on Twitter and
later, in less then a year, leave completely.
So I see WMF handling of Twitter just as it should be handled
Anders
Den 2023-05-03 kl. 08:53, skrev Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga:
Dear Pete and The Cunctator,
Surely, Twitter is getting worse by the day, and, surely, Elon is not
the best practices person in the world. And, indeed, the WMF has lots
of things to tackle and worry about. Nevertheless, the WMF has a
Communications Team and the Communications Team has a Social Media
department, and the Social Media department's job is to handle social
media. So, even if these shouldn't be our main concern, is something
we may talk about.
Sincerely,
Galder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 3, 2023 2:44 AM
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
Twitter has a poor recent record on protecting its users from
government interference and privacy invasion, an area in which the
Wikimedia community and the WMF have typically taken a keen interest.
In 2015, Wikimedia's then-general counsel took pride in the
WMF's perfect score on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF)
rating system for ethical response to government interference, a
series that ran under the title "Who Has Your Back?"
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2015/06/29/whos-got-your-back/
As far as I can tell, the EFF hasn't run these ratings since 2019. In
that year they focused on the issue of censorship (the specifics of
the ratings varied in different year. They didn't consider Wikimedia
that year, but Twitter got 3 stars out of a possible 6, putting it
behind such companies as YouTube, Medium, the Google Play Store, and
the Apple Store.
Now, in 2023, Twitter has apparently ceased self-reporting relevant
data altogether to the Lumen group, which is connected to Harvard
University's Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. But
according to the report linked below, it has not refused even one
government request for data since Elon Musk took over in 2022. It
previously refused about 50% of requests.
One example that may resonate for Wikimedians:
"Under previous ownership, Twitter actively resisted requests from
many of these same regimes. For two weeks in 2014, the platform was
banned from Turkey, in part due to its refusal to globally block a
post accusing a former government official of corruption. (The
executive who led that charge was Vijaya Gadde, one of the first
executives fired after Musk took over.)"
https://restofworld.org/2023/elon-musk-twitter-government-orders/?ref=nobsb…
Twitter's choice to stop submitting data to Lumen as of April 15,
2023:
https://twitter.com/shreyatewari96/status/1651865580629114880
I prefer to see the WMF follow the leadership of such organizations as
the (USA-based) National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service,
and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and officially de-emphasize
Twitter as a means for public communication.
Wikimedia already has one of the top websites in the world; it is
better to stand up for important shared values than to overlook this
mismanagement of a highly popular website.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 5:27 AM The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I honestly think the WMF has better things to do than worry about
engagement on what is clearly a grossly mismanaged website.
On Tue, May 2, 2023, 3:53 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
<galder158(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Justice,
Yes, it works that way, because we are not measuring the total
engagement (where @Wikipedia wins @euwikipedia bat not
@viquipedia) but the engagement rate per tweet, which is
balanced with the number of followers.
Another topic is that the take-over by Elon Musk is affecting
our engagement, but this should also be taken in account by
the Social media team. In fact, there should be a discussion
following up here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Twitter_verification_chec….
Since the changes on the algorithm affects everyone, the
@Wikipedia team should be interested in learning about
successful stories and how other social media handles continue
having engagement while the one that should be leading is
losing engagement every month.
Finally, I don't think that any discussion is "settled" if
there's no answer. For the moment, the answer to the proposal
of working together is silence.
Thanks
Galder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Justice Okai-Allotey <owulakpakpo(a)gmail.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 2, 2023 9:47 AM
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities
in Twitter
Hi Galder,
Twitter has consistently seen a downward trend since the take
over by Elon Musk. A lot of people are not using that platform
like they did in the past.
And I thought this conversations was settled when WMF brought
their social media strategy and engagement plan. But it looks
like you keep bringing it up.
Again you don't expect accounts with less following to have
same engagements with accounts with higher following it
doesn't work that way.
Organizations define their own metrics and so success may mean
different things to different organizations.
Regards,
Justice.
On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 07:41, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
<galder158(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
The impact of @wikipedia continues going down on Twitter.
There's no strategy to turn this trend and the team seems
happy with the numbers
.https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Organic_social_media_strategy_update.
For context, the "Engagement Rate per Tweet" (this is the
metric that the Communications Team proposed as a
benchmark) felt to 0.011% (benchmark average is 0.035% and
0.05% for non-profits). Compare it with 0.27% of the
Basque Wikipedia or the Catalan Wikipedia accounts (both
have the same impact factor), or the 0.23% of the French
Wikipedia account. We are talking about strategies with
x25 impact.
Some months ago, some users made an offer to collaborate
in making the social media communication strategy better,
but there's no answer from the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm
still waiting for an aswer to the offer.
Sincerely,
Galder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder158(a)hotmail.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:36 AM
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Subject:* Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing
opportunities in Twitter
Dear all,
I write to send a small update on this. In a message about
the methodology followed to measure success
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media#Re:_Twitter_engagement_qu…),
Laura Dickinson posted this: "/According to its 2022
report
<https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/>,
the median Twitter engagement rate for brands across all
industries is 0.037%; for nonprofits specifically, it is
0.054% [our engagement] over the last 28 day period is 2.7%./"
I have measured the engagement with that methodology
(
https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/social-media-industry-benchmark-report/#title-…)
for @Wikipedia in January (Likes+RT+Comments / Number of
followers) and the result is: 0.012%, three times lower
than the industry standard and 4.5 lower than for
non-profits. For context, Basque Wikipedia had 0.055%,
Catalan Viquipedia 0.060% and Indonesian Wikipedia an
astonishing 2.79%. (You can check the numbers here:
https://www.rivaliq.com/free-social-media-analytics/twitter-head-to-head)
There's an open question about the strategy followed and a
sincere proposal of opening this account to a shared
volunteers/WMF administration.
Sincerely,
Galder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Àlex Hinojo <alexhinojo(a)gmail.com>
*Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:42 AM
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing
opportunities in Twitter
+1
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Peter Southwood
<peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:
A Wikipedia account /should/ be under the control of
Wikipedians, following the editorial policy for
Wikipedia, but they could let WMF do the technical
work if such exists. WMF can and should run Wikimedia
accounts. WMF running a Wikipedia account could be
misrepresentation.
Cheers,
Peter
*From:*Andreas Kolbe [mailto:jayen466@gmail.com]
*Sent:* 19 January 2023 02:46
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Cc:* F. Xavier Dengra i Grau
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing
opportunities in Twitter
Dear all,
The obvious question surely is: Why not let volunteers
(co-)run the Wikipedia Twitter account?
A number of Wikipedia language versions (French,
Catalan, Portuguese, Basque, Waray, etc.) seem to have
volunteer-managed Twitter accounts that are doing
fine. If volunteers are good enough to write the
encyclopedia and curate the main page of each language
version, aren't they good enough to write (or suggest)
the occasional tweet?
Andreas
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:20 PM F. Xavier Dengra i
Grau via Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hi/Bona nit,
This last tweet from @Wikipedia is a good example
of what some of us have been mentioning in
this list during the past days:
https://twitter.com/wikipedia/status/1615756186640334848?s=46&t=7wB7VI4…
<https://twitter.com/wikipedia/status/1615756186640334848?s=46&t=7wB7VI4gwISyFjo-X2jZvQ>
Despite the fact that many Wikipedias have already
had this new skin deployed since months ago as
voluntary testers, not a single mention on their
huge contribution was explained on
Twitter (neither back then nor today…). We need to
go to the 8th tweet of today's publication to read
something like "The new features, which start
rolling out on English Wikipedia today, were built
in collaboration with Wikipedia volunteers
worldwide."
If this is the situation in which the main account
is monopolized only to the English version and its
news/articles, why not specifying it as "English
Wikipedia" in the profile and in the main link?
Days pass by and we keep sharing to this
list proofs, data and justified arguments (even
collagues offering themselves and willing to trace
a joint planning!), but still not a word or single
thought from the Comms department. Disappointing,
I am sad to say.
Kind regards/Salutacions
Xavier Dengra
El ds, 14 gen., 2023 a 09:52, Galder Gonzalez
Larrañaga <galder158(a)hotmail.com> va escriure:
Egun on Boodarwun/Gnangarra,
You are righth in one thing: it is very difficult
to prove a point only from one puntual statistic.
That's why I have been tracking statistics for a
long time, because patterns are here the most
important thing. Neverthless, there is only one
way to know if the point me and some other users
in this thread are rising is valid: experimenting.
@Wikipedia should try something: tweeting 6-7
times a day, with varied topics, "on this day"
like tweets, varying timezones and even
curiosities about how Wikipedia works
(
https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki/status/1614045362985082881
2 million impressions in 9 hours). Then, after
-let's say- one month, if the results (engagement,
followers, retention) are better, it would be
quite obvious that there's a point changing the
social media strategy. If not, if engagement is
the same, no obvious uprise in followers or RTs is
visible, the current strategy could be validated.
Me, personally, I'm ready to help the
Communications Team with this task, proposing
intercultural items that could be tweeted and
promoted. If they want help, they know where to go
for it. Again, I think that following the same
pattern is a bad communication strategy (as we can
see by our own eyes) and trying something new
could be better. Is up to the communications team
to aknowledge this and give a try.
Sincerely,
Galder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com>
*Sent:* Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing
opportunities in Twitter
Kaya Galder
The assumption that despite there being a wider
audience the interests of those audience members
is exactly the same, if that was true why have
multiple channels. What I am saying is that in
different communities that doesnt and will never
hold true. Using statistics to compare the two is
the issue and then complaining about different
audience responses to the same event being caused
by those posting to the channel. Its not the
channel operators, it's the underlying expectation
that all audiences are the same and react exactly
the same way every time even as the audience is
increasing by many orders of magnitude.
Boodarwun
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 at 02:06, Galder Gonzalez
Larrañaga <galder158(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
@Gnangarra: I would doubt on the idea that
Pelé is not relevant to the English audience,
as it was the most visited article by far that
day
(
https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platfo…
<https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&date=2022-12-29&excludes=>),
and the second most visited next day, just
after the less known Andrew Tate. Also, the
account is not ENGLISH Wikipedia. Is called
Wikipedia, so it should take into account,
even if it tweets only about English Wikipedia
(as pointed by @Xavier Dengra) a global
audience. Because, again, the goal is */"/By
2030/, /Wikimedia/ is /to/ become the
/central/ infrastructure for Free Knowledge on
the Internet."/*. Not only for US centered
people, but by a global audience. Even with
that in mind, Pelé was the most visited
article in English Wikipedia.
@Yaroslav: Basque Wikipedia is not one of the
few accounts tweeting about Pelé, and in
perspective, there are more Basque tweeting
accounts per speaker, than there are for other
larger languages. We are not competing with
major news outlets; we are competing to be
"the central infrastructure for Free Knowledge
on the Internet". Wikipedia is doing well on
that: nearly 2,5 million visits in two days
for the article about Pelé only in English. I
think that there may be very few web services
having 2,5 million visits for a page about
Pelé in two days, if there's any. Also, next
day the most visited article was about Andrew
Tate. So, you are right: we are not a news
outlet, but we are visited according to the
news. Any strategy that doesn't have this in
mind, will fail.
You also ask how many tweets a day would be
enough. I don't have an answer for this. I
would like the communications team to come
with one, but they don't seem either to have
one. I don't think that tweeting every hour is
better, but I'll explain why one tweet per day
is a bad strategy, based only in what we know
about the Twitter algorithm:
* The Twitter algorithm tends to show a
tweet to followers and others more often
if it gets more engagements (RTs, likes,
comments...). So, maximizing engagements
seems a something positive if we want to
reach to new people.
* It also shows an account more often if the
user interacts with it. If someone likes,
RTs or comments a tweet, it seems that
this account will be shown again soon.
That's why you see more often tweets from
your friends than others. And that's why
ideological bubbles are created.
* If people are engaged with a tweet, it
will be shown more regularly after a tweet
by other people you follow once you scroll
down. This is why if you open a tweet by a
far-right politician, you will see below
other tweets by far-right sided
politicians and the opposite for left,
libertarian, green or vegans. It shows you
similar content, based on people's
interaction.
So, tweeting more doesn't maximize engagement
(if you tweet every minute, you will lose it),
but tweeting less minimizes engagement. If you
only tweet once a day, and you don't get too
much attention, your next tweet will be less
important for the algorithm, and so on. The
only valid strategy is one that gets people
engaged to your tweet, so you get more
impressions, and this drives more
interactions, and this drives more followers.
Because, at the end of the day, we want to be
"the central infrastructure for Free Knowledge
on the Internet".
I don't know how much is the ideal thing. In
Basque Wikipedia our strategy is to publish
5-6 tweets every day, and then also interact
with people talking about Wikipedia or
speaking about articles they have created
(like @viquipedia does, with great success).
Our topics from the 5-6 daily tweets now
(2023) are like this: every morning (yes, most
of our followers live in the same time-zone) a
biography of someone who was born/died on this
day; then, something that happened 100 years
ago. At noon, an artwork. If the artwork is
depicting something interesting, a second
tweet linked to that explaining the artwork
itself. Two tweets in the afternoon: the first
one, optional, about something related to
Wikipedia itself (Statistics, projects, some
user who has created something cool...) and
then science/technology in a broad sense. At
evening, we like to tweet something related to
current events, if this is interesting. We
have a shared doc with the daily tweets and we
program them some days in advance. Also, we
use MOA to have them copied to Mastodon.
I don't know, again, if this is the optimal. I
know that is better than one-per-day, because
data is obviously better. Engagements,
followers and interactions are better this
way, as I have proved above.
Best,
Galder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l
<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2023 3:37 PM
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Cc:* F. Xavier Dengra i Grau
<xavier.dengra(a)protonmail.com>
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing
opportunities in Twitter
Hi/Bon dia
Yaroslav: /Also, you say one tweet per day is
too little, how may do you think is normal? If
I personally see an account which tweets more
than say 10 per day (not counting threads) I
start thinking may be it is a spam generator./
Since 4 years ago we updated the social media
methodology for the Catalan Wikipedia Twitter
account (approx 4.5M native speakers, 10M
audience), we boosted from 15.3K to 45.4K
speakers, now being the 4th most followed
language of Wikipedia.
Our method in a nutshell: we have up to 23
knowledge themes that we oblige ourselves to
post at least once every week. The number of
our daily tweets vary from 6 to 10 only in
content (i.e., articles). This depends on,
ofc, whether it's a working day vs a weekend
or other time aspects (peak hours). Plus the
interactions (RT+kudos) with our wikipedians
that share their new articles tagging us,
which has been a massive way to appreciate
their task and to visibilize to others the
task of being a volunteer in Wikipedia. In
fact, the latter has been especially critical
to bring us huge additional views and to renew
a few of our new, most active editing
community (especially young users!).
If our account, managed by volunteers, can
conduct this organized work for a small-medium
size language, why should we accept that a
whole staffed team from the WMF, firstly,
rejects to provide engagement data on our
common, biggest handle? And secondly, why
should we give up on them preparing a strategy
to improve its scope and objectives?
Regarding the last question, I'd like to add a
last thought: never ever in the 4 years that
I've been upfront in the handles in my
language, the @Wikipedia account has given a
simple, courtesy RT of any knowledge content
(articles) from the Arabic, Bahasa Indonesia,
Basque, Catalan, Galician, French, Suda or
Portuguese (etc.) existing handles. That
should be a key aspect in our debate.
Because if @Wikipedia is mostly used as the
“central account” for the project, then it
should also be very careful 1) to not always
post in English and give some room to interact
with the other language handles, 2) to stop
centering their tweets on English-speaking
culture, and 3) to post without clear range of
topics to stay balanced. Oppositely, if it is
decided that @Wikipedia is only the
English-language handle, then it may change
its profile name to "English Wikipedia" and
not continue as the reference speaker either
for the WMF nor for significant news or events.
Best/Salutacions,
Xavier Dengra
------- Original Message -------
On divendres, 13 de gener 2023 a les 14:56,
Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Galder,
on the other hand.. Basque Wikipedia is one of
very few accounts twitting on the Pele death
in Basque, whereas a lot was twitted in
English. I do not think English Wikipedia
twitter can compete with major news outlets,
they operate on a completely different
scale.The low-hanging fruit would be twitting
DYKs, FAs, GAs, or may be some other randomly
picked stuff. Also, you say one tweet per day
is too little, how may do you think is normal?
If I personally see an account which tweets
more than say 10 per day (not counting
threads) I start thinking may be it is a spam
generator.
Best
Yaroslav
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 2:26 PM Galder
Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder158(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Some months have gone since I started this
topic in this list, and still, we can't
know how much engagement we have at
Wikipedia, because data is not available.
Twitter is now owned by Elon Musk, things
are changing, there are more accounts in
Mastodon daily, but still Twitter matters.
I have been looking at the Twitter
activity in the last days for @Wikipedia
and I'm still very worried about the (lack
of) strategy followed here. A full team,
with staff members, which only produces
one tweet per day, a lonely message in the
vastness of the ocean, and gets really
poor engagement numbers.
A couple of weeks ago Pelé, one of the
greatest football players of all time,
died. (English) Wikipedia Twitter account
needed 7 days to tweet about it, even if
the article was changed in a few minutes
after the death
(
https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/1611363972174778368).
The tweet had 13.729 impressions (now we
can know the number of impressions), 14
RTs and 129 likes. Wikipedia account has
nearly 644.000 followers. If we divide
these two numbers, we get a rate of 2,13%
of impressions per follower.
The same day Pelé died, Basque Wikipedia
made a tweet. Not a week after, just when
it was news
(
https://twitter.com/euwikipedia/status/1608541274491211776).
The tweet had 964 impressions, 3 RTs and 2
likes. Basque Wikipedia account has 7,956
followers. This is a rate of 12,11% of
impressions per follower. x5.68 times
larger, relatively than (English)
Wikipedia Twitter account.
(English) Wikipedia Twitter account has
nearly 81 times more followers than the
Basque one. English Wikipedia is more
visible, because it has a (now golden)
verified account symbol, so tweets are
more often promoted. English has 1.500
million speakers around the world. Basque
has fewer than one million. English
Wikipedia should have around 1.000 more
followers than Basque Wikipedia. English
Wikipedia article about Pelé had 2,5
million pageviews in the two days after
his death. Basque had 250 pageviews. This
is 10.000 times more pageviews.
@Wikipedia has 644.000 followers, and
@euwikipedia has nearly 8.000. Audience of
English Wikipedia is 10.000 times larger
for the same event. Why Wikipedia is not
10.000 times larger? Why doesn't Wikipedia
account have 80 million followers?
YouTube's Twitter account has 78 million
followers. */"/By 2030/, /Wikimedia/ is
/to/ become the /central/ infrastructure
for Free Knowledge on the Internet."/*.
How could we if Youtube's account has 100x
more followers than we have? How can think
that we are in a good shape if our tweets
are only seen by less than 2% of our
followers?
I hope that 2023 comes with a change. A
change to open these accounts, have a
fresh way of thinking on social media ,and
building engagement, both with momentum,
not losing opportunities, and promoting
good content.
Sincerely
Galder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
<galder158(a)hotmail.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 16, 2022 3:21 PM
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Subject:* Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re:
@Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
Dear all,
Some weeks ago, we had a discussion here
about the different approaches we have for
the @wikipedia account at Twitter. We
don't know yet how many interactions does
the account has, but as I said in the
discussion, we try to find ways to measure
our work at @euwikipedia. Today I want to
share with you that this account was
ranked last week as the most influential
social-movements account in Basque
language
(
https://umap.eus/ranking/gizartea) and
the 10^th most influential account in all
categories
(
https://umap.eus/ranking/orokorra). This
is a good metric we use to know if we are
doing fine or not.
Sincerely,
Galder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*Andy Mabbett
<andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk>
*Sent:* Friday, August 5, 2022 8:50 PM
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia
losing opportunities in Twitter
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 18:48, Lauren
Dickinson <ldickinson(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Also, Andy, we will follow up this week
regarding your questions
about the @WiktionaryUsers and
@Wiktionary accounts.
Three working weeks have passed since the
above was written; I've seen
no such follow-up. Have I missed something?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
https://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list --
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list --
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list --
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
--
Boodarwun
Gnangarra
'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardoon
ngalang Nyungar koortaboodjar'
//
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list --
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free.www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list --
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
--
Àlex Hinojo
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list --
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
--
*Regards*
*Justice Okai-Allotey*
*Board Member Wikimedia Ghana User Group <https://wmgh.org/>*
*Communications Officer * Humanists Association of Ghana
<http://www.ghanahumanists.org>
*Africa Coordinator Young Humanist International
<https://humanists.international/about/young-humanists-international/>*
*Freelance Digital Marketer**
*
*Freelance Visual Storyteller*
Mobile: +233 (054) 039 4970 Skype: okai_allotey
|Avenger -Urithi Labs <https://www.facebook.com/urithimedia/>|
|Linkedin: Justice Okai-Allotey
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/justice-okai-allotey-306b6354?trk=hp-identity-name> |
Facebook: Justice Okai-Allotey
<https://www.facebook.com/wyzzlewany> | Twitter: @Owula_Kpakpo
<https://twitter.com/Owula_Kpakpo> |
|Website: _https://about.me/okai-allotey_|
|Schedule A Meeting:meet with Justice Okai-Allotey
<https://calendly.com/owulakpakpo/meet-with-justice-okai-allotey>|
/"Our lives begin to the end the day we become silent about
things that matter" - Unknown./
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives
athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.o…
To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org