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 (
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…)p;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 10th 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'