Hi, a year ago there was a discussion without conclusions pushed by Guillaume: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/56962/
Based on that discussion and the current state of things, I just posted a proposal at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media
Summary for the lazy email reader: :)
* One and only one @mediawiki account for relevant project news. Sumana and me have access to it. Ideas welcome to improve the current situation.
* Only http://blog.wikimedia.org/c/technology/ and other potential curated sources will be aggregated. The rest will be edited manually.
* Accounts created by MediaWiki Groups will be followed.
* @wikimediatech is fine as a bot driven account. As soon as I find out who has access to that account I will propose a rename to something 'mediawiki' for naming consistency (privately, this is like discussing domain names). Followers will be unaffected.
* And that's it. All the rest is to be cleaned.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
- @wikimediatech is fine as a bot driven account. As soon as I find out who
has access to that account I will propose a rename to something 'mediawiki' for naming consistency (privately, this is like discussing domain names). Followers will be unaffected.
This shouldn't be renamed imho, since it's not about MediaWiki--it's about Wikimedia tech generally.
-Chad
On 12/18/2012 11:21 AM, Chad wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
- @wikimediatech is fine as a bot driven account. As soon as I find out who
has access to that account I will propose a rename to something 'mediawiki' for naming consistency (privately, this is like discussing domain names). Followers will be unaffected.
This shouldn't be renamed imho, since it's not about MediaWiki--it's about Wikimedia tech generally.
We agree on the meaning. Let's try to agree on the words.
This is a side effect of this ambiguous use of "MediaWiki" / "Wikimedia-tech" that we haven't resolved yet.
"MediaWiki" as in MediaWiki project, MediaWiki community, MediaWiki groups... Not just MediaWiki Core.
For outsiders, we can be found at mediawiki.org and therefore it's easy to identify us as MediaWiki. It's also easy to explain that MediaWiki powers Wikipedia. But explaining Wikimedia is more complex, and then making a cut to isolate "Wikimedia tech" is just too much for the casual reader.
Hence the idea of simplifying with MediaWiki as a general term.
For instance, the proposal says:
Description: "News from the MediaWiki project. Powering Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement."
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/18/2012 11:21 AM, Chad wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
- @wikimediatech is fine as a bot driven account. As soon as I find out
who has access to that account I will propose a rename to something 'mediawiki' for naming consistency (privately, this is like discussing domain names). Followers will be unaffected.
This shouldn't be renamed imho, since it's not about MediaWiki--it's about Wikimedia tech generally.
We agree on the meaning. Let's try to agree on the words.
This is a side effect of this ambiguous use of "MediaWiki" / "Wikimedia-tech" that we haven't resolved yet.
"MediaWiki" as in MediaWiki project, MediaWiki community, MediaWiki groups... Not just MediaWiki Core.
For outsiders, we can be found at mediawiki.org and therefore it's easy to identify us as MediaWiki. It's also easy to explain that MediaWiki powers Wikipedia. But explaining Wikimedia is more complex, and then making a cut to isolate "Wikimedia tech" is just too much for the casual reader.
Hence the idea of simplifying with MediaWiki as a general term.
For instance, the proposal says:
Description: "News from the MediaWiki project. Powering Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement."
But I don't think that description is accurate at all. "The MediaWiki project" refers to MediaWiki--not other WMF sites.
-Chad
On 12/18/2012 11:56 AM, Chad wrote:
But I don't think that description is accurate at all. "The MediaWiki project" refers to MediaWiki--not other WMF sites.
Ok, if @wikimediatech is only distributing updates about http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/ then you are right and let's just leave the username as it is.
Still, can the description be perhaps improved?
"Wikimedia Tech Team" (identi.ca) or "Wikimedia Tech Staff" (Twitter) can be confused by outsiders as a place to know about all tech related activities. I wonder how many of the 80 / 535 followers (our highest numbers in any tech related account) fell in this confusion.
What about something more descriptive?
"Wikimedia technical infrastructure updates."
Pointing to the MediaWiki account from the description would be also useful.
It's not completely sorted out but there has been a big progress in just a couple of days:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Social_media
Summary: follow & like MediaWiki in your social networks to read & promote MediaWiki & Wikimedia tech news.
* http://identi.ca/mediawiki * https://twitter.com/MediaWiki * https://www.facebook.com/MediaWikiProject
These channels pay a lot of attention to critical mass. The more followers and shares/likes the more promoted you get (more or less). Your support is welcome.
See also how we can redistribute your relevant updates: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Social_media#Sharing_your_updates
There are still some details to polish e.g. how to automate the process including Facebook (& Google+) or how to clear the FB mess. If you enjoy social media your ideas are welcome:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media
On 12/19/2012 06:43 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
It's not completely sorted out but there has been a big progress in just a couple of days:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Social_media
Summary: follow & like MediaWiki in your social networks to read & promote MediaWiki & Wikimedia tech news.
These channels pay a lot of attention to critical mass. The more followers and shares/likes the more promoted you get (more or less). Your support is welcome.
You should also consider making http://app.net/mediawiki . app.net is an ad-free subscription social network, and it's currently very popular with us techies (but broadening its base).
Matt Flaschen
On 12/20/2012 05:14 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 12/19/2012 06:43 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
It's not completely sorted out but there has been a big progress in just a couple of days:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Social_media
Summary: follow & like MediaWiki in your social networks to read & promote MediaWiki & Wikimedia tech news.
These channels pay a lot of attention to critical mass. The more followers and shares/likes the more promoted you get (more or less). Your support is welcome.
You should also consider making http://app.net/mediawiki . app.net is an ad-free subscription social network, and it's currently very popular with us techies (but broadening its base).
Thank you for the suggestion. Do you (or someone you know) want to maintain that? We can talk.
I'm posting relevant news to identi.ca, Twitter, Facebook and Google+. Currently I feel only Twitter & Facebook pays off (looking at the outcome and forgetting about other reasonings). Still, I'm happy working with these 4 - even more happy if someone would want to step in and help.
No plans to take a 5th so far, unless there is a way to automate the process and someone willing to pay attention to potential feedback in that new channel.
On 12/21/2012 01:24 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
Thank you for the suggestion. Do you (or someone you know) want to maintain that? We can talk.
Yes, I'm willing to step up to do that.
We would have to decide how to do it. They allow up to 256 characters, along with optional embedded media (images/video, etc.)
Matt Flaschen
On 12/21/2012 02:45 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 12/21/2012 01:24 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
Thank you for the suggestion. Do you (or someone you know) want to maintain that? We can talk.
Yes, I'm willing to step up to do that.
We would have to decide how to do it. They allow up to 256 characters, along with optional embedded media (images/video, etc.)
Great! Let's get into details at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Social_media
not to bother the entire list. Start a thread with your proposal or questions and I will follow.
And since you are reading this, what about signing up (or at least endorse) MediaWiki Group Promotion?
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Groups/Proposals/Promotion
(^^^^ was "Marketing", but we just renamed it)
This will be the group where we will coordinate our social media work, among other things.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/19/2012 06:43 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
It's not completely sorted out but there has been a big progress in just a couple of days:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Social_media
Summary: follow & like MediaWiki in your social networks to read & promote MediaWiki & Wikimedia tech news.
These channels pay a lot of attention to critical mass. The more followers and shares/likes the more promoted you get (more or less). Your support is welcome.
You should also consider making http://app.net/mediawiki . app.net is an ad-free subscription social network, and it's currently very popular with us techies (but broadening its base).
Fwiw, I've never even heard of this until now.
-Chad
On 12/21/2012 01:30 PM, Chad wrote:
You should also consider making http://app.net/mediawiki . app.net is an ad-free subscription social network, and it's currently very popular with us techies (but broadening its base).
Fwiw, I've never even heard of this until now.
Yeah, it's still expanding. Their decision to go ad-free means they use paid subscriptions, which is part of why growth is more gradual.
Matt Flaschen
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org