On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Gregory Varnum <[email protected]> wrote:
> Responses below. > > -greg > > > On Aug 13, 2015, at 12:57 AM, James Alexander <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thoughts inline > > James Alexander > Community Advocacy > Wikimedia Foundation > (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Tilman Bayer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> from @wikipedia and @mediawiki: >> https://twitter.com/wikidata/status/631460768249200641 >> >> No real issues from mediawiki but this one worries me a bit from > @wikipedia. It just sounds a bit too technical/inside baseball. Even I read > it and went "arbitrary access? WTF is that?" before thinking harder and > realizing they mean being able to call within templates etc. I worry that > the vast majority of our audience would have no idea what this is. > > > Agree that it is appropriate for @mw - seems less so for @wp > > OK, done from @mediawiki only. No strong feelings about that one, but just as a general remark I think there is often value in (re)tweeting something that might not be 100% accessible to all followers, but gives even laypeople sort of an ambient sense of awareness ("OK, I don't fully understand what's going on there, but nice that there's apparently progress with Wikidata and Wikipedia".) > > from @wikipedia: > > https://twitter.com/WikimediaCH/status/626066626308407296 >> >> Fine by me as long as we're ok with calling it Wikipedia's medical > encyclopedia (possibly implying it's an official app?). > > > I’m on the fence about these personally - has mobile weighed in on these > set of apps? > > You're both raising good points, but Kiwix and Wikiproject Med have a good reputation in the movement for what they do, and as a default assumption I would trust a major chapter to use the "Wikipedia" mark responsibly and adequately. (I'm actually working in the WMF Reading team, i.e. the engineering department responsible for mobile including the main WP apps, although this RT suggestion does not constitute a papal blessing or anything ;) I am more concerned about an official WMF-run Twitter account promoting Wikiwand, as it happened recently. > > from @wikicommons and perhaps others: >> https://twitter.com/benglabs/status/629966289574957056 >> https://twitter.com/Pyb75/status/629670299580125185 > > > LGTM > > > LGTM from @wc and @wp - maybe @wm > > > >> >> from @mediawiki, the first one perhaps also from @wikipedia: >> https://twitter.com/brionv/status/629733830547509248 > > > mayyyybe from @wikipedia, fairly technical though. @mediawiki for sure > >> >> https://twitter.com/brionv/status/630384030509207552 > > > LGTM for @mediawiki > > > +1 for just @mw only > > > >> >> >> from @wikimedia and perhaps others: >> https://twitter.com/danjarratt/status/631139320997392385 > > > LGTM for @wikimedia/@wikipedia/@wikicommons > > > +1 for all three > > _______________________________________________ > Social-media mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media > > > > _______________________________________________ > Social-media mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media > > -- Tilman Bayer Senior Analyst Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
_______________________________________________ Social-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
