I would like to add not random data. Internet Archive, with 3 times less followers, outperforms Wikipedia on engagements, tweets per day and many other things. Basically, outperforms Wikipedia on everything, except number of followers. You can read the report here: https://www.rivaliq.com/free-social-media-analytics/report/#reports-twitter-gB04dB8AE2cc
The Social Media team says, explicitly, that they don't search for more followers, but that they don't want to have more engagement. Hopefully, the Mastodon handle will perform way better.
2023(e)ko api. 13(a) 18:53 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder158@hotmail.com>):
The Social Media team says, explicitly, that they don't search for more followers, but that they don't want to have more engagement. Hopefully, the Mastodon handle will perform way better.
2023(e)ko api. 13(a) 18:53 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder158@hotmail.com>):
Sorry, but @firefox has 4 times more followers than @wikipedia. @mozilla has 3 times more than @wikimedia.
2023(e)ko api. 13(a) 17:50 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Luis Villa <luis@lu.is>):On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 12:29?AM Kunal Mehta <legoktm@debian.org> wrote:Hi,
On 4/7/23 18:17, Dan Szymborski wrote:
> It doesn't make sense to even talk about actually getting
> involved without discussing *which* of the multitude of Mastodon
> instances to "join," <snip> There's a lot of legwork to be
> done first, as opposed to the simpler task of signing up for, say, an
> alternative of similar construction, like Spoutible.
To be clear, this discussion started in December, which has been more
than enough time for our friends and allies at Mozilla, Creative
Commons, Internet Archive, OpenStreetMap and plenty more to set up their
Mastodon presences. There's no excuse for the WMF to not have figured
out which server to sign up on
With no offense to any of those groups (almost all of whom I have some past or present affiliation with), WMF has a professional Twitter presence with more followers than all of those organizations combined, and with substantial donor mindshare and revenue attached to that presence (almost certainly more than all of those orgs combined, though harder to know for certain). The much better comparison is the large media organizations — who are also all struggling with this challenge.
[As just one example of the challenge, NPR was (incorrectly) rumored to have showed up on http://press.coop"]press.coop last night and... the server has been down or inaccessibly slow pretty much since then. And it wasn't even true!]
I do think that WMF should have a presence on federated media, and I hope they're working with Wordpress (who power diff) to implement it. But Wordpress is still labeling their ActivityPub plugin as beta, so no surprise that they aren't rolling it out yet to their biggest customers—like WMF.
There's a case to be made that WMF should not act like a guardian of a global brand—as Depths of Wikipedia has been reminding us all of late, many people love Wikipedia's weird, rough edges, so the standard global brand toolkit may not be a good fit for us. But any discussion of "move fast, maybe break the brand" has to start from that — what is the brand? what is the risk of playing fast and loose with it? what are the "right" kids of risk to take with it? It'd be irresponsible to plunge ahead before having that discussion.