Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/Social media

Twitter - General discussion
WoooooWWWW! It will be useful to see how many extra hits that articles get that are retweeted compared with a control group. It would be excellent if this was followed by journos and we saw that writing about women got you more readers than writing about men. Maybe that's a good message - If you (our readers) want us to write about more women then you need to read about more women..." Victuallers (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Twitter - Proposals
Got an article which you think would make an interesting one to publicize on Twitter? Propose a hook for your article(s) here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red‎.

Some of our earliest tweets in March 2016

 * 1) Doris Bunte - Mrs Beeton was a the Martha Stewart of the 19th century!
 * 2) Mirra Alfassa - Doris Bunte was the 1st black woman to be a #Massachusetts state rep
 * 3) Susan Alexjander -Mirra Alfassa, spiritual collaborator of Sri Aurobindo, attempted to become a new type of human.
 * 4) Ingy Mubiayi - Susan Alexjander created a microtonal system based on the frequencies of DNA.
 * 5) Wan Shaofen - Ingy Mubiayi and Igiaba Scego: "When You’re Born It’s a Crapshoot: Young Children of Migrants Tell their Stories".
 * 6) Excilia Saldaña - Wan Shaofen is the first female provincial-level party chief of the People's Republic of China.
 * 7) Irene Kataq Angutitok - Excilia Saldaña's poetry speaks about abandonment, incest, sexual violence, shame, nurturing, redemption.
 * 8) Irene Kataq Angutitok - Irene Kataq Angutitok used soapstone, ivory and whale bone in her art.
 * 9) Mabel Sine Wadsworth - Mabel Sine Wadsworth started the 1st family planning clinic in #Maine. (+photo)
 * 10) Helen May Butler - Helen May Butler, #NewHampshire bandleader and composer, has been called "The female Sousa".
 * 11) Cosmic Girls - Cosmic Girls, a 12-member #China-#SouthKorea #girlgroup, debuted w/ Mo Mo Mo & Catch Me, in Feb 2016.
 * 12) Paulette Nardal- Paulette Nardal, a leader in the development of a black literary consciousness. (+photo)
 * 13) Helga Goetze - Helga Sophia Goetze was a German artist, writer & #freelove activist. (+photo)
 * 14) Edith Houghton Hooker - Edith Hooker claimed women's #suffrage would make women better wives. (+photo)
 * 15) Jes Baker - Jes Baker - known for being part of the body positive movement. (+photo)
 * 16) Luz Argentina Chiriboga - Did you know that Luz Argentina Chiriboga was inspired to #write because of a #circus?
 * 17) Ruby M. Rouss - Ruby M. Rouss, born on #SaintCroix US Virgin Islands. Her career was marked by a series of firsts.
 * 18) Caroline Herschel - This day in 1781 Caroline Herschel's brother ....
 * 19) Angèle Diabang Brener - Angèle Diabang Brener: documentary director on the beauty standards 4 Senegal women, "Mon beau sourire".
 * 20) Deolinda Rodríguez de Almeida - Deolinda Rodríguez de Almeida - Mother of the Angolan Revolution, tortured, dismembered alive, executed.
 * 21) Célestine Ouezzin Coulibaly - Célestine Ouezzin Coulibaly set up the women's section of the Rassemblement Démocratique Africain in Côte d'Ivoire.
 * 22) Ayisha Osori - Ayisha Osori: lawyer, journalist, former CEO Nigerian Women’s Trust Fund. (+photo)
 * 23) Otobong Nkanga - Nigerian visual and performance artist Otobong Nkanga won the Yanghyun Prize in 2015.
 * 24) Christina Carpenter - Christina Carpenter is thought to be buried under the cell she lived in.
 * 25) Alaba Jonathan - Alaba Jonathan represented #Nigeria as 3rd goalkeeper @ 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup. (+photo)
 * 26) Mary Magdalena Lewis Tate - ("Mother Tate") was an African American evangelist. She was the first American woman to serve as a Bishop.
 * 27) Amarachi Okafor - Amarachi Okafor's art focuses on culture, religion, history, gender & human sexuality.
 * 28) Mabel Ridley - #Gullah: the 1st language of #AfricanAmerican mezzosoprano singer Mabel Ridley of Augusta.
 * 29) Bilikiss Adebiyi Abiola - Bilikiss Adebiyi has an MBA from MIT and she collects trash in Lagos in Nigeris (+photo); Bilikiss Adebiyi Abiola founded #Green #Nigerian Wecyclers. (+photo)
 * 30) Davina Delor - Davina Delor became a Buddhist nun after meeting the Delai Lama (+photo)
 * 31) Hawa Essuman - Hawa Essuman, Kenyan actress & film director; 1st feature film, Soul Boy (2010). (+photo)
 * 32) Catherine Allen Latimer - Catherine Allen Latimer was the NY Public Library's first #AfricanAmerican librarian.
 * 33) Lopamudra - लोपामुद्रा (Lopamudra) was a philosopher who lived over 3,000 years ago (+image)
 * 34) Meherzia Labidi Maïza - Meherzia Maïza Labidi was the "most senior elected woman in the Middle East" (+photo)
 * 35) Anna Maria Antigó - Anna Maria Antigó reformed the Poor Clares (+img}
 * 36) Caroline Stephen - Virginia Woolf's aunt, Caroline Stephen, who looked after her when she was low. (+img)
 * 37) Josefa Celsa Señaris - Josefa Celsa Señaris is a Venezuelan herpetologist. (+img)
 * 38) Anne Sewell Young - Anna Sewell Young was an American astronomer (+img)
 * 39) Sandra Witelson - Sandra Witelson found out what was unusual about #AlbertEinstein s brain (+img)

February 2017

 * Serving you through Social Media

We welcome your participation on +++ Social Media. This forum is monitored regularly during business hours. Comments outside of business hours will be reviewed the following business day.

Social Media such as Twitter and Facebook is intended to enhance our communication – not to replace normal +++ business processes. If you would like to request a +++ service, please contact +++. We also encourage you to visit our website at +++ where you can access email addresses to request a +++ service.


 * Rules of Participation

You are welcome to share respectful comments on our  Social Media channels.

The +++ reserves the right to remove any posts or content that:


 * Provides the personal information of individuals
 * Promotes, perpetuates or fosters discrimination on the basis of race, creed, colour, age, religion, gender, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, nationality, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation
 * Is a personal attack on an individual or specific group
 * Is profane or abusive
 * Is sexually explicit or links to content that is sexually explicit
 * Conducts or encourages illegal activity
 * Is commercial in nature and is attempting to advertise, promote or sell products or services of an individual or an individual business
 * Is for the purposes of promoting a candidate for a government election
 * May tend to compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems
 * Violates a legal ownership interest of another party
 * Violating privacy legislation, including discussion of items in closed session meetings
 * Does not comply with government legislation
 * Promotes an individual religion or religious service.

Notwithstanding the criteria listed above, the +++ reserves the right to post, refuse to post, or remove, any content from its  Social Media at any time, without notice and to block repeat offenders.

The overall goal is to ensure that all parties participate online in a respectful, relevant way.


 * Community events

Members of the public are welcome to post event information on +++’s  Social Media if that event is open to the general public and meets one of the following criteria:


 * Organized or funded by another level of government
 * Organized by a government-funded agency or board
 * Organized by a +++ affiliated group
 * An organization identified as eligible for a +++ community grant
 * Funded in full, or in part, or sponsored by +++
 * Organized by a charitable organization with a registered charitable number and operating within +++
 * Organized by a service club or neighbourhood association operating within +++ performing work that benefits +++
 * Organized by a business improvement area or Chamber of Commerce for general promotional purposes.


 * You are responsible to protect your privacy

When you registered for your  Social Media account, you provided personal information to the provider. And since then, you may have added even more information and photos to your profile. The +++ would like to remind you that if you don’t have your privacy settings restricted, then anyone who “likes” or "follows" our account could potentially view your personal information. Be sure to get to know the security settings within the  Social Media you are using.


 * About your personal information

Personal information, which includes your Internet Provider (IP) address, is being collected, managed, processed and or stored by a third party service provider and is therefore, not in the sole domain, custody and control of +++. Additionally, your personal information may cross to a foreign jurisdiction and will therefore, be subject to the governing laws of that jurisdiction.

The +++ will post topics and updates on +++ activities and, from time to time, will ask for your feedback. This information will be monitored, reported back to +++ and Social Media times +++.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Discussion

 * Not a member, but I would like to see a statement (specifically directed at posters on the social media) that indicates that WIR will not post original complaints on social media (similar to the reason why several Tweets were deleted) but will post a link to the discussion with a neutral summary (similar to the start of an RFC or a summary line in WP:CENT) in the social media so that interested parties can evaluate. This would keep the social media posts on the right side of WP:EEML in addition to opening the discussion to wider views without being named as calling up a sockpuppet brigade. Hasteur (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * After the "real crimes" tweet, this project needs to present a real statement about what is being posted, and who is actually posting it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * how would you phrase that? I think the mistake happened when someone forgot to switch from WIR to their personal account. But all the same maybe something like this? personal opinions should not be expressed using the Women in Red accounts? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would think something to the effect of As social media is both a positive and negative driver of attention to the WikiProject, the highest quality of content should be posted to the Women in Red Social media accounts. Using the social media accounts to drive selective participation in a consensus discussion is explicitly forbidden and may result in consequences up to and including revocation of access to the social media accounts. I hate to have to spell it out so forcefully, but the "real crimes" post and it's subsequent follow ups by whomever posted it was in astonishingly bad taste in addition to forming a Externally Canvassed Mob. I do not accept the justification that it was an accident in forgetting to not post from their personal account. Hasteur (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What's all this +++? I do not understand.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , I think that may have been copied from somewhere else, and those are placeholders for the organization name, probably a search/replace. --valereee (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Valereee, but it seems to me that not all +++ are replacing the same thing, which is causing confusion on my end.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah, maybe they used the same +++ for all identifiers -- org, position, person, etc. --valereee (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Is everything from Community events onwards irrelevant?  starship .paint  (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, so that draft policy above is from 2017? Seems I was led astray.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that policy above is probably copied from some organization's policy for their employees' personal social media accounts. I don't think it has anything to do with policies of the organization for their own social media. We should probably just collapse the section or archive it. --valereee (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Collapsed.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I will be stepping away from this discussion for a while, and may not return.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

General

 * Suggestions: 1) Tweeters misusing the account will have their access terminated. 2) Do not use the account to attack other editors. 3) Take responsibility for your actions with the account and be prepared to explain them - just as on-Wiki we are each responsible for our own edits and must be prepared to explain them. 4) Remember, tweets are the public face of the Project - far more public than anything actually on-Wiki. Do not bring the Project into disrepute as this makes it harder for us to recruit new members and promote our work. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest that posts/tweets from the WiR account be vetted by a second user. It would slow things down, but it's probably best practices for any organizational account. --valereee (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * We could use DMs to vet tweets or maybe coordinate a Google Doc? What do you think, ? I really like the wording of number 4, . I'd like to add "Tweets are the public face of the Project" somewhere on the page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that that #4 wording is really good and think it would make a solid addition. SusunW (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, that was what I was thinking. If two well-intentioned editors think a post is okay, it's less likely to be problematic. And it would give editor 1 a chance to see they'd neglected to switch from their personal account lol --valereee (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * cool. I think Google Docs might work and it could also serve as an archive of our tweets as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec)Could you have a subpage something like how DYKs get onto the front page? You could develop a stack of tweets, then the project tweeters could pop in and tweet from that. I'm glad you liked 4, it's probably the most important and everything else would flow from it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Having every tweet checked by someone else sounds very cumbersome. Perhaps that should be reserved for tweets that might be controversial? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I do agree that it's definitely more cumbersome. Three main ways most organizations get themselves into trouble with their social media (apart from not having a social media policy) are 1. tweeting something that whoever tweeted it didn't think was controversial or didn't realize it was incorrect 2. Retweeting something that on its face looks harmless without thoroughly checking out the source and 3. Simple pilot error, such as accidentally tweeting from the organization account or accidentally liking something instead of swiping. I don't think anyone involved with the project would intentionally make any of these errors, but while a second set of eyes on something very public-facing is cumbersome, it's also a good way to prevent the first two types of errors. This isn't wikipedia where everything can be corrected and there's no deadline. Once it's out there, it's out there. The deadline for making corrections has already passed. To me that's worth a bit of cumbersomeness, especially since there's no benefit to the project in tweeting at X o'clock instead of at X:45. valereee (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How would that work for conversational threads? Or situations where only one person is available? Or situations where a timely (uncontroversial) tweet may have more impact than one after the fact? A guideline should help the people running the account, not hamstring them. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree, we shouldn't hamstring people. I'm thinking there's an answer out there and that we needn't reinvent the wheel. The social media managers for other organizations have surely figured out how to both protect the organization and remain nimble enough. --valereee (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we need to make sure the guideline isn't trying to do too much. Perhaps there could be some form of social media training to complement it? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing I like about 's suggestion is that if we used Google Docs, for example, we'd also have an archive of the tweets. As a librarian, I find the idea of archiving and backing up information to be valuable. However, there are other ways to automatically archive tweets as they are tweeted out, like using IFTTT. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

With respect: WP:DEADLINE clearly indicates that waiting to make sure that the WikiProject isn't going to cause itself more harm than posting early is always a benefical tradeoff. The shortest consensus discussion would be an XfD discussion which are held open for at least 7 days unless there is "a snowball's chance in hell" of it being retained. I don't include CSD nomiantions as those are supposed to be 100% objective (it either meets or doesn't meet the criteria). Hasteur (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't follow. A deletion discussion? Richard Nevell (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not following either, Hasteur. I don't think you can be suggesting that each tweet or post requires a full consensus discussion of at least seven days? --valereee (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Honesty about who we are
We might want to clarify what we mean here. I took it to mean 'honest that we've got a point of view: that women need to be more represented on WP', but from discussion at WiR talk it seems like some community members take it to mean 'transparent about which editor is hitting send on this post/tweet.' ETA: I don't think that level of transparency is necessary or customary for organizational posts/tweets. --valereee (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We can approach this aspect of honesty / transparency / accountability in different ways. One is to sign tweets, maybe with initials, that saves character space. Another way that does not require listing the author for every single tweet, is that the author of a tweet should declare themselves upon request.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, not sure that's necessary or customary. I think in most organizations, someone knows who sent out each tweet, which allows for the organization to remove privileges in the case of someone sending out bad tweets. But I don't think most organizations would voluntarily submit that now-deprivileged person for public scrutiny and abuse; they'd just take that scrutiny and abuse as an organization and announce the person responsible had been somehow disciplined. --valereee (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that, but there's nothing much more for me to argue on that point, I've already said my piece. However, if we were to take it your way, then I would want WiR to announce the specific punishment for the unnamed offender.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , let me clarify: I do think it's fair to make it clear which tweets/posts were all produced by a single editor. Just not necessary to publcly identify that editor. I think that provides the accountability -- the community can see all of editor X's tweets and bring concerns to the project about that unidentified editor. --valereee (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC) valereee (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If we were to implement your suggestion,, again, I would like announcements of the specific punishment for the unnamed offender. But is all this even under the auspices of Honesty about who we are?  starship .paint  (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that it's not about punishment. It's about preventing another problem. I don't want to know someone's been punished. I want to know that we've taken whatever necessary steps to prevent the problem from recurring. As I said in my first post, our statement about honesty about who we are needs to be clarified. My feeling is that 'honesty about who we are' means being open about the fact the project is intended to address systemic inequity, not making sure the community knows it was valereee was the person who made a certain mistake. Those are two very different types of 'honesty'. --valereee (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The punishment is only to prevent further problems. I agree, there are two different types of honesty. That's why, I think, we need another principle. Even if the community will not know valereee was the person who made a certain mistake, it would be better for the community to know that unnamed editor 1 made a certain mistake, and WiR applied this measure (maybe a one month break from the Twitter account for first mistakes, then three months, then indefinite) to unnamed editor 1 to prevent further mistakes.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Punishment has neither been proven to deter nor generate a change in behavior. is correct the goal is to prevent recurrence. Adopting any policy which requires people to out themselves or the project to out them is unacceptable. Likewise, "punishment" is unacceptable under the WP:Civility policy. Instead, it advises to retract incivil statements and apologize, which is exactly what was done. Further, the policy states, "Sanctions for civility violations should only happen when nothing else would do". The proposal above seems to be suggesting that this project be held to a different standard than English Wikipedia in general, using punitive measures rather than preventative ones. That seems neither logical or likely to happen. SusunW (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Clarity about our opinions and values
Suggestions? --valereee (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to clarify about personal opinions, ? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just taking the current wording of the point, trying to figure out what we meant by looking at what other organizations seem to be using this type of wording for, and making a giant guess. I really am just jumping off a cliff and hoping I sprout wings on the way down for all of these, just as a way of opening discussion. I want to see us figure out something that will work for us and also work within the larger project. --valereee (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense, . I wonder if we could link to our mission statement in order to express this. It's largely spelled out on the front page of the project. Or we could just transclude it. I think Wikipedia is a collective exercise in jumping into the unknown! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , totally! I copied that wording from the statement at the top of the page. I should not be involved in transcluding anything that doesn't come with instructions. I can just about follow simple ones most of the time, if I haven't had a glass of wine yet.
 * I hope it's clear I'm only editing directly because sometimes with something that has to be a collaborative creation right from the blank page, I find it more efficient/productive to just start working and see who agrees or objects or adds or subtracts something themselves. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to own this; if anyone would rather edit by discussion here first, that is fine with me, and of course anyone interested should directly edit too, if you also prefer that! --valereee (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good approach, . I really like how you've expanded it! I'm not as social media savvy as I should be, I think I know how to post, I like to use Twitter and I know a bit about archiving social media, but everyone who's been contributing to the discussion here on the talk page was right: we needed to be more specific. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with what said, except the part about having any social media savvy. I know virtually nothing. :) (Heck, I can hardly answer my phone. Swiping is a ridiculous invention, IMO.) I'm glad for your input and appreciate the clarity you have provided. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , believe me, I'm no expert either! It would be definitely helpful if someone on the project had some actual expertise and could evaluate this for us and tell us where our gaping holes are and where we're making it too cumbersome. For instance, the part about WiR opinions needing debate/consensus...I put that in there because on WP, that's how we work. In normal organizations, official organizational opinion comes down from above. Does/should WiR have opinions? Is debate/consensus a reasonable thing for pounding them out? What I'm talking about is for instance does WiR have any level of opinion on things like the new abortion laws in many US states? It's a women's issue, so working on the article about it is firmly within our purview. But if we are going to have an opinion when these laws eventually go to the SC, should we proactively be holding an RfC for WiR members on whether our role is simply to post neutral statements linking to the articles on those laws/SC decisions or (pointier, and therefore may be considered opinion even if introduced with a neutral statement) to articles about historical reproductive rights activists? --valereee (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, we cannot have a group opinion on things that are not concerned with WP. If there is an article, or one under development, we can ask others to provide input to articles, but linking those to an active political situation IMO is unwise. My opinion is of course colored by my experiences. As an immigrant, who lives abroad (i.e. not in my country of origin) I can watch political development, but legally cannot participate. Since we are a global community, I think we can watch the situation, write articles which clarify the people, events, outcomes, but we cannot do more than promote readership for our articles. SusunW (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's more or less my general feeling, too...that explicitly expressing opinions on the subjects we're covering tends to harm our standing as neutral reporters. I also think trying to reach and then maintain consensus on literally every women's issue in the world sounds like a hideous and counterproductive exercise. Which would leave us with WiR opinions about WP/WMF. Do we go there, or not? And if so, how?  --valereee (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * that'd be a question for the main talk page. IMO there are advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, if we have a group opinion, it makes us a target. On the other hand, our voices are typically drowned out, (not my opinion, numerous studies both on- and off-wiki report that people who work in gendered topics, on non-US/UK topics, with minorities express that they are silenced from expressing opinions by the aggression and policy bludgeoning processes.), so unless we can come up with a way to be heard and participate, situations which effect us and our contributions will remain unchanged.
 * Consensus, as it is perceived by many, i.e. those responding on a particular page regarding a particular issue, is not an egalitarian process and leaves many who have no idea that a discussion is taking place, or who do not want to be involved in drama, out of the process. From a historical perspective, I am reminded that during the Women's Liberation Movement, over and over I read that groups limited their size to no more than 12, because it was virtually impossible to attain consensus on the diverse issues that impacted women. Small groups brought their focus information to larger umbrella organizations which then voted to develop platforms and be more representative and inclusive of all voices and opinions. WP isn't at that place. SusunW (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't disagree. Do we need to reword what's currently in that section? --valereee (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't disagree. Do we need to reword what's currently in that section? --valereee (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I like what is there a lot. If you feel that it is necessary, an opening sentence could be added along the lines of "Social media should primarily be used to promote our work and/or obtain assistance with resources such as photographs or reference material". I think then that shows the focus is not to issue opinions, but if we do they need consensus. Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , that actually sounds perfect to me. I'll go add it. --valereee (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Respect and humility in our communications
No idea what this one is getting at. --valereee (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How about: "Respectful in how we communicate". --Rosiestep (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I like that SusunW (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Good judgment in sharing information
Getting warmer? Colder? --valereee (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Vague. Some information is protected by law or corporate policy. Better to say something about preventing hounding, harassment, doxxing and such. JMO.   Montanabw (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we just link to the Civility policy? SusunW (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Awareness that what we say is permanent
Per Duncan Hill. --valereee (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I’d note that nothing on the internet disappears and can be screenshotted and reposted elsewhere even if deleted at its source. Be clear.   Montanabw (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, . Things are archived, but I also think that if we can automatically archive our own tweets, that would be really great. We can automate it pretty easily. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * We archive things onwiki so it seems reasonable to do so on Twitter, especially if this is standard practice with other international communities (not just wiki ones). If this is the way to go, we should announce it first,, e.g. "Effective July 1, 2019...", on the WiR talkpage and on the WiR Twitter account before we start doing it. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

comments from contributors/page watchers?
I think I've done about as much as I can think of, if anyone/everyone contributing to this conversation and/or watching this page would want to comment on any concerns, changes, whatever. Or just make them directly! I'd love to see us eventually end up with social media guidelines that we can point to as an example of how WiR takes the initiative to prevent us from repeating our mistakes. --valereee (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * you did a bang-up job on this! Kudos! I've just tweaked a little bit, removing nothing and just adding a little more clarification. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks! I actually think it's looking pretty reasonable given that we were flying by the seat of our pants --valereee (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What Sue said. Really appreciate your work on this ! SusunW (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 International Conference on Social Media and Society
The 2019 International Conference on Social Media and Society (#SMSociety) is happening in July in Toronto, Canada. To the extent that some of their papers appear to be CC-BY-NC (free to read), and some of their sessions might by available online, it would be good to learn what we can from them. This is a sampling of the 2018 conference publications: --Rosiestep (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Social Media for Social Good or Evil: An Introduction "
 * "Twitter Issue Response Hashtags as Affordances for Momentary Connectedness"
 * "Constructing the Platform-Specific Self-Brand: The Labor of Social Media Promotion"

Social media – Threads and Mastodon
I am concerned that we have not yet (as far as I can see) embraced the new social media platform, Threads, which would be linked to the WIR Instagram account. I also noticed that there is a Mastodon account that has no posts and is supposedly mirroring our Twitter account. Personally, I still like the former Bird site, but many have moved away from it. I have only just joined Threads today but would be happy to post some WIR content there or on Mastodon if someone wants to set up WIR and allow me access. Also, once created, they should be added to our monthly Event pages as so that Users are encouraged to share their new articles and alert WIR. Oronsay (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on social media but I fully support the inclusion of Threads which already seems to have a large user community. I also think we should consider calling Twitter "X" but I see "X" still points to old Twitter site. Perhaps could advise on this.--Ipigott (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sad by the whole X affair. It seems to me that many have left the site but so far there is no obvious heir and nothing I've seen (including X (spit)) compares with the site that Twitter used to be. We have a Threads WIR account but Ive never used it - happy to share the password. Penny and Jess have moved to Mastodon although Penny still back posts to Twitter. We used to increase our Twitter followers every month - that is no longer the case. Like to help but not inspired to take the lead on this (while still in mourning). Victuallers (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , WiR had a brief discussion about Mastodon a few months ago. was interested in getting an account up and running. It looks like you would have to be bold and create the account for WiR. I don't think there is an "official" twitter account or insta account. I think someone just started an account. Sorry, I don't have any social media skills, but perhaps you two could come up with a bold plan. I, for one, would be grateful if we kept up with the times. How hard would cross posting be? More trouble than it is worth or the best path forward? Would we drop an account that has fallen out of favor or just keep it going?  --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Item for discussion on WiR talk
I have included the following item for discussion on WiR talk:
 * A couple of months ago, we had a discussion on whether we should have a presence on Mastodon and how we should deal with Twitter, now that it has been renamed X. Has any progress been made with these items or should we simply continue to include Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest and Twitter on our invitations and on our Social media page. Has any attention been given to other social networks such as Reddit or Telegram? Our presence on Twitter and Pinterest seems to have been particularly effective in attracting interest but maybe we could do more. Maybe for some of these sites, we could provide a centralized service which would not require constant updating on each of them. I'm afraid I have no competence or spare time to deal with these matters myself but they seem to me to represent an important aspect of our activities and an additional means of providing access to our WiR articles.--Ipigott (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I see this has led to a proposal on WiR talk to delete the icon and links to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.--Ipigott (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)