https://wikimania2012.wikimedia.org/wiki/Feedback
I dropped my comments over there.
There are three things on which I would like to specifically insist upon
The first is that I see a trend in seeing Wikimania as a "conference"
rather than a sort of "giant meetup". I regret it.
I was particularly sensible this year to the fact we had "factions". I
could see the French speaking guys hanging together here. And the German
chapter people hanging there. And in another corner the editing
community of the English Wikipedia. And over there, the Glam people. And
though there were naturally bridges between those groups, there was not
much mixing and bonding.
Seeing Wikimania as a conference is not really helping closing the gap.
We get 4 or 5 sessions in parallel. Glam group goes there in the session
related to Glam. Editing community goes there listening to the session
related to arbitration. Chapter group here goes to listen to legal
risks. And so on. The more sessions we have in parallel, the more chance
that each group stick to its habits.
Adding side events does not necessarily help. When wandering in the
street, we could meet with a group of iberocoop people sticking together
or a group of WMF staff members heading to that restaurant. Even the
wikichix meeting could have been done differently. Such as giving the
time to each women of ONE table to present to each other rather than all
of us to each other. And making sure that women do not sit by their
friends but with new women.
The side meeting probably helping the most are actually visits (such as
the visit to the Capitol) since these are smaller groups of various
origins.
But there is this tendency to group with people you already know because
it is always tough to get to new people you know little about.
In the past, I remember events that helped create more bonding. For
example, sleeping in one area rather than dozen. For example, breaking a
wikiball together. For example, hosting lightning talks in the main
lobby all along the conference.
I think we need to think of Wikimania more as a networking event than it
is right now. And give more chance to isolated people to connect and
more chance to groups to break and bridge with other groups.
I hope there can be discussions on how to achieve that (looking at how
networking groups do is a good direction) and that next year team will
have that at heart.
The second is that I was actually surprised to see the organizing team
put itself so much "in the background".
I did not feel very satisfied that the team was essentially listed on a
slide at the beginning and end of the conference and that we see a group
of people on stage during 1 mn at the closing. If only because I will
hardly remember any of the team member besides James, Aude and Danny.
James as the leader. Aude and Danny because I already know them. But
others ? Unfortunately not. Their names were plastered on an slide
(since I didnot know them, it did not help me to recognise their face
afterwards). In a regular conference, this is normal. We just thank the
organizers and give them a one minute fame.
But at Wikimania, the team should be special. It should be leader and at
the heart of the event. We should know who they are and at the end of
the conference, I feel we should feel like hugging them like mad for
what they did (or hate them :)). There are various ways to do that. Such
as at least presenting each of them at the beginning so that we have a
face in front of the name. Putting a big wall in the lobby with the face
and name, their role, and their favorite food (or whatever). Setting up
a 10 mn presentation at the beginning of the day. Having a contest with
them on stage. A banner to sign. A tower in lego to destroy. Anything.
The third is.... WMF board. The Q&A is a tradition; but I feel
traditions ought to change sometimes. It probably made more sense to
have a board Q&A when we had no staff at all. Now, the staff is
providing one keynote (Sue) plus many talks (not far from half of
Wikimania talks I think) and providing plenty of input during three
days. So the board Q&A is getting boring and not very useful anyway.
Plus, as I told Jay, the concept of having a WMF staff select and ask
the questions is setting up a barrier, thus increasing the distance
between board and wikimedians. To be fair, I find it odd that most
wikimedians have next to no idea of what the individual board members
think on a specific topic. And most answers to board does not succeed to
fix that. It should be clarified if the goal of this "event" is to help
members understand better what individual members think OR if it is to
understand better board strategy OR if it is to better understand
certain issues. But if these issues are operational in nature, the
questions should go to staff, not board.
I think it is time to have another format. I wonder if it might not make
sense to rather select one hot topic per year and have board give their
opinion on that very topic in details and with individual position
rather than having them give short, bland answers to 10 random questions.
Florence