Hi Pine,
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'd also be interested in projections of
total attendance and costs
(including travel costs and staff time) for Wikimania vs. having more or
expanded national and regional conferences.
But then there is the benefit (which is not fully captured by attendance
that) we need to take into account, too, and that's where the main problem
starts. It's relatively easy to measure the costs of conferences, it's very
hard to measure their benefit for a variety of reasons, one of which, in
our context, is that it's hard to assign price-tag to many of the projects
the community and beyond drive, even if you can clearly link them to
Wikimania (which is a problem on its own). And that's already the easier
part of the benefit analysis. It can get way more complicated if we want to
assign a price-tag to how much it's worth for each of us to learn more
about others.
And now add to all the above, that you are suggesting that we do
cost-benefit analysis for multiple conference models and compare them.
Think about designing control experiments, considering the interactions
between conferences (people who attend both vs. those who attend only one
kind), etc.
I would not go down the path of cost-benefit analysis for a conference
such as Wikimania. We will loose too much time and money and still the
analysis will have so many questionable components.
What industry and academic conferences usually do when they're in doubt
is that they become bold and start a new conference but keep the original
one in place. If the new conference attracts more audience, to the extent
that at some point organizing the original conference doesn't make sense
(too few attendees, lower quality abstract submissions, major people in the
field moving to the new conference), then they gradually stop the original
conference. It seems that following that approach would be more beneficial
than questioning the usefulness of Wikimania without more extensively
trying the other conference/meet-up types first and in parallel to
Wikimania.
If WMF and the community are going to spend that
much money every year
on an annual conference, with the majority of that money coming from donors
who give small-dollar amounts, I think that we need to think carefully and
thoroughly about how we plan the conference (or conferences) to align with
the goals of our donors and what we tell our donors.
Two points to take into account here:
* Wikimania is a major and mature conference and it's fair to compare it
to major academic conferences that I'm more familiar with. The cost of such
conferences is usually quite higher than Wikimania, if you consider roughly
the same attendance numbers. I would start worrying about the cost of
Wikimania only if the cost goes much higher than the industry standard.
* I wouldn't recommend reconsidering how we plan for our major
conferences based on what we tell our donors. We should define our needs
and find a way to fund them.
Leila
--
Leila Zia
Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation
Pine
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> I find it a bit over the top too to have such a letter, so strongly
> worded, and signed by so many board chairs.
>
> It reveals a divide between those who participated in the IdeaLab
> survey[1] and those who were at the Future of Wikimania session in Esino.
>
> It would perhaps be interesting to see if correlations can be revealed
> as to what demographic of Wikimedian prefer 1 year per Wikimania and what
> demographic prefer 2 year per Wikimania - like geographical distribution,
> involvement in local Wikimedia groups (staff / board / other volunteer /
> not a participant), and past attendance at regional Wikimedia conferences
> and Wikimania.
>
> [1]
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outc…
>
> Thank you. I find it confusing that the letter starts with "The
> chairpersons of the Wikimedia chapters state that Wikimania needs to be
> arranged every year," which implies that all of the chapter chairs are
> united in agreement, but it appears several chapters didn't sign the
> letter. Looking further at the content of the letter, I would have some
> questions about some of the statements that were made there. In the future,
> I would encourage chapter chairs to have discussions about matters such as
> this on the Affiliates mailing list so that we can have more inclusive
> discussions among more affiliates before sending letters like that. The
> Wikimania situation is already convoluted, and I believe that letters such
> as this should get fuller discussion among affiliates before they are sent
> to WMF.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> On Jul 8, 2016 20:04, "Christophe Henner" <chenner(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>> My bad I forgot it already is on meta
>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Statements/Chapter_chair…
>> Le 9 juil. 2016 4:50 AM, "Pine W" <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> a écrit
:
>>
>> Thanks Christophe. I, for one, have had difficulty figuring out what
>> is going on with Wikimania in regards to varying decisions in different
>> parts of WMF and the community, so I look forward to the clarifications.
>>
>> Personally I am currently neutral on the decision of whether to have
>> annual Wikimanias, or alternate Wikimanias with years in which there is
>> emphasis on national or regional conferences. My hunch is that some
>> research about costs and benefits is needed so that we have reliable data
>> about a variety of scenarios before making a decision.
>>
>> Thanks again for working on this.
>>
>> To the board chairs: I would be interested in seeing that letter. In
>> the spirit of transparency, would you please publish it on Meta? As you
>> know I am an advocate for much more transparency from WMF, and I would like
>> for the affiliates to also to be transparent about governance matters such
>> as this one.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Pine
>> On Jul 8, 2016 19:18, "Christophe Henner"
<chenner(a)wikimedia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> The same question was raised to the board a few days ago by chairs
>>> of Wikimedia organizations asking Foundation's board to make sure
there's a
>>> comprehensive decision on this very topic.
>>>
>>> The chairs letter wasn't public, I let them share it on meta or here
>>> if they want to :)
>>>
>>> First step, in my opinion, is to set expectations and define the
>>> scope (in the role of the event but also in the ressources (both human and
>>> financial) we commit to the event.
>>>
>>> Katherine is working with the staff to provide groundings.
>>>
>>> Here is the answer I provided them with.
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> Hi chairs!
>>>
>>> First of all, thank you with the email, the feedback is clearly
>>> useful and raises interesting point.
>>>
>>> Now, the Wikimania discussion definitly is on the table. Living by
>>> what we said during Wikimania, we, as WMF, will make sure we end up with a
>>> clear answer to your questions but also to the different points you raise.
>>>
>>> Wikimania is an important time in our movement, but as you said it
>>> also comes with costs and challenges that we have to adress. Katherine is
>>> going to meet in the coming days with the staff in charge of that topic to
>>> start that discussion within WMF and provide groundings for a comprehensive
>>> decision.
>>>
>>> We will try to be as diligent as possible on that topic, but I would
>>> ask you to keep in mind that as we're in a transition phase and that
might
>>> take a little more time than you could expect.
>>>
>>> Again thank you for your email, I love the fact that he raises
>>> issues but also includes the challenges we have to take care of :)
>>>
>>> We'll get back to you as soon as possible to continue that
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> Have all a really great day / night :)
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>>
>>> While I concur with Coren’s conclusion, I’ll try to neutrally report
>>> on the events at Wikimania which led to this result. :)
>>>
>>> Full disclosure: I’m a fan of Wikimania being yearly, and was asked
>>> to serve on the Wikimania Committee after Esino Lario. I was also the main
>>> moderator of the Wikimania 2016 session on the “Future of Wikimania.” These
>>> views are my own, and not anything official from the committee.
>>>
>>> Background: Many folks (I’d say a majority) who I talked to in Esino
>>> Lario early in the conference thought that the decision to do Wikimania
>>> every other year was a done deal, as a result of the IdeaLab consultation.
>>> I told them that might not necessarily be so. The vote was close, not
>>> particularly widely known, and we could still be heard. Chris Schilling
>>> from the WMF, who oversaw the Idealab consultation, sought me out
>>> specifically at the start of the conference and to my delight, said that
>>> the consultation was “just another data point,” and that it was by no means
>>> the final word on things. Obviously, this was good news to people who were
>>> interested in keeping a yearly Wikimania.
>>>
>>> I was scheduled to moderate the “Future of Wikimania” discussion
>>> session [1] at the very end of the conference, and encouraged people to let
>>> their views be heard. It was under these conditions that we entered into
>>> the final discussion room and I asked Chris Schilling to give an opening
>>> statement to the room. Most people were happy to hear him say that it was
>>> “just another data point.” During the discussion, there was overwhelming
>>> support to keep Wikimania going every year, which is not a surprise
>>> considering this was *at* Wikimania. I encourage folks to peruse the
>>> Etherpad notes, which are quite extensive and expertly done by several
>>> folks there.
>>>
>>> Some views I’d highlight:
>>> - Having yearly Wikimania is important to keep the momentum of the
>>> movement going, according to many
>>> - A case for cancelling yearly Wikimania was to encourage/fund
>>> regional meetups. However, there is no guarantee that those regional
>>> meetups would actually take place, or that WMF would necessarily take the
>>> money saved from Wikimania to fund them. Some folks from Asia specifically
>>> said that there is weaker linguistic, cultural and geographic synergy for
>>> an “Asian” conference like there is in Europe and Africa, which is why it
>>> has been hard to do one.
>>> - One person noted that one trip to Wikimania served the same role
>>> as several international trips to get the same benefit from meeting other
>>> Wikimedians/developers, so there are indeed cost efficiencies in having a
>>> central conference.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Discussions/The_future_of_Wikimania
>>> [2]
https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Wikimania2016-discussion7b
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Andrew Lih
>>> Associate professor of journalism, American University
>>> Email: andrew(a)andrewlih.com
>>> WEB:
http://www.andrewlih.com
>>> BOOK: The Wikipedia Revolution:
http://www.wikipediarevolution.com
>>> PROJECT: Wiki Makes Video
>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Marc-Andre <marc(a)uberbox.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-07-08 10:01 AM, Chris Keating wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly, I couldn't see any sign of the Committee's
decision
>>>>> being informed by the WMF's consultation on the future of
Wikimania, or
>>>>> anyone from the WMF's community engagement department being
present.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wikimania is, and always was, a community led and organized event.
>>>> The WMF, as its traditional biggest sponsor[1], has a great deal of
>>>> influence in the matter - but ultimately no decision power beyond
"fund and
>>>> resource or not".
>>>>
>>>> The committee's decision has indeed taken into account the
>>>> consultation you refer to - as well as the roundtable discussion on the
>>>> "Future of Wikimania" that took place earlier[2]. Our
evaluation, which is
>>>> reflected in that resolution, is that the consultation was clearly
flawed
>>>> and that its conclusion does not reflect consensus - neither of the
>>>> community members who organize nor of those who attend Wikimania.
>>>>
>>>> -- Coren / Marc
>>>>
>>>> [1] Although "underwrite" might be a better term - the WMF has
>>>> pretty much shouldered the vast majority of the costs and given the most
>>>> logistical support year in and year out.
>>>>
>>>> [2] Where the consensus was to overwhelmingly reject that
>>>> consultation's conclusion in favor or continuing with Wikimania as a
yearly
>>>> even given its irreplaceable role in our movement.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org