Not trying to diminish the value of any project nor prevent cross connections between the communities, I just thinking of alternative ways to grow every project and to value each ones unique identity

I see Wikidata growing as force of its own and some ways over shadowing Wikipedia and attracting a whole different set of contributor, audience and end users. From my experience with WikiData Tour Downunder we did see a different group of interested parties in the project and its potential.  

https://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Wikidata_Tour_Down_Under#Outcomes


By individualising project focus events we would create new opportunities and help further strengthen those communities, and yes these would still run multiple sessions including coverage of other projects. They would also be able to refine the scholarships to ensure that better outcomes could be achieved

On 8 November 2016 at 15:16, Andrew Lih <andrew@andrewlih.com> wrote:
GN,

While I understand where you are coming from (ie. Wikipedia as the more recognizable name to the public) it would seem to be a poor time to portray the gathering as just Wikipedia-centric, especially with the rise of Wikidata as a major force in more things we are doing, such as Wikimedia Commons.

The best solution may be somewhere in the middle, where conference adopts a subtitle that includes “Wikipedia” prominently, in order to make it more SEO friendly. 

-Andrew


-Andrew Lih
Associate professor of journalism, American University
Email: andrew@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 Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote:
To quote C. Scott Ananian
I have no idea how to concisely include all the "Wikimedia projects" and still mention "Wikipedia" in the title... which suggests perhaps that Ed's version ("Wikimania: the global wikipedia summit") or whatever subtitle Lodewijk used isn't too far off.

maybe we are missing the target altogether, Wikipedia is our most identifiable brand, its what started the whole game and every other project in someway supports it. The bulk of all talks at Wikimanias are focused on Wikipedia activity.  It could it be that when talk about reducing the size of Wikimania we could look in an alternative direction and focus on individual projects, the hack-a-thon has become a separate identity already, wikisource has held it own. This isnt saying that the conference wouldnt cover or cater for other projects as it already does but it would give us something broader to sell to the sponsors, venues etc by calling it the Wikipedia Conference it could then focus on the 300 languages, the work in the incubator, it would also create a greater immediate impact externally and encourage more people to come learn more and get involved, it'd be sellable to GLAM and media alike... Every one would have the ability to focus on the local language as a key platform

The Wikimedia Conference could then remain maybe even be expanded to enable more attendees focused as it already is on the movement

A Commons conference would be media based looking more at copyright, personality rights even equipment which would open us to whole new world of sponsors  Imagine the people who could be a Key note speaker at a Commons conference that would otherwise bore the pants off every other attendee at a Wikimania. 

each and every conference would run at its own rate annually, bi-annually, even one in four years choose locations that suit its own aims with scholarships for those that the community would really benefit from attending 

Every conference would have cross over streams as no one project is isolated from any other, it would expand the focus and diverisfy the funding/sponsorship opportunities while addressing some of the key issues about the size of Wikimania, the way some sections of the community are lost and allow greater return on the brand identities of each project.  

On 8 November 2016 at 07:04, C. Scott Ananian <cananian@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Again, "Wiki" means "wikileaks" to many folks these days.  "Wikiconference" isn't enough to distinguish wikipedia from wikileaks.   And there are plenty of examples of wiki software other than mediawiki...

If we're going to change the name (or add an official subtitle), IMNSHO "Wikipedia" needs to be somewhere in there, spelled out in full.  That's what we're most known for.
  --scott

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 4:23 PM, olatunde olalekan isaac <reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps something like "WikiConference 2017".

Best,

Isaac

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Olatunde Isaac, 07/11/2016 21:47:
Thus, it would be more appropriate to use a title known to the general public.

 Like... a title that contains "wiki" plus some other catchy suffix? ;-)

Nemo


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l




--

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l




--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l



_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l




--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com