Are they experts? in my review its "Interesting as it gives insight into how wiki data runs, wiki data is relatively unknown to most." (Even though this reviewer liked my submission but she/he gave me 6, two other ones gave me 9. Basically this reviewer changed status of my submission from accepted to "in reserve") This reviewer doesn't know the difference between "wikidata" and "wiki data" and she/he is reviewing my submission? Last year (and years before) reviewers were prominent contributors among users with huge knowledge around the projects. That's strange to me


On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:13 AM phoebe ayers <> wrote:

Just to say that I agree with Dariusz's assessment of how academic reviewing is done. That doesn't address the tension of whether Wikimania is an academic conference or not, though - a question that has existed since early days. There's good arguments both ways, and each Wikimania team has approached this question differently.* It should, however, be made clear to submitters what is happening.


* many teams, and participants, have wanted a more academic conference for various reasons. Many participants find the socializing and practical knowledge sharing the most useful last. In recent years, we've tried to balance this by doing both. If I ever run Wikimania again, I think I'd try having *no* formal talks: only discussions and lightning talks.

On Feb 3, 2016 6:23 PM, "Dariusz Jemielniak" <> wrote:

I have some comments as a person from Academia (and not involved in Wikimania process in any way):

1. Short reviews are definitely not helping in addressing the frustration of rejection, yet are quite common in academic peer reviewing, especially for conferences. 

2. Double blind peer review (not knowing who is reviewed, and not knowing who reviews) is a standard in Academia, although some perceive it as contributing to lack of responsibility (especially true in competitive journal submissions).

3. Two reviewers per submission is absolutely on par with the conference standards I'm used to. Sometimes there are three, but two is absolutely acceptable (although a third opinion should be used if the two disagree too much). 

4. It could be useful to sensitize the reviewers that the main purpose of the review is to help the author to do better next time. 

5. All this is volunteer work. We should be, generally, grateful to reviewers (but in the same time grateful to the contributors, too). 



On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Maarten Dammers <> wrote:
What kind of ridiculous process is this? This is all I got:


----------------------- REVIEW 1 ---------------------
PAPER: 194
TITLE: GLAM+Wikidata
AUTHORS: Sandra Fauconnier and Maarten Dammers


----------- REVIEW -----------

----------------------- REVIEW 2 ---------------------
PAPER: 194
TITLE: GLAM+Wikidata
AUTHORS: Sandra Fauconnier and Maarten Dammers

OVERALL EVALUATION: 6 (Rather interesting)

----------- REVIEW -----------


So only two people reviewed this? Who are these people? Why is this secret? Last year I had 5 people reviewing my submission [1].



Op 3-2-2016 om 23:15 schreef Andy Mabbett:

I've just received feedback on one of my pitches saying, in part:

"Bad boy Andy! This is supposed to be an anonymous review process, so starting your abstract with your own name, is not entirely fair."

Andy Mabbett

Wikimania-l mailing list

Wikimania-l mailing list


prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i grupy badawczej NeRDS
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego 

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa


Wikimania-l mailing list

Wikimania-l mailing list