Dear Maarten,

I'm sorry that the process looks ridiculous to you. About the fact that only two people evaluated your submission, please take a look at https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Critical_issues_presentations#Evaluation . I can only add that this year PC members, instead of evaluating all papers, had to bid for those they wanted to review. Therefore you have less reviews, but they are more qualified because your submission was chosen by someone who found it fell in his/her area of interest or of expertise.

About the fact that in your case, unfortunately, there are no verbal motivations for the numeric score, that depends on the fact that PC members were not obliged to give such motivations. Some did nevertheless.

About the fact that you've been sent the reviews without the names of the reviewers associated to them, I must blame the limitations of the EasyChair sofware, which from some points of view has been infernal to deal with. I'm sorry, as soon as we upload the submissions to the wiki you will see this information, too.

I hope I answered your questions.
Best regards,

Michele

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Maarten Dammers <maarten@mdammers.nl> 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

OVERALL EVALUATION: 8 (Very good)

----------- REVIEW -----------
8


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

OVERALL EVALUATION: 6 (Rather interesting)

----------- REVIEW -----------
6

==============

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

Maarten

[1] https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submission_review/5

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
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk



_______________________________________________
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