I couldn't agree more with Risker. I'm afraid that such a huge preparedness would damage the option that less experienced speakers can present too. I also wouldn't be in favor of a lot of plenary sessions - my experience tells me that at least *I* have been more often disappointed by a keynote speaker than positively surprised. This year's Charles Mok was a very positive exception on that. But maybe that is simply because I've attended too many Wikimania's :)
On the other hand what I always liked so much about Wikimania /was/ exactly the amount of choice. What I questioned was that the sessions basically continue through the breaks - I'm simply afraid that this is very exhausting (which everybody so far seems to confirm).
Something what I *would* like to see changed about the schedule is more discussions with experienced discussion leaders. Not like this year when it was basically a run-out-time for the session before, but a dedicated track, with a dedicated discussion coordinator that puts together the discussion track only a few days in advance to ensure that the most recent topics are covered too. In that way I hope that you also have an improved experience - that track could be somewhat run like you suggested (with someone preparing the discussion etc) and should indeed of course be documented! I just don't think the whole schedule should be like that.
Lodewijk
2013/8/15 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
On 15 August 2013 00:03, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimania should have less parallel sessions,
< longer sessions with more time between the sessions
and an "open space" as an additional track.
<>
We implemented this idea last year at the WikiCon...
<> I am a strong believer that less is actually more. I would like to have
a less stressful but more effictive Wikimania.
Your ideas are welcomed by me :) I've been wanting fewer sessions at Wikimania for a long time.
I agree totally. We can rethink the traditional program entirely.
Imagine a Wikimania where
- the only "talks" or presentations are Plenary sessions
- all other sessions
** have their documents/drawings/slides/tools published 2 weeks in advance, for others to read / comment / link ** have Q&A handled online in advance of the event (via comments and discussion) ** are group discussions or collaborations around a topic, not one-way presentations ** are moderated by someone who is good at moderation (this may or may not be the primary author of works being discussed) ** update the latest documentation about those ideas/projects/tools live, during the session (via a designated facilitator/editor)
I dunno. That sounds fundamentally unwiki, and an awful lot like the professional annual meetings that everyone hates attending. It weighs heavily in favour of "professional" presenters and those who think that the powerpoint is more important than the presentation. I wouldn't spring for a plane ticket for something like this.
As it is, I know for a fact that most of the sessions presented this year were finalized no more than a week before their presentation, and quite a few included "up to the minute" information and data. This is particularly important in an environment that is constantly changing.
What I'd like to see is live-streaming of sessions with moderation that could include online questions for the sessions.
Wikimania is primarily a social event - and that includes the "developer days" at the beginning. Some sessions are of professional quality, some others gain their energy from the presentation itself or the perceived importance of the topic, and others simply by being presented by sincere and caring community members. The best session I saw this year was one that would never meet the bars described above - it was about the Javanese Wikipedia, and it was the one that was so full of hope and joy at the prospect of sharing knowledge freely that the few of us who were in the room walked away with a refreshed sense of what our movement is all about.
You can't capture that with slides or plenary sessions or expert moderation. You need to be in the room.
Risker
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
I don't think plenary sessions would give that much. Au contraire, the best thing about this year's Wikimedia Conference in Milan was the abundance of workgroups and other open discussion forms. But in that case, too, every session would win much if the participants had at least a chance to prepare.
While I doubt if the real-life Wikipedians we have would be able to prepare much two weeks before an event, I would very much like to see the presentations at least *after *they've been on the big screen. Choice can be a wonderful thing but if you have to be at least in three places at once because all the parallel sessions are important for your chapter, you start to enjoy that choice much less. So, if you just can't be on a vital session - or, let's say, can't be on all three interesting and possibly very useful sessions -, you depend in the slides and comments, because many summaries are close to useless. Also, even if I managed to see a session and couldn't take photos of every slide I saw, again, I'm at a loss because I just can't use the data. I can talk to the presenter and they can promise the world to me but if they keep their slides to themselves I can't use the promises even in a report to my chapter, much less in any other form to develop the ideas of the presentation further. And that possibility, the freedom of building on what the others have done, is actually what the wikithinking is all about.
Raul
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
I couldn't agree more with Risker. I'm afraid that such a huge preparedness would damage the option that less experienced speakers can present too. I also wouldn't be in favor of a lot of plenary sessions - my experience tells me that at least *I* have been more often disappointed by a keynote speaker than positively surprised. This year's Charles Mok was a very positive exception on that. But maybe that is simply because I've attended too many Wikimania's :)
On the other hand what I always liked so much about Wikimania /was/ exactly the amount of choice. What I questioned was that the sessions basically continue through the breaks - I'm simply afraid that this is very exhausting (which everybody so far seems to confirm).
Something what I *would* like to see changed about the schedule is more discussions with experienced discussion leaders. Not like this year when it was basically a run-out-time for the session before, but a dedicated track, with a dedicated discussion coordinator that puts together the discussion track only a few days in advance to ensure that the most recent topics are covered too. In that way I hope that you also have an improved experience - that track could be somewhat run like you suggested (with someone preparing the discussion etc) and should indeed of course be documented! I just don't think the whole schedule should be like that.
Lodewijk
2013/8/15 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
On 15 August 2013 00:03, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimania should have less parallel sessions,
< longer sessions with more time between the sessions
and an "open space" as an additional track.
<>
We implemented this idea last year at the WikiCon...
<> I am a strong believer that less is actually more. I would like to have
a less stressful but more effictive Wikimania.
Your ideas are welcomed by me :) I've been wanting fewer sessions at Wikimania for a long time.
I agree totally. We can rethink the traditional program entirely.
Imagine a Wikimania where
- the only "talks" or presentations are Plenary sessions
- all other sessions
** have their documents/drawings/slides/tools published 2 weeks in advance, for others to read / comment / link ** have Q&A handled online in advance of the event (via comments and discussion) ** are group discussions or collaborations around a topic, not one-way presentations ** are moderated by someone who is good at moderation (this may or may not be the primary author of works being discussed) ** update the latest documentation about those ideas/projects/tools live, during the session (via a designated facilitator/editor)
I dunno. That sounds fundamentally unwiki, and an awful lot like the professional annual meetings that everyone hates attending. It weighs heavily in favour of "professional" presenters and those who think that the powerpoint is more important than the presentation. I wouldn't spring for a plane ticket for something like this.
As it is, I know for a fact that most of the sessions presented this year were finalized no more than a week before their presentation, and quite a few included "up to the minute" information and data. This is particularly important in an environment that is constantly changing.
What I'd like to see is live-streaming of sessions with moderation that could include online questions for the sessions.
Wikimania is primarily a social event - and that includes the "developer days" at the beginning. Some sessions are of professional quality, some others gain their energy from the presentation itself or the perceived importance of the topic, and others simply by being presented by sincere and caring community members. The best session I saw this year was one that would never meet the bars described above - it was about the Javanese Wikipedia, and it was the one that was so full of hope and joy at the prospect of sharing knowledge freely that the few of us who were in the room walked away with a refreshed sense of what our movement is all about.
You can't capture that with slides or plenary sessions or expert moderation. You need to be in the room.
Risker
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
I am smiling at the idea that sharing one's notes & images on the wiki two weeks beforehand in advance is huge preparedness. :-) And I am someone who is always working on talks the night before... But I have notes/images/outlines, in one arrangement or another, well before that.
I suspect we could find a community norm that would work for everyone, and still let attendees reflect on (and comment on!) the meat of a session before it starts. And it certainly won't hurt to invite presenters to do this. It might be good to have a mix of presenters who do and who don't share materials in advance, for comparison.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I also wouldn't be in favor of a lot of plenary sessions
Ah, to be clear: I don't want to see any /more/ plenary sessions. I just mean that those sessions would be the only ones that were traditional performances -- one speaker, a passive audience, few if any questions. (and even there we might find speakers with more different approaches.)
Something what I *would* like to see changed about the schedule is more discussions with experienced discussion leaders. Not like this year when it was basically a run-out-time for the session before, but a dedicated track, with a dedicated discussion coordinator that puts together the discussion track only a few days in advance to ensure that the most recent topics are covered too. In that way I hope that you also have an improved experience - that track could be somewhat run like you suggested (with someone preparing the discussion etc) and should indeed of course be documented! I just don't think the whole schedule should be like that.
A nice framing. Similarly, I would appreciate a track that was dedicated to speaker-performances: inspiring presentations with no audience participation. Like a TED-talk track.
I would prefer more of Wikimania to be interactive and discussion-oriented; perhaps you would prefer more to be presentation-oriented. That's a good tradeoff for a program team to discuss. But presenters could then think consciously about which of these modes they intend to participate in.
SJ
Hi,
I in general liked 2013 wikimania schedule. It would have been better if workshops are moved to the pre conference days.
2013/8/16 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com
I am smiling at the idea that sharing one's notes & images on the wiki two weeks beforehand in advance is huge preparedness. :-) And I am someone who is always working on talks the night before... But I have notes/images/outlines, in one arrangement or another, well before that.
I suspect we could find a community norm that would work for everyone, and still let attendees reflect on (and comment on!) the meat of a session before it starts. And it certainly won't hurt to invite presenters to do this. It might be good to have a mix of presenters who do and who don't share materials in advance, for comparison.
I agree that sharing draft presentations by all presenters in advance would enable more productive sessions.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I also wouldn't be in favor of a lot of plenary sessions
Ah, to be clear: I don't want to see any /more/ plenary sessions. I just mean that those sessions would be the only ones that were traditional performances -- one speaker, a passive audience, few if any questions. (and even there we might find speakers with more different approaches.)
Something what I *would* like to see changed about the schedule is more discussions with experienced discussion leaders. Not like this year when
it
was basically a run-out-time for the session before, but a dedicated
track,
with a dedicated discussion coordinator that puts together the discussion track only a few days in advance to ensure that the most recent topics
are
covered too. In that way I hope that you also have an improved
experience -
that track could be somewhat run like you suggested (with someone
preparing
the discussion etc) and should indeed of course be documented! I just
don't
think the whole schedule should be like that.
A nice framing. Similarly, I would appreciate a track that was dedicated to speaker-performances: inspiring presentations with no audience participation. Like a TED-talk track.
I would prefer more of Wikimania to be interactive and discussion-oriented; perhaps you would prefer more to be presentation-oriented. That's a good tradeoff for a program team to discuss. But presenters could then think consciously about which of these modes they intend to participate in.
+1
Cheers Arjuna
2013/8/16 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
I suspect we could find a community norm that would work for everyone, and still let attendees reflect on (and comment on!) the meat of a session before it starts. And it certainly won't hurt to invite presenters to do this. It might be good to have a mix of presenters who do and who don't share materials in advance, for comparison.
2013/08/15 Arjuna Rao Chavala arjunaraoc@gmail.com:
I agree that sharing draft presentations by all presenters in advance would enable more productive sessions.
It's helpful if presenters put links to relevant slides/documents/materials/videos on the submission page, that is the page on which the proposed presentation or session was originally submitted to Wikimania program (findable here: http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Submissions). Many do this but most don't, it seems. It helps people find that stuff before the conference, during the presentation itself, and after the conference, and it can be updated whenever new materials (e.g. videos) become available. It works also for rejected submissions which evolve into lightning talks or other discussions or re-submissions in later years.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I also wouldn't be in favor of a lot of plenary sessions
Ah, to be clear: I don't want to see any /more/ plenary sessions. I just mean that those sessions would be the only ones that were traditional performances -- one speaker, a passive audience, few if any questions. (and even there we might find speakers with more different approaches.)
Something what I *would* like to see changed about the schedule is more discussions with experienced discussion leaders. Not like this year when it was basically a run-out-time for the session before, but a dedicated track, with a dedicated discussion coordinator that puts together the discussion track only a few days in advance to ensure that the most recent topics are covered too. In that way I hope that you also have an improved experience - that track could be somewhat run like you suggested (with someone preparing the discussion etc) and should indeed of course be documented! I just don't think the whole schedule should be like that.
A nice framing. Similarly, I would appreciate a track that was dedicated to speaker-performances: inspiring presentations with no audience participation. Like a TED-talk track.
+1! For me a clear super-prepared presentation is fun. My head is too clouded to follow and remember long-form nuanced specialized debate, on most topics. Most of Wikimania can be more interactive of course, but I like this concept for a track.
I would prefer more of Wikimania to be interactive and discussion-oriented; perhaps you would prefer more to be presentation-oriented. That's a good tradeoff for a program team to discuss. But presenters could then think consciously about which of these modes they intend to participate in.
+1 Cheers Arjuna
+1
Hi,
it would perhaps also be helpful if we would simply create a table on wikimaniawiki with all sessions, and a column for slides, a column for notes and a column for video. That way people don't have to dig into the different pages and people can quickly see what info is still missing.
But then, this has little to do any longer with changing how the tracks work. So getting back to that discussion:
Sam: I totally agree to make the differences between tracks more significant. Having a track totally dedicated for round table discussions, having a track for sessions where people can give input/feedback but with very significant presentation parts (like the one about the wikimedia blog), a TED'ish track and a track for panel discussions would be great. There are of course always some exceptions like when they are topically connected (i.e. Wiki Loves Stuff sessions that were helpfully placed together this year).
Also, I have always had a preference for less keynote sessions - especially the repeating ones (Jimmy, Sue, Board Q&A). I mean, many agree that the Executive Director & board thing is important, but to be honest, there are many people who find that kind of boring and who would prefer to discuss editing guidelines or learn how to review texts on Wikisource, and view Sue's speech later on video (or not at all). I would be in favor of moving away from keynotes to 'supertalks' which have less parallel competitors, but are not a session for 100% of the audience necessarily.
And the board Q&A is definitely more and more dull because it is barely discussion and mostly answering preselected questions asked by a staff member (although some improvement was made this year). Splitting that Q&A up in three sessions with each three board members and a critical panel moderator, parallel to each other could give a much better dynamic and topical focus.
It's good to have this discussion! We always shout and brainstorm about it at Wikimania, it just never gets realized it seems...
Lodewijk
2013/8/17 Peter B Meyer pbmeyer22202@yahoo.com
2013/8/16 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
I suspect we could find a community norm that would work for everyone,
and still let attendees reflect on (and comment on!) the meat of a session before it starts. And it certainly won't hurt to invite presenters to do this. It might be good to have a mix of presenters who do and who don't share materials in advance, for comparison.
2013/08/15 Arjuna Rao Chavala arjunaraoc@gmail.com:
I agree that sharing draft presentations by all presenters in advance would enable more productive sessions.
It's helpful if presenters put links to relevant slides/documents/materials/videos on the submission page, that is the page on which the proposed presentation or session was originally submitted to Wikimania program (findable here: http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Submissions). Many do this but most don't, it seems. It helps people find that stuff before the conference, during the presentation itself, and after the conference, and it can be updated whenever new materials (e.g. videos) become available. It works also for rejected submissions which evolve into lightning talks or other discussions or re-submissions in later years.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I also wouldn't be in favor of a lot of plenary sessions
Ah, to be clear: I don't want to see any /more/ plenary sessions. I just mean that those sessions would be the only ones that were traditional performances -- one speaker, a passive audience, few if any questions. (and even there we might find speakers with more different approaches.)
Something what I *would* like to see changed about the schedule is more discussions with experienced discussion leaders. Not like this year
when it
was basically a run-out-time for the session before, but a dedicated
track,
with a dedicated discussion coordinator that puts together the
discussion
track only a few days in advance to ensure that the most recent topics
are
covered too. In that way I hope that you also have an improved
experience -
that track could be somewhat run like you suggested (with someone
preparing
the discussion etc) and should indeed of course be documented! I just
don't
think the whole schedule should be like that.
A nice framing. Similarly, I would appreciate a track that was dedicated to speaker-performances: inspiring presentations with no audience participation. Like a TED-talk track.
+1! For me a clear super-prepared presentation is fun. My head is too
clouded to follow and remember long-form nuanced specialized debate, on most topics. Most of Wikimania can be more interactive of course, but I like this concept for a track.
I would prefer more of Wikimania to be interactive and
discussion-oriented; perhaps you would prefer more to be presentation-oriented. That's a good tradeoff for a program team to discuss. But presenters could then think consciously about which of these modes they intend to participate in.
+1 Cheers Arjuna
+1
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
I like Lodewijk's suggestion for a single organising table, but I disagree with organising the tracks by format. For me the topic was always more important than whether it was a round table, a presentation or whatever. In practice some wikimanias like Haifa and I think Buenos Aires will have a host language thread. If rooms vary in size then it makes sense to put the more popular presentations into the larger rooms. But my hope is that the organisers look at who is interested in attending which events, and try to accommodate that and not have events clash with other events that the same people want to see
On 17 August 2013 09:59, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi,
it would perhaps also be helpful if we would simply create a table on wikimaniawiki with all sessions, and a column for slides, a column for notes and a column for video. That way people don't have to dig into the different pages and people can quickly see what info is still missing.
But then, this has little to do any longer with changing how the tracks work. So getting back to that discussion:
Sam: I totally agree to make the differences between tracks more significant. Having a track totally dedicated for round table discussions, having a track for sessions where people can give input/feedback but with very significant presentation parts (like the one about the wikimedia blog), a TED'ish track and a track for panel discussions would be great. There are of course always some exceptions like when they are topically connected (i.e. Wiki Loves Stuff sessions that were helpfully placed together this year).
Also, I have always had a preference for less keynote sessions - especially the repeating ones (Jimmy, Sue, Board Q&A). I mean, many agree that the Executive Director & board thing is important, but to be honest, there are many people who find that kind of boring and who would prefer to discuss editing guidelines or learn how to review texts on Wikisource, and view Sue's speech later on video (or not at all). I would be in favor of moving away from keynotes to 'supertalks' which have less parallel competitors, but are not a session for 100% of the audience necessarily.
And the board Q&A is definitely more and more dull because it is barely discussion and mostly answering preselected questions asked by a staff member (although some improvement was made this year). Splitting that Q&A up in three sessions with each three board members and a critical panel moderator, parallel to each other could give a much better dynamic and topical focus.
It's good to have this discussion! We always shout and brainstorm about it at Wikimania, it just never gets realized it seems...
Lodewijk
2013/8/17 Peter B Meyer pbmeyer22202@yahoo.com
2013/8/16 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
I suspect we could find a community norm that would work for everyone,
and still let attendees reflect on (and comment on!) the meat of a session before it starts. And it certainly won't hurt to invite presenters to do this. It might be good to have a mix of presenters who do and who don't share materials in advance, for comparison.
2013/08/15 Arjuna Rao Chavala arjunaraoc@gmail.com:
I agree that sharing draft presentations by all presenters in advance would enable more productive sessions.
It's helpful if presenters put links to relevant slides/documents/materials/videos on the submission page, that is the page on which the proposed presentation or session was originally submitted to Wikimania program (findable here: http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Submissions). Many do this but most don't, it seems. It helps people find that stuff before the conference, during the presentation itself, and after the conference, and it can be updated whenever new materials (e.g. videos) become available. It works also for rejected submissions which evolve into lightning talks or other discussions or re-submissions in later years.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I also wouldn't be in favor of a lot of plenary sessions
Ah, to be clear: I don't want to see any /more/ plenary sessions. I just mean that those sessions would be the only ones that were traditional performances -- one speaker, a passive audience, few if any questions. (and even there we might find speakers with more different approaches.)
Something what I *would* like to see changed about the schedule is more discussions with experienced discussion leaders. Not like this year
when it
was basically a run-out-time for the session before, but a dedicated
track,
with a dedicated discussion coordinator that puts together the
discussion
track only a few days in advance to ensure that the most recent topics
are
covered too. In that way I hope that you also have an improved
experience -
that track could be somewhat run like you suggested (with someone
preparing
the discussion etc) and should indeed of course be documented! I just
don't
think the whole schedule should be like that.
A nice framing. Similarly, I would appreciate a track that was dedicated to speaker-performances: inspiring presentations with no audience participation. Like a TED-talk track.
+1! For me a clear super-prepared presentation is fun. My head is too
clouded to follow and remember long-form nuanced specialized debate, on most topics. Most of Wikimania can be more interactive of course, but I like this concept for a track.
I would prefer more of Wikimania to be interactive and
discussion-oriented; perhaps you would prefer more to be presentation-oriented. That's a good tradeoff for a program team to discuss. But presenters could then think consciously about which of these modes they intend to participate in.
+1 Cheers Arjuna
+1
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
One of the reasons to put certain types of sessions in certain types of threads would be to accommodate the room setting to be adjusted accordingly. For a discussion setup, I would really want a round table setup and definitely not a cinema setup (as happened a few times this year but also previously). Perhaps for a panel vs presentation this difference is less obvious. Also, clear presentations/panels should get priority in filming (it will be almost impossible to decently film round table discussions) and it sets clearer expectations towards participants if the types are more clearly separated. Again, this difference is most prominent with round table discussions and perhaps lightning talks.
Lodewijk
2013/8/17 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com
I like Lodewijk's suggestion for a single organising table, but I disagree with organising the tracks by format. For me the topic was always more important than whether it was a round table, a presentation or whatever. In practice some wikimanias like Haifa and I think Buenos Aires will have a host language thread. If rooms vary in size then it makes sense to put the more popular presentations into the larger rooms. But my hope is that the organisers look at who is interested in attending which events, and try to accommodate that and not have events clash with other events that the same people want to see
On 17 August 2013 09:59, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi,
it would perhaps also be helpful if we would simply create a table on wikimaniawiki with all sessions, and a column for slides, a column for notes and a column for video. That way people don't have to dig into the different pages and people can quickly see what info is still missing.
But then, this has little to do any longer with changing how the tracks work. So getting back to that discussion:
Sam: I totally agree to make the differences between tracks more significant. Having a track totally dedicated for round table discussions, having a track for sessions where people can give input/feedback but with very significant presentation parts (like the one about the wikimedia blog), a TED'ish track and a track for panel discussions would be great. There are of course always some exceptions like when they are topically connected (i.e. Wiki Loves Stuff sessions that were helpfully placed together this year).
Also, I have always had a preference for less keynote sessions - especially the repeating ones (Jimmy, Sue, Board Q&A). I mean, many agree that the Executive Director & board thing is important, but to be honest, there are many people who find that kind of boring and who would prefer to discuss editing guidelines or learn how to review texts on Wikisource, and view Sue's speech later on video (or not at all). I would be in favor of moving away from keynotes to 'supertalks' which have less parallel competitors, but are not a session for 100% of the audience necessarily.
And the board Q&A is definitely more and more dull because it is barely discussion and mostly answering preselected questions asked by a staff member (although some improvement was made this year). Splitting that Q&A up in three sessions with each three board members and a critical panel moderator, parallel to each other could give a much better dynamic and topical focus.
It's good to have this discussion! We always shout and brainstorm about it at Wikimania, it just never gets realized it seems...
Lodewijk
2013/8/17 Peter B Meyer pbmeyer22202@yahoo.com
2013/8/16 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
I suspect we could find a community norm that would work for everyone,
and still let attendees reflect on (and comment on!) the meat of a session before it starts. And it certainly won't hurt to invite presenters to do this. It might be good to have a mix of presenters who do and who don't share materials in advance, for comparison.
2013/08/15 Arjuna Rao Chavala arjunaraoc@gmail.com:
I agree that sharing draft presentations by all presenters in advance would enable more productive sessions.
It's helpful if presenters put links to relevant slides/documents/materials/videos on the submission page, that is the page on which the proposed presentation or session was originally submitted to Wikimania program (findable here: http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Submissions). Many do this but most don't, it seems. It helps people find that stuff before the conference, during the presentation itself, and after the conference, and it can be updated whenever new materials (e.g. videos) become available. It works also for rejected submissions which evolve into lightning talks or other discussions or re-submissions in later years.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I also wouldn't be in favor of a lot of plenary sessions
Ah, to be clear: I don't want to see any /more/ plenary sessions. I just mean that those sessions would be the only ones that were traditional performances -- one speaker, a passive audience, few if any questions. (and even there we might find speakers with more different approaches.)
Something what I *would* like to see changed about the schedule is
more
discussions with experienced discussion leaders. Not like this year
when it
was basically a run-out-time for the session before, but a dedicated
track,
with a dedicated discussion coordinator that puts together the
discussion
track only a few days in advance to ensure that the most recent
topics are
covered too. In that way I hope that you also have an improved
experience -
that track could be somewhat run like you suggested (with someone
preparing
the discussion etc) and should indeed of course be documented! I
just don't
think the whole schedule should be like that.
A nice framing. Similarly, I would appreciate a track that was dedicated to speaker-performances: inspiring presentations with no audience participation. Like a TED-talk track.
+1! For me a clear super-prepared presentation is fun. My head is
too clouded to follow and remember long-form nuanced specialized debate, on most topics. Most of Wikimania can be more interactive of course, but I like this concept for a track.
I would prefer more of Wikimania to be interactive and
discussion-oriented; perhaps you would prefer more to be presentation-oriented. That's a good tradeoff for a program team to discuss. But presenters could then think consciously about which of these modes they intend to participate in.
+1 Cheers Arjuna
+1
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
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I would prefer more of Wikimania to be interactive and discussion-oriented; perhaps you would prefer more to be presentation-oriented. That's a good tradeoff for a program team to discuss. But presenters could then think consciously about which of these modes they intend to participate in.
As a simple change, the default language for submissions could be shifted from "presentations" (currently used repeatedly as the 'default' term to describe what is going on) to "discussions and presentations" or something along those lines. Simply that reminder that presentations aren't the only way to have a session at the conference might go a long way towards opening things up.
Luis
wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org