I'm drafting a couple of submissions for sessions at Wikimania, and (having successfully made submissions for Wikimania 2012, for Wikimedia UK AGMs, and for other conferences) have come to the conclusion that 300 words is too much text to require.
What is the thinking behind this figure?
300 is quite a small requirement for a large conference really.
Generally the reason is to ensure that it's a serious/developed proposal (ie not an off the cuff idea) and to make sure the programme organisers have enough detail to get the talk into the right track.
But that's just my experience of other conferences, not this one!
Tom On 29 Mar 2014 20:00, "Andy Mabbett" andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
I'm drafting a couple of submissions for sessions at Wikimania, and (having successfully made submissions for Wikimania 2012, for Wikimedia UK AGMs, and for other conferences) have come to the conclusion that 300 words is too much text to require.
What is the thinking behind this figure?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
I can see that argument.
But some of the best (un) conference sessions I've been in (and some I've presented to good effect) have been off-the-cuff ideas!
On 29 March 2014 20:08, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
300 is quite a small requirement for a large conference really.
Generally the reason is to ensure that it's a serious/developed proposal (ie not an off the cuff idea) and to make sure the programme organisers have enough detail to get the talk into the right track.
But that's just my experience of other conferences, not this one!
Tom
On 29 Mar 2014 20:00, "Andy Mabbett" andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
I'm drafting a couple of submissions for sessions at Wikimania, and (having successfully made submissions for Wikimania 2012, for Wikimedia UK AGMs, and for other conferences) have come to the conclusion that 300 words is too much text to require.
What is the thinking behind this figure?
-- 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
On Saturday, March 29, 2014, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
I'm drafting a couple of submissions for sessions at Wikimania, and (having successfully made submissions for Wikimania 2012, for Wikimedia UK AGMs, and for other conferences) have come to the conclusion that 300 words is too much text to require.
To be honest I always ignore this requirement. It's silly. A well-written proposal should be concise.
What is the thinking behind this figure?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
The real reason was of course "we inherited the template from last year".
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Mar 2014, at 08:52, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, March 29, 2014, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
I'm drafting a couple of submissions for sessions at Wikimania, and (having successfully made submissions for Wikimania 2012, for Wikimedia UK AGMs, and for other conferences) have come to the conclusion that 300 words is too much text to require.
To be honest I always ignore this requirement. It's silly. A well-written proposal should be concise.
What is the thinking behind this figure?
-- 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
Could you please re-post the link to the page where submissions should be posted.
Thank you, Newyorkbrad/IBM
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 30/03/14 00:53, Ed Saperia wrote:
The real reason was of course "we inherited the template from last year".
Re-use! Excellent!
Gordo
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions :)
On 14-03-31 08:20 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
Could you please re-post the link to the page where submissions should be posted.
Thank you, Newyorkbrad/IBM
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly@pobox.com mailto:gordon.joly@pobox.com> wrote:
On 30/03/14 00:53, Ed Saperia wrote: > The real reason was of course "we inherited the template from last year". Re-use! Excellent! Gordo _______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
And that neatly introduces me to the lectern.
In 2011 and 2012 (and possibly earlier) there was only one "abstract" field with the instruction "min. 100 words". So, submission authors wrote at all kinds of lengths from 101 words to 1000+ words. This created two problems: 1. Judging was difficult because different authors give wildly different levels of detail. 2. Most of the abstracts are too long for the programme booklet. In 2011 they asked successful submitters to submit a 100-word tl;dr with a one-week time limit shortly before Wikimania itself, which was a bit hectic.
So in 2013, I split the "abstract" field into two: a tl;dr of "max. 100 words", and a "detailed proposal" of "min. 300 words". I put in comments that authors are encouraged to reuse material between the two fields as they see fit. I felt that it was useful to have 300+ words from every lecture proposal because that actually gives reviewers some more detail about the line of argument that the speaker would take.
Someone who's going to deliver a 25-min lecture should find no difficulty writing more than 300 words to give a taster of the lecture. The speaker will typically monologue for 17 minutes, which would be about 2000 words (assume typical English speeches in Wikimania). If you can speak 2000, you can write 300.
Of course the exception would be proposals for open discussions, which were introduced to the submission system after the 2013 submission template was made. So maybe Ed can make a note to say that purely open-floor sessions are exempt from the 300-word proposal.
Hope that helps. Deryck
On 30 March 2014 08:53, Ed Saperia edsaperia@gmail.com wrote:
The real reason was of course "we inherited the template from last year".
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Mar 2014, at 08:52, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, March 29, 2014, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
I'm drafting a couple of submissions for sessions at Wikimania, and (having successfully made submissions for Wikimania 2012, for Wikimedia UK AGMs, and for other conferences) have come to the conclusion that 300 words is too much text to require.
To be honest I always ignore this requirement. It's silly. A well-written proposal should be concise.
What is the thinking behind this figure?
-- 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
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Thanks Deryck, that's the kind of experience that would be really useful in the guidebook!
Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Mar 2014, at 17:11, Deryck Chan deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
And that neatly introduces me to the lectern.
In 2011 and 2012 (and possibly earlier) there was only one "abstract" field with the instruction "min. 100 words". So, submission authors wrote at all kinds of lengths from 101 words to 1000+ words. This created two problems:
- Judging was difficult because different authors give wildly different levels of detail.
- Most of the abstracts are too long for the programme booklet. In 2011 they asked successful submitters to submit a 100-word tl;dr with a one-week time limit shortly before Wikimania itself, which was a bit hectic.
So in 2013, I split the "abstract" field into two: a tl;dr of "max. 100 words", and a "detailed proposal" of "min. 300 words". I put in comments that authors are encouraged to reuse material between the two fields as they see fit. I felt that it was useful to have 300+ words from every lecture proposal because that actually gives reviewers some more detail about the line of argument that the speaker would take.
Someone who's going to deliver a 25-min lecture should find no difficulty writing more than 300 words to give a taster of the lecture. The speaker will typically monologue for 17 minutes, which would be about 2000 words (assume typical English speeches in Wikimania). If you can speak 2000, you can write 300.
Of course the exception would be proposals for open discussions, which were introduced to the submission system after the 2013 submission template was made. So maybe Ed can make a note to say that purely open-floor sessions are exempt from the 300-word proposal.
Hope that helps. Deryck
On 30 March 2014 08:53, Ed Saperia edsaperia@gmail.com wrote:
The real reason was of course "we inherited the template from last year".
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Mar 2014, at 08:52, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, March 29, 2014, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
I'm drafting a couple of submissions for sessions at Wikimania, and (having successfully made submissions for Wikimania 2012, for Wikimedia UK AGMs, and for other conferences) have come to the conclusion that 300 words is too much text to require.
To be honest I always ignore this requirement. It's silly. A well-written proposal should be concise.
What is the thinking behind this figure?
-- 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
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
Someone who's going to deliver a 25-min lecture should find no difficulty writing more than 300 words to give a taster of the lecture. The speaker will typically monologue for 17 minutes, which would be about 2000 words (assume typical English speeches in Wikimania).
... but the audience will pay attention for 400 words and probably start checking their emails after 1,000!
Please treat this email as a cry for interactive sessions and not people reading from a Powerpoint!
Chris :-)
I had visions of a big checklist with the first question being "300 words?" and a pile of rejected submissions with fewer than that.
On 29 March 2014 23:52, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, March 29, 2014, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
I'm drafting a couple of submissions for sessions at Wikimania, and (having successfully made submissions for Wikimania 2012, for Wikimedia UK AGMs, and for other conferences) have come to the conclusion that 300 words is too much text to require.
To be honest I always ignore this requirement. It's silly. A well-written proposal should be concise.
I note that on 23 March, James Forrester wrote to Wikimania-l and Wikimedia-l:
"Note that a complete submission is required, including an abstract of 300 words or more that explains to the Programme Committee why you think your proposal should be accepted over others."
wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org