A Few emails have been circulating re the content and the programme of the conference, and I wish to put in my two cents. This year a track of "discussions" have been introduced. Though a full track (and rooms) have been set aside for this, a total of one discussion has been proposed to the programme committee (and has been accepted of course). I do agree with what Louis suggest, and with some of the things suggested. The breaks should remain breaks – time to rest, have coffee and have informal talks which are an important part of Wikimania. Time should also be set aside for discussions and for lightning talks, but the fact is – the community who comes to the conference does not propose discussions (and nobody volunteers to lead them). My experience from past conferences is that the "unconference" day is a waste of time. Most people already leave the conference and go touring or go home, and do not stay for the unconference talks. The fact is – no one wanted to lead a discussion this year, and no one came and said "I want a basic course of Wikipedia editing". What we can do different next year is to "impose" some discussion time. I have suggested during the conference that next year we will have a discussion track set aside, where, for example, one day, every half hour, one WMF board member will be in the "hot seat" answering questions, the best of which will be asked again in the Q&A session for the whole gathering to hear. On the second day, WMF teams will be in the hot sit to answer legal or technical questions. I also suggest that WMF stuff will submit talks in which they conduct a tutorial to various aspects such as the visual editor, wikidata etc – but this is of course up to them to submit, and for the entire conference programme committee to approve. As to the number of tracks – as I have shown in my lecture – this has not really changed in the past 8 years (with the exception of DC due to the large number of attendees) and I think four tracks + 2 workshops/tutorials + 1 discussion is a good composition for next year as well. And by "four tracks" I mean four presentations or panels tracks. This does not meant the entire time there will be four tracks. The conference may have 8 or 12 subject tracks (such as "women", "Asia", "GLAM", "culture", and the best submissions of all will be chosed and placed, thus a track may only be in one session of the conference if only one good panel or 3 good lectures have been submitted). I do believe that a conference session should be 90 minutes of which 3 * 30 sessions (allowing 25 min session + 5 min Q&A) but this is flexible, and can be 90 min panel and discussion, or 30 min talk + 30 min panel + 30 min discussion, or any other variant. But this also enables a 30 min break every two hours which is important. I personally (in my biased opinion) think the programme was good, and believe that a situation where the attendees say "there are two good things to listen to right now, which one will I chose" only leads to wanting to come again next year (as opposed to "there is noting interesting right now, I will go back to the hotel and rest"). Deror (Deputy programme chair for Wikimania 2011, 2012 and 2013) ------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 02:46:32 -0700 From: Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)" wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] A thought: Different tracks Message-ID: CAM2wSz4SfgGjCgQzEYKbwX5+Q7TObv0tHEcRE1qxxLJVFwmn1g@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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.
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
On 18/08/13 15:25, Deror Avi wrote:
What we can do different next year is to "impose" some discussion time.
Who is "we" here? The community? In the UK in 2014 there is already a set of fringe events, so there is plenty of time and space for discussion. And everything else.
See you in London in August 2014?
Gordo
Hi Deror,
while I appreciate your efforts, I feel it necessary to object to the picture you draw here about the discussions.
Already in a very early stage I contacted the program committee, asking if it would be possible to set up a proper room for discussion tracks, and I even proposed a method to come to actual topics (and not outdated ones). However, the program committee insisted that I should simply 'submit' them as regular sessions. This is not how discussions work! There should be much more flexibility and much later deadlines for discussion sessions.
I don't mean to blame anyone here, I just want to point out that because of how things went, I don't think it is fair to simply extrapolate. A full discussion track is very well possible, if you announce it as such, give it the tools it needs, and put a proper procedure in place for suggestions. The deadline should rather be 1 week before the conference than 3 months.
I think I can come up with at least 5 people (not even counting you) who would be willing to lead one or two discussions, and who I think are capable to do so in a neutral way. At least, if organized.
The hot seat model sounds interesting, although I would personally prefer to make Wikimania /less/ about WMF and more about the community.
Another very different model that has been suggested many times but nobody has worked it out: wikimania wide speed dating. Set one plenary session aside, and allocate people table numbers. Yes, this includes the keynote speakers, Wikimania volunteers/organizers, board members and /all/ staff members that are in town! And connect them semi-randomly (ideally avoiding similar people somewhat). If we do that at the beginning of the conference, I'm sure that the rest will be so much more vivid and effective! Because after one hour of 8 x 5 min you know at least 8 people you never spoke before and probably would not have talked with otherwise!
I'd love to find more ways to use Wikimania effectively to strengthen the community ties and improve exchange of thoughts and knowledge.
Lodewijk
2013/8/18 Deror Avi deror_avi@yahoo.com
A Few emails have been circulating re the content and the programme of the conference, and I wish to put in my two cents. This year a track of "discussions" have been introduced. Though a full track (and rooms) have been set aside for this, a total of one discussion has been proposed to the programme committee (and has been accepted of course). I do agree with what Louis suggest, and with some of the things suggested. The breaks should remain breaks – time to rest, have coffee and have informal talks which are an important part of Wikimania. Time should also be set aside for discussions and for lightning talks, but the fact is – the community who comes to the conference does not propose discussions (and nobody volunteers to lead them). My experience from past conferences is that the "unconference" day is a waste of time. Most people already leave the conference and go touring or go home, and do not stay for the unconference talks. The fact is – no one wanted to lead a discussion this year, and no one came and said "I want a basic course of Wikipedia editing". What we can do different next year is to "impose" some discussion time. I have suggested during the conference that next year we will have a discussion track set aside, where, for example, one day, every half hour, one WMF board member will be in the "hot seat" answering questions, the best of which will be asked again in the Q&A session for the whole gathering to hear. On the second day, WMF teams will be in the hot sit to answer legal or technical questions. I also suggest that WMF stuff will submit talks in which they conduct a tutorial to various aspects such as the visual editor, wikidata etc – but this is of course up to them to submit, and for the entire conference programme committee to approve. As to the number of tracks – as I have shown in my lecture – this has not really changed in the past 8 years (with the exception of DC due to the large number of attendees) and I think four tracks + 2 workshops/tutorials
- 1 discussion is a good composition for next year as well.
And by "four tracks" I mean four presentations or panels tracks. This does not meant the entire time there will be four tracks. The conference may have 8 or 12 subject tracks (such as "women", "Asia", "GLAM", "culture", and the best submissions of all will be chosed and placed, thus a track may only be in one session of the conference if only one good panel or 3 good lectures have been submitted). I do believe that a conference session should be 90 minutes of which 3 * 30 sessions (allowing 25 min session + 5 min Q&A) but this is flexible, and can be 90 min panel and discussion, or 30 min talk + 30 min panel + 30 min discussion, or any other variant. But this also enables a 30 min break every two hours which is important. I personally (in my biased opinion) think the programme was good, and believe that a situation where the attendees say "there are two good things to listen to right now, which one will I chose" only leads to wanting to come again next year (as opposed to "there is noting interesting right now, I will go back to the hotel and rest"). Deror (Deputy programme chair for Wikimania 2011, 2012 and 2013)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 02:46:32 -0700 From: Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)" wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] A thought: Different tracks Message-ID: CAM2wSz4SfgGjCgQzEYKbwX5+Q7TObv0tHEcRE1qxxLJVFwmn1g@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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.
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 mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 08/18/2013 06:55 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
Another very different model that has been suggested many times but nobody has worked it out: wikimania wide speed dating. Set one plenary session aside, and allocate people table numbers. Yes, this includes the keynote speakers, Wikimania volunteers/organizers, board members and /all/ staff members that are in town! And connect them semi-randomly (ideally avoiding similar people somewhat). If we do that at the beginning of the conference, I'm sure that the rest will be so much more vivid and effective! Because after one hour of 8 x 5 min you know at least 8 people you never spoke before and probably would not have talked with otherwise!
I can play "extrovert" when necessary, and this sounds fun to me, as one option to help people understand my work and to better understand the contributions others are making.
Another option: a "science fair" room (like the posters section of an academic conference) where individuals set up and stand near posters and demonstrations of their recent work. I went to an "open source science fair" recently http://opensourcesciencefair.com/events.html and loved it. This is a nice format. Quieter people can drift around the room looking and listening without having to speak up. It's like lightning talks, but simultaneous instead of sequential, and allowing for more ad hoc conversations.
On 08/18/2013 10:12 PM, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
Another option: a "science fair" room (like the posters section of an academic conference) where individuals set up and stand near posters and demonstrations of their recent work. I went to an "open source science fair" recently http://opensourcesciencefair.com/events.html and loved it. This is a nice format. Quieter people can drift around the room looking and listening without having to speak up. It's like lightning talks, but simultaneous instead of sequential, and allowing for more ad hoc conversations.
Yes, I did a demo at Wikisym 2009, which used such a room, and it worked well. It's a more low-key alternative to a full presentation.
Matt Flaschen
I do like the idea of wikimania wide speed dating. As for discussions, those may be carried out in an improvised way throughout the conference, but to be most effective they should appear in the printed schedule, and placed in a time slot in which they do not collide with a similar talk or panel. such talks must be known and submitted and placed in the schedule at least two month before the conference taking in mind the graphics and printing time. (this year the printed program did not list a description of the talks and just gave title, and i hope next year will have a detailed program and perhaps a small short one inside the name tags again). This does not mean that additional discussion may not be added later or closer to the conference, but again - from my experience without proper listing of it beforehand it is not as effective. In DC I try to hold a discussion (such as this one) on the future of wikimania and its shape, during the unconference and very few came. This year the pannel attracted much more attention. Deror
Sent from my iPad
On 19 באוג 2013, at 01:55, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Deror,
while I appreciate your efforts, I feel it necessary to object to the picture you draw here about the discussions.
Already in a very early stage I contacted the program committee, asking if it would be possible to set up a proper room for discussion tracks, and I even proposed a method to come to actual topics (and not outdated ones). However, the program committee insisted that I should simply 'submit' them as regular sessions. This is not how discussions work! There should be much more flexibility and much later deadlines for discussion sessions.
I don't mean to blame anyone here, I just want to point out that because of how things went, I don't think it is fair to simply extrapolate. A full discussion track is very well possible, if you announce it as such, give it the tools it needs, and put a proper procedure in place for suggestions. The deadline should rather be 1 week before the conference than 3 months.
I think I can come up with at least 5 people (not even counting you) who would be willing to lead one or two discussions, and who I think are capable to do so in a neutral way. At least, if organized.
The hot seat model sounds interesting, although I would personally prefer to make Wikimania /less/ about WMF and more about the community.
Another very different model that has been suggested many times but nobody has worked it out: wikimania wide speed dating. Set one plenary session aside, and allocate people table numbers. Yes, this includes the keynote speakers, Wikimania volunteers/organizers, board members and /all/ staff members that are in town! And connect them semi-randomly (ideally avoiding similar people somewhat). If we do that at the beginning of the conference, I'm sure that the rest will be so much more vivid and effective! Because after one hour of 8 x 5 min you know at least 8 people you never spoke before and probably would not have talked with otherwise!
I'd love to find more ways to use Wikimania effectively to strengthen the community ties and improve exchange of thoughts and knowledge.
Lodewijk
2013/8/18 Deror Avi deror_avi@yahoo.com A Few emails have been circulating re the content and the programme of the conference, and I wish to put in my two cents. This year a track of "discussions" have been introduced. Though a full track (and rooms) have been set aside for this, a total of one discussion has been proposed to the programme committee (and has been accepted of course). I do agree with what Louis suggest, and with some of the things suggested. The breaks should remain breaks – time to rest, have coffee and have informal talks which are an important part of Wikimania. Time should also be set aside for discussions and for lightning talks, but the fact is – the community who comes to the conference does not propose discussions (and nobody volunteers to lead them). My experience from past conferences is that the "unconference" day is a waste of time. Most people already leave the conference and go touring or go home, and do not stay for the unconference talks. The fact is – no one wanted to lead a discussion this year, and no one came and said "I want a basic course of Wikipedia editing". What we can do different next year is to "impose" some discussion time. I have suggested during the conference that next year we will have a discussion track set aside, where, for example, one day, every half hour, one WMF board member will be in the "hot seat" answering questions, the best of which will be asked again in the Q&A session for the whole gathering to hear. On the second day, WMF teams will be in the hot sit to answer legal or technical questions. I also suggest that WMF stuff will submit talks in which they conduct a tutorial to various aspects such as the visual editor, wikidata etc – but this is of course up to them to submit, and for the entire conference programme committee to approve. As to the number of tracks – as I have shown in my lecture – this has not really changed in the past 8 years (with the exception of DC due to the large number of attendees) and I think four tracks + 2 workshops/tutorials + 1 discussion is a good composition for next year as well. And by "four tracks" I mean four presentations or panels tracks. This does not meant the entire time there will be four tracks. The conference may have 8 or 12 subject tracks (such as "women", "Asia", "GLAM", "culture", and the best submissions of all will be chosed and placed, thus a track may only be in one session of the conference if only one good panel or 3 good lectures have been submitted). I do believe that a conference session should be 90 minutes of which 3 * 30 sessions (allowing 25 min session + 5 min Q&A) but this is flexible, and can be 90 min panel and discussion, or 30 min talk + 30 min panel + 30 min discussion, or any other variant. But this also enables a 30 min break every two hours which is important. I personally (in my biased opinion) think the programme was good, and believe that a situation where the attendees say "there are two good things to listen to right now, which one will I chose" only leads to wanting to come again next year (as opposed to "there is noting interesting right now, I will go back to the hotel and rest"). Deror (Deputy programme chair for Wikimania 2011, 2012 and 2013)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 02:46:32 -0700 From: Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)" wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] A thought: Different tracks Message-ID: CAM2wSz4SfgGjCgQzEYKbwX5+Q7TObv0tHEcRE1qxxLJVFwmn1g@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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.
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 mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 08/19/2013 12:55 AM, Deror Avi wrote:
I do like the idea of wikimania wide speed dating. As for discussions, those may be carried out in an improvised way throughout the conference, but to be most effective they should appear in the printed schedule, and placed in a time slot in which they do not collide with a similar talk or panel. such talks must be known and submitted and placed in the schedule at least two month before the conference taking in mind the graphics and printing time.
That problem is solvable. If nothing else, the discussions can be printed later and stapled in to the program as an insert. It's not ideal, but it might be a worthwhile trade-off.
Matt Flaschen
My quick two cents on discussions, and other ideas on ad hoc sessions:
Discussions are so new (and advertised way below the radar compared to presentations) that it seems we don't have enough data from one conference to judge their effectiveness. However, I will note that there is a need for their function, as we figure out how to structure it:
- I had one of the discussion slots: "Edit this Museum Exhibit about Wikipedia" which was quite useful for me and the dozen attendees. While it was organized around explaining and discussing the Computer History Museum exhibit I've been helping with, there were others from Europe looking to do a museum exhibit about Wikipedia. We also helped develop the idea of a "traveling" Wikipedia exhibit for newbies that might form a "Newbies Pavillion" at Wikimania 2014, as a way to reach out to new editors.
- Ryan Lane wound up using a last minute lightning talk slot to discuss the latest SSL developments (post-Snowden) that wound up getting a packed room and having about 30 minutes of clarification and discussion. This would have made an ideal "one week before" discussion topic, given the late breaking Snowden news and Jimmy's public statements about defaulting to SSL.
- Lightning talks this year could have been facilitated better -- the seating configurations were still row-by-row desk chairs and the rooms were small. As facilitator of the Wikimania lightning talks in 2006 and 2007, you definitely need bigger space and seating in the round.
- I really like the speed dating idea, and even poster-like sessions that build on the chapters pavilion.
- To further the lunch groups idea, why not have a whiteboard on a post at each lunch table, so people can advertise to passersby what that group is gathered for? Chapters, projects, language, etc. I tried to organize a quick lunch for folks involved with video, and it would have been easier for folks wandering around to scan each table's display to find out who had clustered there, and why.
-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 Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi Deror,
while I appreciate your efforts, I feel it necessary to object to the picture you draw here about the discussions.
Already in a very early stage I contacted the program committee, asking if it would be possible to set up a proper room for discussion tracks, and I even proposed a method to come to actual topics (and not outdated ones). However, the program committee insisted that I should simply 'submit' them as regular sessions. This is not how discussions work! There should be much more flexibility and much later deadlines for discussion sessions.
I don't mean to blame anyone here, I just want to point out that because of how things went, I don't think it is fair to simply extrapolate. A full discussion track is very well possible, if you announce it as such, give it the tools it needs, and put a proper procedure in place for suggestions. The deadline should rather be 1 week before the conference than 3 months.
I think I can come up with at least 5 people (not even counting you) who would be willing to lead one or two discussions, and who I think are capable to do so in a neutral way. At least, if organized.
The hot seat model sounds interesting, although I would personally prefer to make Wikimania /less/ about WMF and more about the community.
Another very different model that has been suggested many times but nobody has worked it out: wikimania wide speed dating. Set one plenary session aside, and allocate people table numbers. Yes, this includes the keynote speakers, Wikimania volunteers/organizers, board members and /all/ staff members that are in town! And connect them semi-randomly (ideally avoiding similar people somewhat). If we do that at the beginning of the conference, I'm sure that the rest will be so much more vivid and effective! Because after one hour of 8 x 5 min you know at least 8 people you never spoke before and probably would not have talked with otherwise!
I'd love to find more ways to use Wikimania effectively to strengthen the community ties and improve exchange of thoughts and knowledge.
Lodewijk
2013/8/18 Deror Avi deror_avi@yahoo.com
A Few emails have been circulating re the content and the programme of the conference, and I wish to put in my two cents. This year a track of "discussions" have been introduced. Though a full track (and rooms) have been set aside for this, a total of one discussion has been proposed to the programme committee (and has been accepted of course). I do agree with what Louis suggest, and with some of the things suggested. The breaks should remain breaks – time to rest, have coffee and have informal talks which are an important part of Wikimania. Time should also be set aside for discussions and for lightning talks, but the fact is – the community who comes to the conference does not propose discussions (and nobody volunteers to lead them). My experience from past conferences is that the "unconference" day is a waste of time. Most people already leave the conference and go touring or go home, and do not stay for the unconference talks. The fact is – no one wanted to lead a discussion this year, and no one came and said "I want a basic course of Wikipedia editing". What we can do different next year is to "impose" some discussion time. I have suggested during the conference that next year we will have a discussion track set aside, where, for example, one day, every half hour, one WMF board member will be in the "hot seat" answering questions, the best of which will be asked again in the Q&A session for the whole gathering to hear. On the second day, WMF teams will be in the hot sit to answer legal or technical questions. I also suggest that WMF stuff will submit talks in which they conduct a tutorial to various aspects such as the visual editor, wikidata etc – but this is of course up to them to submit, and for the entire conference programme committee to approve. As to the number of tracks – as I have shown in my lecture – this has not really changed in the past 8 years (with the exception of DC due to the large number of attendees) and I think four tracks + 2 workshops/tutorials
- 1 discussion is a good composition for next year as well.
And by "four tracks" I mean four presentations or panels tracks. This does not meant the entire time there will be four tracks. The conference may have 8 or 12 subject tracks (such as "women", "Asia", "GLAM", "culture", and the best submissions of all will be chosed and placed, thus a track may only be in one session of the conference if only one good panel or 3 good lectures have been submitted). I do believe that a conference session should be 90 minutes of which 3 * 30 sessions (allowing 25 min session + 5 min Q&A) but this is flexible, and can be 90 min panel and discussion, or 30 min talk + 30 min panel + 30 min discussion, or any other variant. But this also enables a 30 min break every two hours which is important. I personally (in my biased opinion) think the programme was good, and believe that a situation where the attendees say "there are two good things to listen to right now, which one will I chose" only leads to wanting to come again next year (as opposed to "there is noting interesting right now, I will go back to the hotel and rest"). Deror (Deputy programme chair for Wikimania 2011, 2012 and 2013)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 02:46:32 -0700 From: Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)" wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] A thought: Different tracks Message-ID: CAM2wSz4SfgGjCgQzEYKbwX5+Q7TObv0tHEcRE1qxxLJVFwmn1g@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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.
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 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@lists.wikimedia.org