Dear all,
Wikimania has been over for a month now and it is already time to discuss the next Wikimedia event, the Wikimedia Conference.
A year ago, for the very first time, the movement set up a selection process to choose the host of the conference, 4 chapters applied and WMDE was chosen to host the 2014 edition. Setting up this process has improved the planning of the Wikimedia Conference and it would be ideal to follow the same organization for next year’s event.
Wikimedia CH did not participate last year, but expressed its willingness to host for the 2015 edition.
As we are already in September and that the next Wikimedia conference should be held in May 2015, we believe that the selection process to choose the next hosting team should begin as soon as possible to obtain the best deals location wise and also to have the time to prepare the program.
As a representative of a candidate who wishes to apply for the hosting of the 2015 edition, we would like to open this discussion and put upfront the suggestion to form:
*a location committee, in charge of setting up the bidding process and to evaluate them
**a program committee, in charge of setting up the conference program
By keeping the smooth process established last year, we can address two important issues, having a cost efficient conference if planned well in advance, and having a content efficient conference with well defined SMART objectives ;-)
I took the liberty to set-up a Wikimedia Conference 2015 page, as well as a bidding page in order to kick off those discussions.
In the hopes of setting up a constructive and collaborative process, I wish you all a very good day. _________________________________________________________
Anh CHUNG, Chief Administrative Officer "Wikimedia CH" – Association for the advancement of free knowledge – www.wikimedia.ch Office +41 21 340 66 20 Mobile +41 78 888 76 38
On 11 September 2014 09:27, Anh Chung anh.chung.wmch@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
Wikimania has been over for a month now and it is already time to discuss the next Wikimedia event, the Wikimedia Conference.
Though I'm sure the event is worthy, I will repeat yet again the request from the Wikimania Committee for people to please stop calling it "the Wikimedia Conference" when it isn't about Wikimedia, just some Wikimedia organisations, and isn't an open conference, against the ethos of Wikimedia.
"Wikimedia Associations Meeting 2015" is much less misleading, and closer to reality.
J.
I think "Wikimedia Affiliates Meeting" or "Wikimedia Movement Affiliates Meeting" would better match the wording used elsewhere.
-greg
_______________ Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
On Sep 11, 2014, at 12:42 PM, James Forrester jdforrester@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 September 2014 09:27, Anh Chung anh.chung.wmch@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
Wikimania has been over for a month now and it is already time to discuss the next Wikimedia event, the Wikimedia Conference.
Though I'm sure the event is worthy, I will repeat yet again the request from the Wikimania Committee for people to please stop calling it "the Wikimedia Conference" when it isn't about Wikimedia, just some Wikimedia organisations, and isn't an open conference, against the ethos of Wikimedia.
"Wikimedia Associations Meeting 2015" is much less misleading, and closer to reality.
J.
James D. Forrester Chair, Wikimania Committee
jdforrester@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] (speaking purely in a personal capacity) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 11.09.2014 18:42, James Forrester wrote:
On 11 September 2014 09:27, Anh Chung anh.chung.wmch@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
Wikimania has been over for a month now and it is already time to discuss the next Wikimedia event, the Wikimedia Conference.
Though I'm sure the event is worthy, I will repeat yet again the request from the Wikimania Committee for people to please stop calling it "the Wikimedia Conference" when it isn't about Wikimedia, just some Wikimedia organisations, and isn't an open conference, against the ethos of Wikimedia.
"Wikimedia Associations Meeting 2015" is much less misleading, and closer to reality.
J.
Against the funds of WMF.
A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania.
In addition there are not represented "some Wikimedia organisations" but all Wikimedia organisations, including the affiliated groups.
Until a discussion is not opened and it does not reach a clear majority, it is called Wikimedia Conference.
Regards
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Against the funds of WMF.
A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania.
In addition there are not represented "some Wikimedia organisations" but all Wikimedia organisations, including the affiliated groups.
Until a discussion is not opened and it does not reach a clear majority, it is called Wikimedia Conference.
Regards
Wikimedia Affiliate Conference is obviously much more accurate and descriptive.
On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
On 11.09.2014 18:42, James Forrester wrote:
On 11 September 2014 09:27, Anh Chung anh.chung.wmch@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
Wikimania has been over for a month now and it is already time to discuss the next Wikimedia event, the Wikimedia Conference.
Though I'm sure the event is worthy, I will repeat yet again the request
from the Wikimania Committee for people to please stop calling it "the Wikimedia Conference" when it isn't about Wikimedia, just some Wikimedia organisations, and isn't an open conference, against the ethos of Wikimedia.
"Wikimedia Associations Meeting 2015" is much less misleading, and closer to reality.
Against the funds of WMF.
A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania.
Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a lie.
J.
/me mumbles something about a bikeshed that has a beautiful shade of blue.
2014-09-11 20:06 GMT+02:00 James Forrester james@jdforrester.org:
On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
On 11.09.2014 18:42, James Forrester wrote:
On 11 September 2014 09:27, Anh Chung anh.chung.wmch@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
Wikimania has been over for a month now and it is already time to
discuss
the next Wikimedia event, the Wikimedia Conference.
Though I'm sure the event is worthy, I will repeat yet again the
request
from the Wikimania Committee for people to please stop calling it "the Wikimedia Conference" when it isn't about Wikimedia, just some Wikimedia organisations, and isn't an open conference, against the ethos of Wikimedia.
"Wikimedia Associations Meeting 2015" is much less misleading, and
closer
to reality.
Against the funds of WMF.
A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly
Wikimania,
and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania.
Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a lie.
J.
James D. Forrester jdforrester@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] (speaking purely in a personal capacity) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I personally prefer silver unpainted bikesheds. That way, they don't need constant repainting.
Perhaps it would be best to decide the program. Or indeed something else about it. Targets. Audience. Anything. Our conference baby will indeed need a name, and a name is important, but let's have a pregnancy first. This thread could do with refocusing :-) On 11 Sep 2014 19:28, "Lodewijk" lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
/me mumbles something about a bikeshed that has a beautiful shade of blue.
2014-09-11 20:06 GMT+02:00 James Forrester james@jdforrester.org:
On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
On 11.09.2014 18:42, James Forrester wrote:
On 11 September 2014 09:27, Anh Chung anh.chung.wmch@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear all,
Wikimania has been over for a month now and it is already time to
discuss
the next Wikimedia event, the Wikimedia Conference.
Though I'm sure the event is worthy, I will repeat yet again the
request
from the Wikimania Committee for people to please stop calling it "the Wikimedia Conference" when it isn't about Wikimedia, just some
Wikimedia
organisations, and isn't an open conference, against the ethos of Wikimedia.
"Wikimedia Associations Meeting 2015" is much less misleading, and
closer
to reality.
Against the funds of WMF.
A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly
Wikimania,
and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania.
Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a lie.
J.
James D. Forrester jdforrester@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] (speaking purely in a personal capacity) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 11.09.2014 20:06, James Forrester wrote:
On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Against the funds of WMF.
A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania.
Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a lie.
J.
Considering it a lie is an extreme evaluation in my opinion.
In Wikimedia conference there are chapters (~40) and user groups (~15). At the start it was called "chapters conference", now it's called Wikimedia Conference because it's more open.
In my opinion it's not a problem to call it again "chapters conference".
To participate it's sufficient to be "representative of a group", not only of himself.
Considering the principle of "delegation", it may be considered a Wikimedia Conference.
Regards
On 11/09/14 18:42, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
On 11.09.2014 20:06, James Forrester wrote:
On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Against the funds of WMF.
A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania.
Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a lie.
J.
Considering it a lie is an extreme evaluation in my opinion.
In Wikimedia conference there are chapters (~40) and user groups (~15). At the start it was called "chapters conference", now it's called Wikimedia Conference because it's more open.
In my opinion it's not a problem to call it again "chapters conference".
To participate it's sufficient to be "representative of a group", not only of himself.
Considering the principle of "delegation", it may be considered a Wikimedia Conference.
Regards
I'm part of the Wikimedia movement, but there are no chapters nearby, nor are there any user groups that I know of relevant to my interests as yet. Thus there is nobody to represent me but myself.
If this is Wikimedia, why can't I go to a Wikimedia conference?
-I
On 11.09.2014 20:48, Isarra Yos wrote:
I'm part of the Wikimedia movement, but there are no chapters nearby, nor are there any user groups that I know of relevant to my interests as yet. Thus there is nobody to represent me but myself.
If this is Wikimedia, why can't I go to a Wikimedia conference?
-I
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
You may create your own user group and participate.
I suppose that all people participating in Wikimedia conference don't represent their own (personal) interests (or they should not).
If you participate in a project it's not so hard to create an user group. All projects are based on collaboration of individuals, so it should be not hard to find other members sharing the same interests.
Wikisource created its own, for instance, and they don't need a single chapter to represent their position.
Regards
I'm with James and Isarra here. Only a small minority of Wikimedians are part of chapters and affiliated groups; being a member of an organized group has nothing to do with being a Wikimedian, or even directly with Wikimedia itself. This is an exclusionary conference - not only do you have to be a member of one of these groups (or otherwise receive an invitation based on role within the WMF structure or as a speaker) to attend, but the conference isn't even open to all members of those groups.
Please do not call it "the" Wikimedia conference. It may be many things, but it's not that. "Wikimedia Affiliates Conference" will do fine.
Risker/Anne
On 11 September 2014 15:12, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
On 11.09.2014 20:48, Isarra Yos wrote:
I'm part of the Wikimedia movement, but there are no chapters nearby, nor are there any user groups that I know of relevant to my interests as yet. Thus there is nobody to represent me but myself.
If this is Wikimedia, why can't I go to a Wikimedia conference?
-I
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
You may create your own user group and participate.
I suppose that all people participating in Wikimedia conference don't represent their own (personal) interests (or they should not).
If you participate in a project it's not so hard to create an user group. All projects are based on collaboration of individuals, so it should be not hard to find other members sharing the same interests.
Wikisource created its own, for instance, and they don't need a single chapter to represent their position.
Regards
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
AHEM .... it is *NOT* easy to create a user group, especially if a chapter is against it. Look at how long the Wiki Borregos application has been left in limbo by Aff Comm and Ive saved some real doozies of emails from several members of said committee.
Just a small taste... one of the first objections they had to our application was that the term "Borregos" ("ram" in Spanish) was a trademark of the Tec de Monterrey... and we are a group of students and faculty from the same institution!
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:26:24 -0400 From: risker.wp@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
I'm with James and Isarra here. Only a small minority of Wikimedians are part of chapters and affiliated groups; being a member of an organized group has nothing to do with being a Wikimedian, or even directly with Wikimedia itself. This is an exclusionary conference - not only do you have to be a member of one of these groups (or otherwise receive an invitation based on role within the WMF structure or as a speaker) to attend, but the conference isn't even open to all members of those groups.
Please do not call it "the" Wikimedia conference. It may be many things, but it's not that. "Wikimedia Affiliates Conference" will do fine.
Risker/Anne
On 11 September 2014 15:12, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
On 11.09.2014 20:48, Isarra Yos wrote:
I'm part of the Wikimedia movement, but there are no chapters nearby, nor are there any user groups that I know of relevant to my interests as yet. Thus there is nobody to represent me but myself.
If this is Wikimedia, why can't I go to a Wikimedia conference?
-I
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
You may create your own user group and participate.
I suppose that all people participating in Wikimedia conference don't represent their own (personal) interests (or they should not).
If you participate in a project it's not so hard to create an user group. All projects are based on collaboration of individuals, so it should be not hard to find other members sharing the same interests.
Wikisource created its own, for instance, and they don't need a single chapter to represent their position.
Regards
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Since before planning gets underway is the perfect time to clarify the conference title, and Anh Chung was kind enough to create the pages, I've taken the liberty of moving them to [[Wikimedia Affiliates Conference 2015]].
On 11.09.2014 21:26, Risker wrote:
Please do not call it "the" Wikimedia conference. It may be many things, but it's not that. "Wikimedia Affiliates Conference" will do fine.
Risker/Anne
I think that the misunderstanding is here.
This is not "the" Wikimedia Conference, this is one of several wikimedia/wikipedia conference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiCon (it's a limited example).
I think that the idea that this is "the" wikimedia conference is in the head of someone.
Calling it wikicon, or wikiconference, or wikimedia conference change a little bit.
No one can have another Wikimania, but all people can have their own Wikimedia Conference/Wikicon/Wikiconference.
So the change of the name in "Wikimedia Affiliations conference" is an imposition of few people to use a name that belongs to no one, neither to affiliated members nor to individual wiki(p/m)edians.
Regards
I believe names and how we treat them both hold great power and tell a lot about the name-giver and power relationships.
"Wikimedia" means different things to different people (possibly all valid), it is both the name for the concept of the different sister projects and their combined ethos forming a network or movement [which involves some people interested in Meta issues who have not been invited to the Wikimedia Conference, and many many people who have been], as well as the name for anything that comes under the substituent parts of the network (all the individual editors, photographers, etc.) and sets of these groups (and individuals can be members of Wikimedia under a multitude of ways often belonging to both groups at the same time). The Wikimedia Conference, nor Wikimania will ever be truly open to all people of the second group (also rightfully called Wikimedia), but it can aim to be representative of the first. Hundreds of volunteers have put their time into building up the Wikimedia Conference idea and brand, and taking it away just because they have yet to achieve 100% success on one difficult to define metric seems ill-advised.
I don't think taking away the name of the conference by trying to box it into overspecification (by way of adding extra words) would be the right direction: it sends the wrong message to the Wikimedians (who happened to be chapter members at one time or another) who have built up the event for the past 5-6 years as if they are not eligible to conduct activities under the Wikimedia name unless they invite absolutely everyone, and it opens the door for lazyness (if you call it the Affiliates Conference, don't complain if non-affiliates are not invited, whereas if you call it the Wikimedia Conference that will keep the organisers and participants accountable to making it more representative).
Just as background, the conference has over the years and almost from the start went beyond chapters: first the WMF Board and staff, Chapters Committee members (including people who were not a member of any actual chapter at the time), then the movement roles discussion group was invited, followed by user groups, AffCom (still having members not part of any affiliate at the time) and thorgs, as well as the FDC (again, with members who are not members in any affiliate) were invited with some side meetings that had wider participation. It is no longer tied to just the affiliate organisations but simply to the governance and "Wikimedians active offline [as well as online]" side of the movement (people falling under one of the interpretations of "Wikimedia").
Last year I made the proposal to some of the organisers to think about opening a certain number of places for volunteers dedicated to the future of the movement, strategic and governance issues to be able to freely attend, to better live up to the name and the valid concern that tying participation to organisational roles leaves some people out that should be included. I could see that happening for the 2015 conference if the organisers work out the details, but even in that case I don't see the conference as being attractive to 80 thousand editors and that is perfectly fine.
In any case, renaming the conference without the consent of the pool of participants (which might be given, after all the Conference had a different name in the first years) seems like a move out of power that belittles the work of the people involved. (And I think this is valid statement, even considering the valid anguish of all the brilliant volunteers who could not attend in previous years - this change has to come from the organisers to be "real".)
Best regards, Bence
(Personal view, though I was lucky to organise the 2011 conference and participate in various roles in others; I don't at the moment hold any position serving as an entry ticket to the 2015 event, though I am considering paying my way if the conference opens up places)
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/14 18:42, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
On 11.09.2014 20:06, James Forrester wrote:
On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Against the funds of WMF.
A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania.
Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a lie.
J.
Considering it a lie is an extreme evaluation in my opinion.
In Wikimedia conference there are chapters (~40) and user groups (~15). At the start it was called "chapters conference", now it's called Wikimedia Conference because it's more open.
In my opinion it's not a problem to call it again "chapters conference".
To participate it's sufficient to be "representative of a group", not only of himself.
Considering the principle of "delegation", it may be considered a Wikimedia Conference.
Regards
I'm part of the Wikimedia movement, but there are no chapters nearby, nor are there any user groups that I know of relevant to my interests as yet. Thus there is nobody to represent me but myself.
If this is Wikimedia, why can't I go to a Wikimedia conference?
-I
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Bence,
We strive not to be bound by bureaucracy, don't we? If we discover that a simple name (as generic as "Wikimedia Conference") is slightly misleading, or not completely accurate, then why should we avoid changing it? Particularly as it appears that no process has begun to plan the next coming conference?
If a group of people in New England USA (my geographic area) got together, perhaps with some of the chapters in the Eastern US, and created an event... We would not call it "Wikimedia Conference", even though we would have as much right to that name as the affiliate conference. That would be confusing, and misleading.
So at a moment when there is no cost to the change, no chance of further confusion, and before resources are invested in this name for the next cycle... This is the perfect opportunity to address what is, you must admit, a minor concern easily solved.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
I believe names and how we treat them both hold great power and tell a lot about the name-giver and power relationships.
"Wikimedia" means different things to different people (possibly all valid), it is both the name for the concept of the different sister projects and their combined ethos forming a network or movement [which involves some people interested in Meta issues who have not been invited to the Wikimedia Conference, and many many people who have been], as well as the name for anything that comes under the substituent parts of the network (all the individual editors, photographers, etc.) and sets of these groups (and individuals can be members of Wikimedia under a multitude of ways often belonging to both groups at the same time). The Wikimedia Conference, nor Wikimania will ever be truly open to all people of the second group (also rightfully called Wikimedia), but it can aim to be representative of the first. Hundreds of volunteers have put their time into building up the Wikimedia Conference idea and brand, and taking it away just because they have yet to achieve 100% success on one difficult to define metric seems ill-advised.
I don't think taking away the name of the conference by trying to box it into overspecification (by way of adding extra words) would be the right direction: it sends the wrong message to the Wikimedians (who happened to be chapter members at one time or another) who have built up the event for the past 5-6 years as if they are not eligible to conduct activities under the Wikimedia name unless they invite absolutely everyone, and it opens the door for lazyness (if you call it the Affiliates Conference, don't complain if non-affiliates are not invited, whereas if you call it the Wikimedia Conference that will keep the organisers and participants accountable to making it more representative).
Just as background, the conference has over the years and almost from the start went beyond chapters: first the WMF Board and staff, Chapters Committee members (including people who were not a member of any actual chapter at the time), then the movement roles discussion group was invited, followed by user groups, AffCom (still having members not part of any affiliate at the time) and thorgs, as well as the FDC (again, with members who are not members in any affiliate) were invited with some side meetings that had wider participation. It is no longer tied to just the affiliate organisations but simply to the governance and "Wikimedians active offline [as well as online]" side of the movement (people falling under one of the interpretations of "Wikimedia").
Last year I made the proposal to some of the organisers to think about opening a certain number of places for volunteers dedicated to the future of the movement, strategic and governance issues to be able to freely attend, to better live up to the name and the valid concern that tying participation to organisational roles leaves some people out that should be included. I could see that happening for the 2015 conference if the organisers work out the details, but even in that case I don't see the conference as being attractive to 80 thousand editors and that is perfectly fine.
In any case, renaming the conference without the consent of the pool of participants (which might be given, after all the Conference had a different name in the first years) seems like a move out of power that belittles the work of the people involved. (And I think this is valid statement, even considering the valid anguish of all the brilliant volunteers who could not attend in previous years - this change has to come from the organisers to be "real".)
Best regards, Bence
(Personal view, though I was lucky to organise the 2011 conference and participate in various roles in others; I don't at the moment hold any position serving as an entry ticket to the 2015 event, though I am considering paying my way if the conference opens up places)
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/14 18:42, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
On 11.09.2014 20:06, James Forrester wrote:
On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com
wrote:
Against the funds of WMF.
A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania.
Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a lie.
J.
Considering it a lie is an extreme evaluation in my opinion.
In Wikimedia conference there are chapters (~40) and user groups (~15). At the start it was called "chapters conference", now it's called
Wikimedia
Conference because it's more open.
In my opinion it's not a problem to call it again "chapters conference".
To participate it's sufficient to be "representative of a group", not only of himself.
Considering the principle of "delegation", it may be considered a Wikimedia Conference.
Regards
I'm part of the Wikimedia movement, but there are no chapters nearby, nor are there any user groups that I know of relevant to my interests as yet. Thus there is nobody to represent me but myself.
If this is Wikimedia, why can't I go to a Wikimedia conference?
-I
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The name could be changed if the participants/organisers want to change it. As I tried to point out, I don't see the name as the underlying problem people really have, and changing it will not solve the problem of exclusion people see.
We can make a conference that has a participants list that involves people that *should *or at least the people that really *want* to be there, we can also rename the conference for the people that *are *currently there and forget about those that want and should be there. I'd rather focus on the former.
Regardless, I do feel an emotional connection to the name and I expect many people that have participated or organised it might feel this and I appreciate that those who have not been there can see it as a minor thing that can be changed without any cost. It might not be perfect, but it does have history and I do contend that the people that first started using it are Wikimedia, and they should not feel guilty about having come up with the idea first. Indeed, at this time, resources have been invested into the name and confusion is ebbing around the "Wikimedia Conference" name due to the years of history behind it.
But in closing, I will once again point to my statements that names are symbolic and they can be changed. If the participants change the name that sends a totally different vibe than if the change is imposed on the participants, even if the end result is the same new name.
Best regards, Bence
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bence,
We strive not to be bound by bureaucracy, don't we? If we discover that a simple name (as generic as "Wikimedia Conference") is slightly misleading, or not completely accurate, then why should we avoid changing it? Particularly as it appears that no process has begun to plan the next coming conference?
If a group of people in New England USA (my geographic area) got together, perhaps with some of the chapters in the Eastern US, and created an event... We would not call it "Wikimedia Conference", even though we would have as much right to that name as the affiliate conference. That would be confusing, and misleading.
So at a moment when there is no cost to the change, no chance of further confusion, and before resources are invested in this name for the next cycle... This is the perfect opportunity to address what is, you must admit, a minor concern easily solved.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
I believe names and how we treat them both hold great power and tell a
lot
about the name-giver and power relationships.
"Wikimedia" means different things to different people (possibly all valid), it is both the name for the concept of the different sister projects and their combined ethos forming a network or movement [which involves some people interested in Meta issues who have not been invited
to
the Wikimedia Conference, and many many people who have been], as well as the name for anything that comes under the substituent parts of the
network
(all the individual editors, photographers, etc.) and sets of these
groups
(and individuals can be members of Wikimedia under a multitude of ways often belonging to both groups at the same time). The Wikimedia
Conference,
nor Wikimania will ever be truly open to all people of the second group (also rightfully called Wikimedia), but it can aim to be representative
of
the first. Hundreds of volunteers have put their time into building up
the
Wikimedia Conference idea and brand, and taking it away just because they have yet to achieve 100% success on one difficult to define metric seems ill-advised.
I don't think taking away the name of the conference by trying to box it into overspecification (by way of adding extra words) would be the right direction: it sends the wrong message to the Wikimedians (who happened
to
be chapter members at one time or another) who have built up the event
for
the past 5-6 years as if they are not eligible to conduct activities
under
the Wikimedia name unless they invite absolutely everyone, and it opens
the
door for lazyness (if you call it the Affiliates Conference, don't
complain
if non-affiliates are not invited, whereas if you call it the Wikimedia Conference that will keep the organisers and participants accountable to making it more representative).
Just as background, the conference has over the years and almost from the start went beyond chapters: first the WMF Board and staff, Chapters Committee members (including people who were not a member of any actual chapter at the time), then the movement roles discussion group was
invited,
followed by user groups, AffCom (still having members not part of any affiliate at the time) and thorgs, as well as the FDC (again, with
members
who are not members in any affiliate) were invited with some side
meetings
that had wider participation. It is no longer tied to just the affiliate organisations but simply to the governance and "Wikimedians active
offline
[as well as online]" side of the movement (people falling under one of
the
interpretations of "Wikimedia").
Last year I made the proposal to some of the organisers to think about opening a certain number of places for volunteers dedicated to the future of the movement, strategic and governance issues to be able to freely attend, to better live up to the name and the valid concern that tying participation to organisational roles leaves some people out that should
be
included. I could see that happening for the 2015 conference if the organisers work out the details, but even in that case I don't see the conference as being attractive to 80 thousand editors and that is
perfectly
fine.
In any case, renaming the conference without the consent of the pool of participants (which might be given, after all the Conference had a different name in the first years) seems like a move out of power that belittles the work of the people involved. (And I think this is valid statement, even considering the valid anguish of all the brilliant volunteers who could not attend in previous years - this change has to
come
from the organisers to be "real".)
Best regards, Bence
(Personal view, though I was lucky to organise the 2011 conference and participate in various roles in others; I don't at the moment hold any position serving as an entry ticket to the 2015 event, though I am considering paying my way if the conference opens up places)
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/14 18:42, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
On 11.09.2014 20:06, James Forrester wrote:
On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com
wrote:
Against the funds of WMF.
A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to
Wikimania.
Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a
lie.
J.
Considering it a lie is an extreme evaluation in my opinion.
In Wikimedia conference there are chapters (~40) and user groups
(~15).
At the start it was called "chapters conference", now it's called
Wikimedia
Conference because it's more open.
In my opinion it's not a problem to call it again "chapters
conference".
To participate it's sufficient to be "representative of a group", not only of himself.
Considering the principle of "delegation", it may be considered a Wikimedia Conference.
Regards
I'm part of the Wikimedia movement, but there are no chapters nearby,
nor
are there any user groups that I know of relevant to my interests as
yet.
Thus there is nobody to represent me but myself.
If this is Wikimedia, why can't I go to a Wikimedia conference?
-I
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
The name could be changed if the participants/organisers want to change it. As I tried to point out, I don't see the name as the underlying problem people really have, and changing it will not solve the problem of exclusion people see.
We can make a conference that has a participants list that involves people that *should *or at least the people that really *want* to be there, we can also rename the conference for the people that *are *currently there and forget about those that want and should be there. I'd rather focus on the former.
Regardless, I do feel an emotional connection to the name and I expect many people that have participated or organised it might feel this and I appreciate that those who have not been there can see it as a minor thing that can be changed without any cost. It might not be perfect, but it does have history and I do contend that the people that first started using it are Wikimedia, and they should not feel guilty about having come up with the idea first. Indeed, at this time, resources have been invested into the name and confusion is ebbing around the "Wikimedia Conference" name due to the years of history behind it.
But in closing, I will once again point to my statements that names are symbolic and they can be changed. If the participants change the name that sends a totally different vibe than if the change is imposed on the participants, even if the end result is the same new name.
Best regards, Bence
If the as-yet undetermined organizers choose to name it Wikimedia Conference, then I suppose no one will act to force them to stop. But we are Wikimedia as much as the organizers and participants are, as much as hundreds of thousands of volunteers are. In a "Wikimedia Conference" you might expect it to be open to those Wikimedians. With a narrower theme of governance, I doubt the prediction of it morphing into a second Wikimania would come true.
And while I accept your assertion that the name has history and meaning to those who have participated there, I remain skeptical at the power the name holds for you and others. It is, as you'll agree, a fairly generic name. And less than a handful of events over as many years does not a venerable tradition make. So I would hope that the organizers, whoever they turn out to be, will make the simple gesture of adding a single word to the name of the event. It is still Wikimedia; it's just aimed at affiliates, those who organize and have attended the event up through now.
Indeed, the conference of affiliates that you've attended in the past is valuable and worthy. I'd suggest you allow others interested to attend if resources permit, but I wouldn't ask you to fundamentally alter the nature of the event. Merely make it clear whom you represent, so that others don't feel you claim to represent them when you do not -- as Ilario seemed to with his "principle of delegation" comment.
On 11.09.2014 22:27, Nathan wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
But in closing, I will once again point to my statements that names are symbolic and they can be changed. If the participants change the name that sends a totally different vibe than if the change is imposed on the participants, even if the end result is the same new name.
Best regards, Bence
Indeed, the conference of affiliates that you've attended in the past is valuable and worthy. I'd suggest you allow others interested to attend if resources permit, but I wouldn't ask you to fundamentally alter the nature of the event. Merely make it clear whom you represent, so that others don't feel you claim to represent them when you do not -- as Ilario seemed to with his "principle of delegation" comment. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
It's different.
The question to limit participants is more an organizational question than a need to close the access.
Personally I supported a lot the idea to have "regional" or "thematic" Wikimedia conferences.
The affiliated groups uses the name "Wikimedia Conference" but this name doesn't belong to them and they don't require that it must be unique.
Naturally if they decide for the name "Wikimedia Affililiatons Conference" they must have the right to ask that no one will use the same name in organizing a conference.
Regards
I can see that people who are (also/only/additionally) part of different interpretations of the word Wikimedia might feel excluded by the use of the name by a subset of people who also make up a valid constellation under the name Wikimedia. I cannot tell if this feeling involves the small number of posters on this list or is a wider feeling. Similarly, I can only speak for my own opinion.
Changing the name going forward could alleviate those feelings and I am not opposed to such a decision by the participants.
Nevertheless, I still claim that the conference needs to continue to be improved rather than renamed (as the latter will unlikely to solve wider issues about the questions of who makes certain decisions and where important discussions are had in the movement), and I tend to agree with Ilario that the Wikimedia Conference X does not necessarily have to be exclusively used for this conference.
Best regards, Bence
Is this really a discussion about the name of a conference or is it more a discussion about inclusion and exclusion with the underlying question if this conference, which once was set up as a meeting for the organizations within the Wikimedia movement, should be open for non-organized Wikimedians as well. Which would probably be a different conference.
Alice.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
The name could be changed if the participants/organisers want to change
it.
As I tried to point out, I don't see the name as the underlying problem people really have, and changing it will not solve the problem of
exclusion
people see.
We can make a conference that has a participants list that involves
people
that *should *or at least the people that really *want* to be there, we
can
also rename the conference for the people that *are *currently there and forget about those that want and should be there. I'd rather focus on the former.
Regardless, I do feel an emotional connection to the name and I expect
many
people that have participated or organised it might feel this and I appreciate that those who have not been there can see it as a minor thing that can be changed without any cost. It might not be perfect, but it
does
have history and I do contend that the people that first started using it are Wikimedia, and they should not feel guilty about having come up with the idea first. Indeed, at this time, resources have been invested into
the
name and confusion is ebbing around the "Wikimedia Conference" name due
to
the years of history behind it.
But in closing, I will once again point to my statements that names are symbolic and they can be changed. If the participants change the name
that
sends a totally different vibe than if the change is imposed on the participants, even if the end result is the same new name.
Best regards, Bence
If the as-yet undetermined organizers choose to name it Wikimedia Conference, then I suppose no one will act to force them to stop. But we are Wikimedia as much as the organizers and participants are, as much as hundreds of thousands of volunteers are. In a "Wikimedia Conference" you might expect it to be open to those Wikimedians. With a narrower theme of governance, I doubt the prediction of it morphing into a second Wikimania would come true.
And while I accept your assertion that the name has history and meaning to those who have participated there, I remain skeptical at the power the name holds for you and others. It is, as you'll agree, a fairly generic name. And less than a handful of events over as many years does not a venerable tradition make. So I would hope that the organizers, whoever they turn out to be, will make the simple gesture of adding a single word to the name of the event. It is still Wikimedia; it's just aimed at affiliates, those who organize and have attended the event up through now.
Indeed, the conference of affiliates that you've attended in the past is valuable and worthy. I'd suggest you allow others interested to attend if resources permit, but I wouldn't ask you to fundamentally alter the nature of the event. Merely make it clear whom you represent, so that others don't feel you claim to represent them when you do not -- as Ilario seemed to with his "principle of delegation" comment. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
There is no reason to change the name, and no reason to invent a second Wikimania. Also because of finances, the Spring meeting should be really limited to people who make the movement work better. I repeat that, in my opinion, some newer or smaller organisations don't fit really in, or should not be represented with as many people as an older or larger organisation. For newcomers I could imagine regional meetings with a special focus to their needs. It is certainly possible to improve the meeting by some better planning. For a jolly "Let's come all together and have a nice chat about anything" it is just too expensive... Kind regards Ziko
Am Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 schrieb Alice Wiegand :
Is this really a discussion about the name of a conference or is it more a discussion about inclusion and exclusion with the underlying question if this conference, which once was set up as a meeting for the organizations within the Wikimedia movement, should be open for non-organized Wikimedians as well. Which would probably be a different conference.
Alice.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bence Damokos <bdamokos@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
The name could be changed if the participants/organisers want to change
it.
As I tried to point out, I don't see the name as the underlying problem people really have, and changing it will not solve the problem of
exclusion
people see.
We can make a conference that has a participants list that involves
people
that *should *or at least the people that really *want* to be there, we
can
also rename the conference for the people that *are *currently there
and
forget about those that want and should be there. I'd rather focus on
the
former.
Regardless, I do feel an emotional connection to the name and I expect
many
people that have participated or organised it might feel this and I appreciate that those who have not been there can see it as a minor
thing
that can be changed without any cost. It might not be perfect, but it
does
have history and I do contend that the people that first started using
it
are Wikimedia, and they should not feel guilty about having come up
with
the idea first. Indeed, at this time, resources have been invested into
the
name and confusion is ebbing around the "Wikimedia Conference" name due
to
the years of history behind it.
But in closing, I will once again point to my statements that names are symbolic and they can be changed. If the participants change the name
that
sends a totally different vibe than if the change is imposed on the participants, even if the end result is the same new name.
Best regards, Bence
If the as-yet undetermined organizers choose to name it Wikimedia Conference, then I suppose no one will act to force them to stop. But we are Wikimedia as much as the organizers and participants are, as much as hundreds of thousands of volunteers are. In a "Wikimedia Conference" you might expect it to be open to those Wikimedians. With a narrower theme
of
governance, I doubt the prediction of it morphing into a second Wikimania would come true.
And while I accept your assertion that the name has history and meaning
to
those who have participated there, I remain skeptical at the power the
name
holds for you and others. It is, as you'll agree, a fairly generic name. And less than a handful of events over as many years does not a venerable tradition make. So I would hope that the organizers, whoever they turn
out
to be, will make the simple gesture of adding a single word to the name
of
the event. It is still Wikimedia; it's just aimed at affiliates, those
who
organize and have attended the event up through now.
Indeed, the conference of affiliates that you've attended in the past is valuable and worthy. I'd suggest you allow others interested to attend if resources permit, but I wouldn't ask you to fundamentally alter the
nature
of the event. Merely make it clear whom you represent, so that others
don't
feel you claim to represent them when you do not -- as Ilario seemed to with his "principle of delegation" comment. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
If it is to be limited to certain people, why not just have a pre conference with Wikimania?
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 23:36:36 +0200 From: zvandijk@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
There is no reason to change the name, and no reason to invent a second Wikimania. Also because of finances, the Spring meeting should be really limited to people who make the movement work better. I repeat that, in my opinion, some newer or smaller organisations don't fit really in, or should not be represented with as many people as an older or larger organisation. For newcomers I could imagine regional meetings with a special focus to their needs. It is certainly possible to improve the meeting by some better planning. For a jolly "Let's come all together and have a nice chat about anything" it is just too expensive... Kind regards Ziko
Am Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 schrieb Alice Wiegand :
Is this really a discussion about the name of a conference or is it more a discussion about inclusion and exclusion with the underlying question if this conference, which once was set up as a meeting for the organizations within the Wikimedia movement, should be open for non-organized Wikimedians as well. Which would probably be a different conference.
Alice.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bence Damokos <bdamokos@gmail.com
javascript:;> wrote:
The name could be changed if the participants/organisers want to change
it.
As I tried to point out, I don't see the name as the underlying problem people really have, and changing it will not solve the problem of
exclusion
people see.
We can make a conference that has a participants list that involves
people
that *should *or at least the people that really *want* to be there, we
can
also rename the conference for the people that *are *currently there
and
forget about those that want and should be there. I'd rather focus on
the
former.
Regardless, I do feel an emotional connection to the name and I expect
many
people that have participated or organised it might feel this and I appreciate that those who have not been there can see it as a minor
thing
that can be changed without any cost. It might not be perfect, but it
does
have history and I do contend that the people that first started using
it
are Wikimedia, and they should not feel guilty about having come up
with
the idea first. Indeed, at this time, resources have been invested into
the
name and confusion is ebbing around the "Wikimedia Conference" name due
to
the years of history behind it.
But in closing, I will once again point to my statements that names are symbolic and they can be changed. If the participants change the name
that
sends a totally different vibe than if the change is imposed on the participants, even if the end result is the same new name.
Best regards, Bence
If the as-yet undetermined organizers choose to name it Wikimedia Conference, then I suppose no one will act to force them to stop. But we are Wikimedia as much as the organizers and participants are, as much as hundreds of thousands of volunteers are. In a "Wikimedia Conference" you might expect it to be open to those Wikimedians. With a narrower theme
of
governance, I doubt the prediction of it morphing into a second Wikimania would come true.
And while I accept your assertion that the name has history and meaning
to
those who have participated there, I remain skeptical at the power the
name
holds for you and others. It is, as you'll agree, a fairly generic name. And less than a handful of events over as many years does not a venerable tradition make. So I would hope that the organizers, whoever they turn
out
to be, will make the simple gesture of adding a single word to the name
of
the event. It is still Wikimedia; it's just aimed at affiliates, those
who
organize and have attended the event up through now.
Indeed, the conference of affiliates that you've attended in the past is valuable and worthy. I'd suggest you allow others interested to attend if resources permit, but I wouldn't ask you to fundamentally alter the
nature
of the event. Merely make it clear whom you represent, so that others
don't
feel you claim to represent them when you do not -- as Ilario seemed to with his "principle of delegation" comment. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Alice Wiegand me.lyzzy@gmail.com wrote:
Is this really a discussion about the name of a conference or is it more a discussion about inclusion and exclusion with the underlying question if this conference, which once was set up as a meeting for the organizations within the Wikimedia movement, should be open for non-organized Wikimedians as well. Which would probably be a different conference.
I think this discussion is both. But the immediate, acute, and solvable problem (the inaccurate name of the conference) should not be ignored, just because there *might* be a larger, hazier problem that will not be solved today or tomorrow. Some progress is better than no progress.
Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the conference, but I find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that assessment, but clearly some others in this thread do.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 11/09/14 22:06, Pete Forsyth wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Alice Wiegand me.lyzzy@gmail.com wrote:
Is this really a discussion about the name of a conference or is it more a discussion about inclusion and exclusion with the underlying question if this conference, which once was set up as a meeting for the organizations within the Wikimedia movement, should be open for non-organized Wikimedians as well. Which would probably be a different conference.
I think this discussion is both. But the immediate, acute, and solvable problem (the inaccurate name of the conference) should not be ignored, just because there *might* be a larger, hazier problem that will not be solved today or tomorrow. Some progress is better than no progress.
Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the conference, but I find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that assessment, but clearly some others in this thread do.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
What Pete said.
We could go into issues with the exclusionary nature itself, such as that it would exclude representatives of groups who ran into trouble becoming official - despite such a conference likely being one of the best venues for them to bring up and discuss with relevant others how to actually address or resolve that trouble that excluded them in the first place...
...but that sort of thing is much harder to resolve/address. The name, at least, is simple, and should also make a lot of the other problems less glaring in the process.
-I
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/14 22:06, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the conference, but I find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that assessment, but clearly some others in this thread do.
What Pete said.
We could go into issues with the exclusionary nature itself, such as that it would exclude representatives of groups who ran into trouble becoming official - despite such a conference likely being one of the best venues for them to bring up and discuss with relevant others how to actually address or resolve that trouble that excluded them in the first place...
...but that sort of thing is much harder to resolve/address. The name, at least, is simple, and should also make a lot of the other problems less glaring in the process.
Assuming the issue of the name is the sticking point ...
What about the Wikimedia Meta-Conference? Or Meta-Wikimedia Conference? Or MetaWiki Conference?
It's more about the organisations in the background than keep the movement going. It doesn't seem (from my second-hand knowledge of the event) that a regular editor would get a lot out of it?
Regards,
Charles (User:Chuq)
On 11 September 2014 19:19, Charles Gregory wmau.lists@chuq.net wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/14 22:06, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the conference, but
I
find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that assessment, but clearly some others in this thread do.
What Pete said.
We could go into issues with the exclusionary nature itself, such as that it would exclude representatives of groups who ran into trouble becoming official - despite such a conference likely being one of the best venues for them to bring up and discuss with relevant others how to actually address or resolve that trouble that excluded them in the first place...
...but that sort of thing is much harder to resolve/address. The name, at least, is simple, and should also make a lot of the other problems less glaring in the process.
Assuming the issue of the name is the sticking point ...
What about the Wikimedia Meta-Conference? Or Meta-Wikimedia Conference? Or MetaWiki Conference?
It's more about the organisations in the background than keep the movement going. It doesn't seem (from my second-hand knowledge of the event) that a regular editor would get a lot out of it?
Regards,
This is the same problem. It's usurping the Wikimedia name, and this proposal also usurps the Meta (all communities communication forum) name. It is neither for Wikimedia (as a whole) nor for Meta. It's for designated members of affiliates/chapters. It's okay for it to be what it is. But let's call it what it is.
It's not about the colour of the bikeshed. It's about calling a bikeshed a community centre.
Risker/Anne
But we don't even have a bikeshed or a community centre yet :-P On 12 Sep 2014 00:52, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 September 2014 19:19, Charles Gregory wmau.lists@chuq.net wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/14 22:06, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the conference,
but
I
find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that assessment,
but
clearly some others in this thread do.
What Pete said.
We could go into issues with the exclusionary nature itself, such as
that
it would exclude representatives of groups who ran into trouble
becoming
official - despite such a conference likely being one of the best
venues
for them to bring up and discuss with relevant others how to actually address or resolve that trouble that excluded them in the first
place...
...but that sort of thing is much harder to resolve/address. The name,
at
least, is simple, and should also make a lot of the other problems less glaring in the process.
Assuming the issue of the name is the sticking point ...
What about the Wikimedia Meta-Conference? Or Meta-Wikimedia Conference?
Or
MetaWiki Conference?
It's more about the organisations in the background than keep the
movement
going. It doesn't seem (from my second-hand knowledge of the event)
that a
regular editor would get a lot out of it?
Regards,
This is the same problem. It's usurping the Wikimedia name, and this proposal also usurps the Meta (all communities communication forum) name. It is neither for Wikimedia (as a whole) nor for Meta. It's for designated members of affiliates/chapters. It's okay for it to be what it is. But let's call it what it is.
It's not about the colour of the bikeshed. It's about calling a bikeshed a community centre.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
We do have a community centre. It's called Meta. It may not be a very elegant one, and there are definitely parts that can be improved, but it's our virtual community centre.
Risker/Anne
On 11 September 2014 19:54, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
But we don't even have a bikeshed or a community centre yet :-P On 12 Sep 2014 00:52, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 September 2014 19:19, Charles Gregory wmau.lists@chuq.net wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/09/14 22:06, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the conference,
but
I
find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that assessment,
but
clearly some others in this thread do.
What Pete said.
We could go into issues with the exclusionary nature itself, such as
that
it would exclude representatives of groups who ran into trouble
becoming
official - despite such a conference likely being one of the best
venues
for them to bring up and discuss with relevant others how to actually address or resolve that trouble that excluded them in the first
place...
...but that sort of thing is much harder to resolve/address. The
name,
at
least, is simple, and should also make a lot of the other problems
less
glaring in the process.
Assuming the issue of the name is the sticking point ...
What about the Wikimedia Meta-Conference? Or Meta-Wikimedia Conference?
Or
MetaWiki Conference?
It's more about the organisations in the background than keep the
movement
going. It doesn't seem (from my second-hand knowledge of the event)
that a
regular editor would get a lot out of it?
Regards,
This is the same problem. It's usurping the Wikimedia name, and this proposal also usurps the Meta (all communities communication forum) name. It is neither for Wikimedia (as a whole) nor for Meta. It's for
designated
members of affiliates/chapters. It's okay for it to be what it is. But let's call it what it is.
It's not about the colour of the bikeshed. It's about calling a
bikeshed a
community centre.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the name. On 12 Sep 2014 00:57, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
We do have a community centre. It's called Meta. It may not be a very elegant one, and there are definitely parts that can be improved, but it's our virtual community centre.
Risker/Anne
On 11 September 2014 19:54, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
But we don't even have a bikeshed or a community centre yet :-P On 12 Sep 2014 00:52, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 September 2014 19:19, Charles Gregory wmau.lists@chuq.net
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/09/14 22:06, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the
conference,
but
I
find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that
assessment,
but
clearly some others in this thread do.
What Pete said.
We could go into issues with the exclusionary nature itself, such
as
that
it would exclude representatives of groups who ran into trouble
becoming
official - despite such a conference likely being one of the best
venues
for them to bring up and discuss with relevant others how to
actually
address or resolve that trouble that excluded them in the first
place...
...but that sort of thing is much harder to resolve/address. The
name,
at
least, is simple, and should also make a lot of the other problems
less
glaring in the process.
Assuming the issue of the name is the sticking point ...
What about the Wikimedia Meta-Conference? Or Meta-Wikimedia
Conference?
Or
MetaWiki Conference?
It's more about the organisations in the background than keep the
movement
going. It doesn't seem (from my second-hand knowledge of the event)
that a
regular editor would get a lot out of it?
Regards,
This is the same problem. It's usurping the Wikimedia name, and this proposal also usurps the Meta (all communities communication forum)
name.
It is neither for Wikimedia (as a whole) nor for Meta. It's for
designated
members of affiliates/chapters. It's okay for it to be what it is. But let's call it what it is.
It's not about the colour of the bikeshed. It's about calling a
bikeshed a
community centre.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the name.
But, most of the people on this list wouldn't have anything to do with this conference -- surely there's a better resource for conference-planning.
The thing most of us have a stake in is the name of the conference, and -- perhaps -- nothing more.
Pete
I like the idea of having this event be a pre-conference for Wikimania. That may reduce total travel costs and travel time for the people who usually attend both events. This may also simplify planning for people and thorgs.
Pine On Sep 11, 2014 5:25 PM, "Pete Forsyth" peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the
name.
But, most of the people on this list wouldn't have anything to do with this conference -- surely there's a better resource for conference-planning.
The thing most of us have a stake in is the name of the conference, and -- perhaps -- nothing more.
Pete _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
It would, however, significantly increase the work for the Wikimania organisers. They didn't sign up to programme and organise an affiliate org conference, so they shouldn't have to if they don't want to.
Guestlists cause all sorts of politics, but are a necessary evil when dealing with limited resources. Choices must be made, and it's up to the hosts to decide who gets to come. A mission statement for the conference might help alleviate some of the bad feeling, but there will inevitably be some as long as there are fewer places than people.
Ed Saperia Conference Coordinator Wikimania London
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Sep 2014, at 01:44, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I like the idea of having this event be a pre-conference for Wikimania. That may reduce total travel costs and travel time for the people who usually attend both events. This may also simplify planning for people and thorgs.
Pine
On Sep 11, 2014 5:25 PM, "Pete Forsyth" peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the
name.
But, most of the people on this list wouldn't have anything to do with this conference -- surely there's a better resource for conference-planning.
The thing most of us have a stake in is the name of the conference, and -- perhaps -- nothing more.
Pete _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
One additional nice benefit from having the affiliates conference be a pre-Wikimania conference is that those who don't want to or are excluded from the affiliate portions of the event can attend other portions like the education pre-conference or the pre-conference hackathon.
Can we please move this discussion to Meta?
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Ed Saperia edsaperia@gmail.com wrote:
It would, however, significantly increase the work for the Wikimania organisers. They didn't sign up to programme and organise an affiliate org conference, so they shouldn't have to if they don't want to.
Guestlists cause all sorts of politics, but are a necessary evil when dealing with limited resources. Choices must be made, and it's up to the hosts to decide who gets to come. A mission statement for the conference might help alleviate some of the bad feeling, but there will inevitably be some as long as there are fewer places than people.
Ed Saperia Conference Coordinator Wikimania London
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Sep 2014, at 01:44, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I like the idea of having this event be a pre-conference for Wikimania. That may reduce total travel costs and travel time for the people who usually attend both events. This may also simplify planning for people
and
thorgs.
Pine
On Sep 11, 2014 5:25 PM, "Pete Forsyth" peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the
name.
But, most of the people on this list wouldn't have anything to do with
this
conference -- surely there's a better resource for conference-planning.
The thing most of us have a stake in is the name of the conference, and
--
perhaps -- nothing more.
Pete _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Any time I have seen the proposal of a pre-conference in Wikimania, any time I have seen nothing happening.
There are two hackathons per year, one as Wikimania pre-conference and a second one as separate event.
In my opinion proposing a preconference will not solve the problem but will add a second conference to the annual one.
And the result will be a cost increasing for any Wikimania because in my opinion the Wikimedia conference for affiliated will become more similar to the Hackathon.
Personally I have seen a lot of events before Wikimania as pre-conference, the agenda is already full of workshops and activities, there is no sense to add a new one or there is no sense to add a new conference because all these activities will have poor number of attendees keeping low the budget of Wikimania.
Regards
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
One additional nice benefit from having the affiliates conference be a pre-Wikimania conference is that those who don't want to or are excluded from the affiliate portions of the event can attend other portions like the education pre-conference or the pre-conference hackathon.
Can we please move this discussion to Meta?
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Ed Saperia edsaperia@gmail.com wrote:
It would, however, significantly increase the work for the Wikimania organisers. They didn't sign up to programme and organise an affiliate
org
conference, so they shouldn't have to if they don't want to.
Guestlists cause all sorts of politics, but are a necessary evil when dealing with limited resources. Choices must be made, and it's up to the hosts to decide who gets to come. A mission statement for the conference might help alleviate some of the bad feeling, but there will inevitably
be
some as long as there are fewer places than people.
Ed Saperia Conference Coordinator Wikimania London
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Sep 2014, at 01:44, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I like the idea of having this event be a pre-conference for Wikimania. That may reduce total travel costs and travel time for the people who usually attend both events. This may also simplify planning for people
and
thorgs.
Pine
On Sep 11, 2014 5:25 PM, "Pete Forsyth" peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the
name.
But, most of the people on this list wouldn't have anything to do with
this
conference -- surely there's a better resource for
conference-planning.
The thing most of us have a stake in is the name of the conference,
and
--
perhaps -- nothing more.
Pete _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I was always a little surprised by the name Wikimedia Conference. After all, that name would most logically belong to the big, open, week-long event that draws over a thousand people together to talk about every aspect of the movement.*
However, that event is already called Wikimania, which also doesn't make sense to me. In James F's phrase , it's a bit of a lie, as it doesn't deal with mania or other mental health issues, and it isn't exclusively attended by men (except to a very broad approximation).
Therefore I propose we start by renaming Wikimania to the Wikimedia Conference.
That leaves open what we call the slightly boring get-together where we talk about how movement organisations can improve their governance and programme measurement. As an interim step I suggest using the now-unused term Wikimania until a suitable committee can determine the correct name for the event, hopefully before the event occurs.
So I am just heading over to Meta to move all Wikimania pages to the name Wikimedia Conference and vice versa. I trust this will clarify the matter.
*NB please ignore the rest of the post from this point forward. On 12 Sep 2014 07:31, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
One additional nice benefit from having the affiliates conference be a pre-Wikimania conference is that those who don't want to or are excluded from the affiliate portions of the event can attend other portions like the education pre-conference or the pre-conference hackathon.
Can we please move this discussion to Meta?
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Ed Saperia edsaperia@gmail.com wrote:
It would, however, significantly increase the work for the Wikimania organisers. They didn't sign up to programme and organise an affiliate
org
conference, so they shouldn't have to if they don't want to.
Guestlists cause all sorts of politics, but are a necessary evil when dealing with limited resources. Choices must be made, and it's up to the hosts to decide who gets to come. A mission statement for the conference might help alleviate some of the bad feeling, but there will inevitably
be
some as long as there are fewer places than people.
Ed Saperia Conference Coordinator Wikimania London
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Sep 2014, at 01:44, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I like the idea of having this event be a pre-conference for Wikimania. That may reduce total travel costs and travel time for the people who usually attend both events. This may also simplify planning for people
and
thorgs.
Pine
On Sep 11, 2014 5:25 PM, "Pete Forsyth" peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the
name.
But, most of the people on this list wouldn't have anything to do with
this
conference -- surely there's a better resource for
conference-planning.
The thing most of us have a stake in is the name of the conference,
and
--
perhaps -- nothing more.
Pete _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
So basically you're arguing that if people want to have a more sensible discussion about the who, what & where, they should use a closed mailing list? Like it was done in the past? Fine with me.
Please continue the discussion about the color, but it would be more effective to have started a separate thread about it than hijack this one which had some serious time-sensitive and open questions.
And yes, discussing whether we should discuss the color of the bikeshed is distracting too. I suggest we use 'the Oompa Loompa discussion meeting' and be done with it.
Best, Lodewijk
2014-09-12 2:25 GMT+02:00 Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the
name.
But, most of the people on this list wouldn't have anything to do with this conference -- surely there's a better resource for conference-planning.
The thing most of us have a stake in is the name of the conference, and -- perhaps -- nothing more.
Pete _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
May I suggest that this discussion move to [1] where, among other things, people may create RfCs about the name, scope, and timing of the event?
I'm looping in Alex Wang from Grantmaking to see if she has any comments about where and how this discussion should take place, since I think PEG provides funding for these conferences.
Thanks,
Pine
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I suggest we use 'the Oompa Loompa discussion meeting' and be done with it.
Ah, but what COLOR are the oompa loompas?
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki https://twitter.com/Philippewiki
... but the conference has been running for a few years, and has gradually evolved over that time, from primarily chapters, to other affiliate organisations, AffCom itself, FDC in recent years, etc. I don't think anyone is suggesting any revolutionary changes for the next one? Just a change in name to suit the current audience.
What's the problem with the name "Wikimedia" being used? It is, after all, a conference involving Wikimedians. It appears the main complaint is the over-generic title "Wikimedia Conference".
Charles (User:Chuq)
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the name. On 12 Sep 2014 00:57, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
We do have a community centre. It's called Meta. It may not be a very elegant one, and there are definitely parts that can be improved, but
it's
our virtual community centre.
Risker/Anne
An editor has moved the pages back, for anyone interested. Amusingly illogical rationale in the edit summary, but what can you do.
On 11 September 2014 22:07, Charles Gregory wmau.lists@chuq.net wrote:
... but the conference has been running for a few years, and has gradually evolved over that time, from primarily chapters, to other affiliate organisations, AffCom itself, FDC in recent years, etc. I don't think anyone is suggesting any revolutionary changes for the next one? Just a change in name to suit the current audience.
What's the problem with the name "Wikimedia" being used? It is, after all, a conference involving Wikimedians. It appears the main complaint is the over-generic title "Wikimedia Conference".
Charles (User:Chuq)
You are correct, Chuq. "Wikimedia" by itself is the entire movement. It's not a subgroup of the movement, which is what the chapters and affiliated organizations are as a group. We don't call the hackathons "Wikimedia Conference", nor do we call the diversity conferences "Wikimedia Conference", yet arguably they are even more representative of Wikimedia (the movement) than this particular conference is; while attendees are largely self-selected, they are open to anyone who has the means and will to attend. What's been known in the past as the "Wikimedia Conference" is essentially a by-invitation conference that is not representative of the movement.
It's a big movement with lots of parts. A better argument could be made for renaming Wikimania the Wikimedia Conference than using that term for a conference restricted to one small branch of the movement. Many Wikimedians over the years, particularly those who are highly active in core movement activities but not chapter/affiliate activities, have felt disenfranchised and marginalized by having the name of the movement to which they make their contributions used for a conference at which they will never be welcome.
And the other reason for changing the name to be more representative of what the conference is that it sets the tone for the agenda. The focus of the conference is, at least in theory, chapters and affiliated groups: what they can learn from each other, sharing of tools and ideas, making connections within and external to the Wikimedia movement, etc. It's not Wikimedia as a whole; it's far too exclusive (and exclusionary) for the movement as a whole to be the focus of the conference.
From a different perspective, let's compare ourselves to other conferences
that succeed because of their focus: A conference for gastroenterologists isn't going to call itself the "medical conference", nor would a conference for neurosurgeons. They're going to wave the flag that they're focusing on a specific aspect of medicine. It's what we do with the diversity conference, and with the hackathons, too. You're not losing anything by changing the name: you're recognizing the specialty focus of the conference.
Risker/Anne
Wikimedia is a community of communities.
So basically Wikimania can be the unique Wikimedia Conference.
But we can come back to the first question. Would we really have a second Wikimania in the first quarter of any year because the name Wikimedia Conference should exclude no one?
Would we really have a second big event calling people from all the world and spending a lot of time in the organization and setup?
Or probably the best solution would be several (less expensive) regional and thematic conferences called "Wikimedia conference X"? Where people coming will focus on a thematic agenda?
There is no problem in my opinion to close the discussion saying that Wikimedia Conference is a name released in cc-by-sa 3.0 and people can use it and redistribute it and modify it.
So the Wikimedia Conference as is can become "Wikimedia Conferences 2015 for affiliated", and there may be "Wikimedia Conference 2015 for Asia" and "Wikimedia Conference 2015 for GLAM" and so on.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 September 2014 22:07, Charles Gregory wmau.lists@chuq.net wrote:
... but the conference has been running for a few years, and has
gradually
evolved over that time, from primarily chapters, to other affiliate organisations, AffCom itself, FDC in recent years, etc. I don't think anyone is suggesting any revolutionary changes for the next one? Just a change in name to suit the current audience.
What's the problem with the name "Wikimedia" being used? It is, after
all,
a conference involving Wikimedians. It appears the main complaint is the over-generic title "Wikimedia Conference".
Charles (User:Chuq)
You are correct, Chuq. "Wikimedia" by itself is the entire movement. It's not a subgroup of the movement, which is what the chapters and affiliated organizations are as a group. We don't call the hackathons "Wikimedia Conference", nor do we call the diversity conferences "Wikimedia Conference", yet arguably they are even more representative of Wikimedia (the movement) than this particular conference is; while attendees are largely self-selected, they are open to anyone who has the means and will to attend. What's been known in the past as the "Wikimedia Conference" is essentially a by-invitation conference that is not representative of the movement.
It's a big movement with lots of parts. A better argument could be made for renaming Wikimania the Wikimedia Conference than using that term for a conference restricted to one small branch of the movement. Many Wikimedians over the years, particularly those who are highly active in core movement activities but not chapter/affiliate activities, have felt disenfranchised and marginalized by having the name of the movement to which they make their contributions used for a conference at which they will never be welcome.
And the other reason for changing the name to be more representative of what the conference is that it sets the tone for the agenda. The focus of the conference is, at least in theory, chapters and affiliated groups: what they can learn from each other, sharing of tools and ideas, making connections within and external to the Wikimedia movement, etc. It's not Wikimedia as a whole; it's far too exclusive (and exclusionary) for the movement as a whole to be the focus of the conference.
From a different perspective, let's compare ourselves to other conferences that succeed because of their focus: A conference for gastroenterologists isn't going to call itself the "medical conference", nor would a conference for neurosurgeons. They're going to wave the flag that they're focusing on a specific aspect of medicine. It's what we do with the diversity conference, and with the hackathons, too. You're not losing anything by changing the name: you're recognizing the specialty focus of the conference.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Regional conferences are easier to attend for the locals, but...
* There would be less mixing of people and thematic organizations from different regions * WMF's travel costs would skyrocket if it tried to send the same number of people to several regional events, and WMF would also likely have significant duplication of effort and need to invest a lot more of its staff time attending diverse conferences.
Regional conferences can certainly happen, but they would be less efficient and effective if their goal is to have cross-pollination of ideas among thematic organizations and WMF. A smaller number of conferences would be more efficient.
Perhaps a happy medium between having lots of regional conferences and a smaller number of international conferences would be to hold several regional conferences simultaneously and invest in some excellent teleconferencing hardware and high-speed internet bandwidth so that it's possible for participants in multiple locations to virtually participate in the same meetings. However, there would be a significant up-front investment in hardware and the bandwidth costs might be substantial, so I'm not sure how cost-effective this would be.
Pine
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia is a community of communities.
So basically Wikimania can be the unique Wikimedia Conference.
But we can come back to the first question. Would we really have a second Wikimania in the first quarter of any year because the name Wikimedia Conference should exclude no one?
Would we really have a second big event calling people from all the world and spending a lot of time in the organization and setup?
Or probably the best solution would be several (less expensive) regional and thematic conferences called "Wikimedia conference X"? Where people coming will focus on a thematic agenda?
There is no problem in my opinion to close the discussion saying that Wikimedia Conference is a name released in cc-by-sa 3.0 and people can use it and redistribute it and modify it.
So the Wikimedia Conference as is can become "Wikimedia Conferences 2015 for affiliated", and there may be "Wikimedia Conference 2015 for Asia" and "Wikimedia Conference 2015 for GLAM" and so on.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 September 2014 22:07, Charles Gregory wmau.lists@chuq.net wrote:
... but the conference has been running for a few years, and has
gradually
evolved over that time, from primarily chapters, to other affiliate organisations, AffCom itself, FDC in recent years, etc. I don't think anyone is suggesting any revolutionary changes for the next one? Just
a
change in name to suit the current audience.
What's the problem with the name "Wikimedia" being used? It is, after
all,
a conference involving Wikimedians. It appears the main complaint is
the
over-generic title "Wikimedia Conference".
Charles (User:Chuq)
You are correct, Chuq. "Wikimedia" by itself is the entire movement.
It's
not a subgroup of the movement, which is what the chapters and affiliated organizations are as a group. We don't call the hackathons "Wikimedia Conference", nor do we call the diversity conferences "Wikimedia Conference", yet arguably they are even more representative of Wikimedia (the movement) than this particular conference is; while attendees are largely self-selected, they are open to anyone who has the means and will to attend. What's been known in the past as the "Wikimedia Conference" is essentially a by-invitation conference that is not representative of the movement.
It's a big movement with lots of parts. A better argument could be made for renaming Wikimania the Wikimedia Conference than using that term for
a
conference restricted to one small branch of the movement. Many Wikimedians over the years, particularly those who are highly active in core movement activities but not chapter/affiliate activities, have felt disenfranchised and marginalized by having the name of the movement to which they make their contributions used for a conference at which they will never be welcome.
And the other reason for changing the name to be more representative of what the conference is that it sets the tone for the agenda. The focus
of
the conference is, at least in theory, chapters and affiliated groups:
what
they can learn from each other, sharing of tools and ideas, making connections within and external to the Wikimedia movement, etc. It's not Wikimedia as a whole; it's far too exclusive (and exclusionary) for the movement as a whole to be the focus of the conference.
From a different perspective, let's compare ourselves to other
conferences
that succeed because of their focus: A conference for
gastroenterologists
isn't going to call itself the "medical conference", nor would a
conference
for neurosurgeons. They're going to wave the flag that they're focusing
on
a specific aspect of medicine. It's what we do with the diversity conference, and with the hackathons, too. You're not losing anything by changing the name: you're recognizing the specialty focus of the conference.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
What I have said is simple.
Wikimania does its own job. A second Wikimania doesn't make sense.
Regional and thematic are important and can help a support the movement.
Regional conferences collect people around a region or continent and there is no obligation to speak English (Iberoconf is an example).
Are they efficient? Yes, they are efficient because they help to keep the link with local people not fluent in English.
Thematic conferences help to focus in a theme, so there is all advantages of Wikimania.
Are they efficient? Yes, they are because people can focus on a theme which can be GLAM or affiliations and so on.
A big annual event (Wikimania) with a series of local and thematic "Wikimedia Conferences" is the best compromise in terms of costs and efficiency.
Being in Wikimedia movement from 2005 I have seen every year discussions like this but every year a big Wikimania and a series of smaller conferences.
Probably it works.
I would really appreciate if the discussion can move in other questions concerning for instance the cost saving and the participation instead of speaking of a name.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Regional conferences are easier to attend for the locals, but...
- There would be less mixing of people and thematic organizations from
different regions
- WMF's travel costs would skyrocket if it tried to send the same number of
people to several regional events, and WMF would also likely have significant duplication of effort and need to invest a lot more of its staff time attending diverse conferences.
Regional conferences can certainly happen, but they would be less efficient and effective if their goal is to have cross-pollination of ideas among thematic organizations and WMF. A smaller number of conferences would be more efficient.
Perhaps a happy medium between having lots of regional conferences and a smaller number of international conferences would be to hold several regional conferences simultaneously and invest in some excellent teleconferencing hardware and high-speed internet bandwidth so that it's possible for participants in multiple locations to virtually participate in the same meetings. However, there would be a significant up-front investment in hardware and the bandwidth costs might be substantial, so I'm not sure how cost-effective this would be.
Pine
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia is a community of communities.
So basically Wikimania can be the unique Wikimedia Conference.
But we can come back to the first question. Would we really have a second Wikimania in the first quarter of any year because the name Wikimedia Conference should exclude no one?
Would we really have a second big event calling people from all the world and spending a lot of time in the organization and setup?
Or probably the best solution would be several (less expensive) regional and thematic conferences called "Wikimedia conference X"? Where people coming will focus on a thematic agenda?
There is no problem in my opinion to close the discussion saying that Wikimedia Conference is a name released in cc-by-sa 3.0 and people can
use
it and redistribute it and modify it.
So the Wikimedia Conference as is can become "Wikimedia Conferences 2015 for affiliated", and there may be "Wikimedia Conference 2015 for Asia"
and
"Wikimedia Conference 2015 for GLAM" and so on.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 September 2014 22:07, Charles Gregory wmau.lists@chuq.net
wrote:
... but the conference has been running for a few years, and has
gradually
evolved over that time, from primarily chapters, to other affiliate organisations, AffCom itself, FDC in recent years, etc. I don't
think
anyone is suggesting any revolutionary changes for the next one?
Just
a
change in name to suit the current audience.
What's the problem with the name "Wikimedia" being used? It is,
after
all,
a conference involving Wikimedians. It appears the main complaint is
the
over-generic title "Wikimedia Conference".
Charles (User:Chuq)
You are correct, Chuq. "Wikimedia" by itself is the entire movement.
It's
not a subgroup of the movement, which is what the chapters and
affiliated
organizations are as a group. We don't call the hackathons "Wikimedia Conference", nor do we call the diversity conferences "Wikimedia Conference", yet arguably they are even more representative of
Wikimedia
(the movement) than this particular conference is; while attendees are largely self-selected, they are open to anyone who has the means and
will
to attend. What's been known in the past as the "Wikimedia Conference"
is
essentially a by-invitation conference that is not representative of
the
movement.
It's a big movement with lots of parts. A better argument could be
made
for renaming Wikimania the Wikimedia Conference than using that term
for
a
conference restricted to one small branch of the movement. Many Wikimedians over the years, particularly those who are highly active in core movement activities but not chapter/affiliate activities, have
felt
disenfranchised and marginalized by having the name of the movement to which they make their contributions used for a conference at which they will never be welcome.
And the other reason for changing the name to be more representative of what the conference is that it sets the tone for the agenda. The focus
of
the conference is, at least in theory, chapters and affiliated groups:
what
they can learn from each other, sharing of tools and ideas, making connections within and external to the Wikimedia movement, etc. It's
not
Wikimedia as a whole; it's far too exclusive (and exclusionary) for the movement as a whole to be the focus of the conference.
From a different perspective, let's compare ourselves to other
conferences
that succeed because of their focus: A conference for
gastroenterologists
isn't going to call itself the "medical conference", nor would a
conference
for neurosurgeons. They're going to wave the flag that they're
focusing
on
a specific aspect of medicine. It's what we do with the diversity conference, and with the hackathons, too. You're not losing anything
by
changing the name: you're recognizing the specialty focus of the conference.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Actually, I'd like to speak up on the name.
I imagine the name reflected the enthusiasm of its first attendees, but "Wikimania" has all the wrong connotations in today's world. True mania is marked by little control, commitment, and rest. It also implies that attendees have to be dyed-in-the-wool, unquestioning, and supremely devoted editors. I hope that's not the case. I doubt it's more welcoming for highly enthusiastic beginners, but it might convince casual editors who are more interested in the topics covered in our articles than the project itself that it's not for them.
Moreover, mania is no joke. Some people suffer greatly from disorders like bipolar depression. We wouldn't call a conference WikiADHD (which is, as I have been very public about, something I suffer from). It's uncool to make light of it in any way, even when unintended.
We can be both more sensible and sensitive by calling this conference something else. As has been suggested, Wikimedia Conference (maybe WikiCon for short) would be more appropriate.
,Wil
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I would really appreciate if the discussion can move in other questions concerning for instance the cost saving and the participation instead of speaking of a name.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
Actually, I'd like to speak up on the name.
I imagine the name reflected the enthusiasm of its first attendees, but "Wikimania" has all the wrong connotations in today's world. True mania is marked by little control, commitment, and rest. It also implies that attendees have to be dyed-in-the-wool, unquestioning, and supremely devoted editors. I hope that's not the case. I doubt it's more welcoming for highly enthusiastic beginners, but it might convince casual editors who are more interested in the topics covered in our articles than the project itself that it's not for them.
Moreover, mania is no joke. Some people suffer greatly from disorders like bipolar depression. We wouldn't call a conference WikiADHD (which is, as I have been very public about, something I suffer from). It's uncool to make light of it in any way, even when unintended.
We can be both more sensible and sensitive by calling this conference something else. As has been suggested, Wikimedia Conference (maybe WikiCon for short) would be more appropriate.
+1
please.
But Wikimania is not only a Wikimedia Conference.
It's a conference open to all people outside the Wikimedia movement.
If the name should be as much as possible "explicative", the switch from Wikimania to Wikimedia Conference is inappropriate.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
We can be both more sensible and sensitive by calling this conference something else. As has been suggested, Wikimedia Conference (maybe WikiCon for short) would be more appropriate.
,Wil
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I would really appreciate if the discussion can move in other questions concerning for instance the cost saving and the participation instead of speaking of a name.
The word "Conference" doesn't in itself imply that an event is open or closed.
C On 12 Sep 2014 13:06, "Ilario Valdelli" valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
But Wikimania is not only a Wikimedia Conference.
It's a conference open to all people outside the Wikimedia movement.
If the name should be as much as possible "explicative", the switch from Wikimania to Wikimedia Conference is inappropriate.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
We can be both more sensible and sensitive by calling this conference something else. As has been suggested, Wikimedia Conference (maybe WikiCon for short) would be more appropriate.
,Wil
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I would really appreciate if the discussion can move in other questions concerning for instance the cost saving and the participation instead
of
speaking of a name.
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
It's not the word Conference, is the word Wikimedia that address people to consider it as an event for the Wikimedia movement.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
The word "Conference" doesn't in itself imply that an event is open or closed.
C On 12 Sep 2014 13:06, "Ilario Valdelli" valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
But Wikimania is not only a Wikimedia Conference.
It's a conference open to all people outside the Wikimedia movement.
If the name should be as much as possible "explicative", the switch from Wikimania to Wikimedia Conference is inappropriate.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
We can be both more sensible and sensitive by calling this conference something else. As has been suggested, Wikimedia Conference (maybe WikiCon for short) would be more appropriate.
,Wil
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
I would really appreciate if the discussion can move in other
questions
concerning for instance the cost saving and the participation instead
of
speaking of a name.
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The name of a conference is typically a descriptor of the contents of the programme rather than of the attendees :)
*Edward Saperia* Conference Director Wikimania London http://www.wikimanialondon.org email ed@wikimanialondon.org • facebook http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia • twitter http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
On 12 September 2014 13:49, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
It's not the word Conference, is the word Wikimedia that address people to consider it as an event for the Wikimedia movement.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
The word "Conference" doesn't in itself imply that an event is open or closed.
C On 12 Sep 2014 13:06, "Ilario Valdelli" valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
But Wikimania is not only a Wikimedia Conference.
It's a conference open to all people outside the Wikimedia movement.
If the name should be as much as possible "explicative", the switch
from
Wikimania to Wikimedia Conference is inappropriate.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
We can be both more sensible and sensitive by calling this conference something else. As has been suggested, Wikimedia Conference (maybe WikiCon for short) would be more appropriate.
,Wil
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli@gmail.com
wrote:
I would really appreciate if the discussion can move in other
questions
concerning for instance the cost saving and the participation
instead
of
speaking of a name.
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
For what its worth, I just added another 2 cents over at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference
From: ed@wikimanialondon.org Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:58:00 +0100 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
The name of a conference is typically a descriptor of the contents of the programme rather than of the attendees :)
*Edward Saperia* Conference Director Wikimania London http://www.wikimanialondon.org email ed@wikimanialondon.org • facebook http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia • twitter http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
On 12 September 2014 13:49, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
It's not the word Conference, is the word Wikimedia that address people to consider it as an event for the Wikimedia movement.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
The word "Conference" doesn't in itself imply that an event is open or closed.
C On 12 Sep 2014 13:06, "Ilario Valdelli" valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
But Wikimania is not only a Wikimedia Conference.
It's a conference open to all people outside the Wikimedia movement.
If the name should be as much as possible "explicative", the switch
from
Wikimania to Wikimedia Conference is inappropriate.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
We can be both more sensible and sensitive by calling this conference something else. As has been suggested, Wikimedia Conference (maybe WikiCon for short) would be more appropriate.
,Wil
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli@gmail.com
wrote:
I would really appreciate if the discussion can move in other
questions
concerning for instance the cost saving and the participation
instead
of
speaking of a name.
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Greetings!
I have also added my 2 cents to the Meta page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFuture_of_the_Wikimedia_...
Regards, Nicole
On 12 September 2014 15:31, Leigh Thelmadatter osamadre@hotmail.com wrote:
For what its worth, I just added another 2 cents over at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_of_the_Wikimedia_Conference
From: ed@wikimanialondon.org Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:58:00 +0100 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
The name of a conference is typically a descriptor of the contents of the programme rather than of the attendees :)
*Edward Saperia* Conference Director Wikimania London http://www.wikimanialondon.org email ed@wikimanialondon.org • facebook http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia • twitter http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
On 12 September 2014 13:49, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
It's not the word Conference, is the word Wikimedia that address people to consider it as an event for the Wikimedia movement.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
The word "Conference" doesn't in itself imply that an event is open or closed.
C On 12 Sep 2014 13:06, "Ilario Valdelli" valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
But Wikimania is not only a Wikimedia Conference.
It's a conference open to all people outside the Wikimedia movement.
If the name should be as much as possible "explicative", the switch
from
Wikimania to Wikimedia Conference is inappropriate.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
We can be both more sensible and sensitive by calling this conference something else. As has been suggested, Wikimedia Conference (maybe WikiCon for short) would be more appropriate.
,Wil
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli@gmail.com
wrote:
> I would really appreciate if the discussion can move in other
questions
> concerning for instance the cost saving and the participation
instead
of
> speaking of a name.
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org