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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>