Hello all
Before all, congrats to the organizing team and all the volunteers ! I
liked that Wikimania a lot ! You did a great job guys.
Out of the pieces I will remember fondly (as in "to be continued"), I
will probably put
- the community village (great move; must be continued absolutely
- workshops (to keep and extend)
- and comedy (though it was sometimes hard to understand for non native,
I still had a lot of fun. May be particular particularly suited for this
Wikimania, not for others later).
I just finished filling up the Wikimania feedback form and here are my
thoughts
I was very happy that WMF took the time to actually make a feedback form
and send it to all participants. But I was a bit wondering why it was
actually sent to participants as if it was a Wikimedia Foundation event.
I understand it is sent by the evaluation team and it might make sense
to evaluate the impact of an event largely funded/run by Wikimedia
Foundation. Still it would rather be expected from the Wikimania
organizers themselves. I thought it was a bit odd. Thoughts ?
Also, I think it would have been cool if the Wikimania committee somehow
had been involved in making that questionnaire. One of the reasons is
that each Wikimania comes with its own flavor and I think that beyond
the individual satisfaction of the attendee, we need to "measure" the
impact of the larger picture.
Two links:
- the bid:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014_bids/London
- the actual site:
https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Village
One of the big core things pushed forward by the Wikimania 2014 team
during the bid was the fact it wanted to be an outreached event. Did you
know ? It was a sort of a tagline.
What was called "wikifest" in the bid gave birth to the "Community
Village" (open to the public and free). My "feeling" is that it was a
success. But that stays my "feeling". I think it was useful, joyful,
great place to see what groups/chapters/aligned organizations were
doing, provided great local food, opportunities to charge laptops or
store sweatshirt, easily crossed as we were going around. I saw
non-Wikimedians having a look.
But did it work as a "non-wikimedian" outreach ? Or did it rather worked
as a "wikimedian not involved in groups/chapters" outreach ? I actually
do not know exactly. But I have the vague feeling that this should be
continued.
The evaluation form stayed quite generic in terms (such as asking if we
learned stuff from the sessions (yeah, we did)). Or collect the usual
feedback (I guess everyone will mention that we would need more
electrical plugs right ? Just as every year by the way :)).
I kind of regret we had no opportunity to "slip" in the questionnaire
some questions related to the specificity of that conference to give
more body to the questions.
So may I suggest that this post evaluation be an opportunity for
collaboration between WMF evaluation team and Wikimania Committee in the
future ? :)
Third thought... as a current Wikimania committee member as well as
Wikimania jury member for 2014 bid process, I also would like to reflect
on some of the significant discrepancies I identified between the bid
and the actual event. Not in the spirit of confrontation and blind
criticism, but in the spirit of transparency, goals and "measures of
success". Side benefit: helping jury to better evaluate future bids (I
remind you that the call for volunteers is OPEN).
So bid link:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014_bids/London
The London bid was bold. Big things planned and big budget. The largest
we ever saw. Cuts had to be made to the original bid and we ended up
with a three tier system, depending on the money collected ultimately.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014_bids/London/Logistics/Financ…
(see the three tier)
My understanding is that the venue ended up being way more expensive
than it was originally budgeted (I'd love figures on this) and
obviously, fundraising did not go as well as hoped. I guess we wont have
details before several months, but rough budget figures would be lovely.
Some people outlined a few points as not compliant with the bid (oyster
cards or drinks and snacks throughout the day, same-day released edited
videos of sessions, venue open 24/24) or not in line with what was
announced in Wikimania 2013 (I was not there, this is earsay) such as
closing party at the Tate. Other points worked quite well (indeed the
wifi was good ! and all rooms were video equipped). Some thoughts on
this would be welcome.
To be fair, Wikimania London team was the first one to be so explicit in
what could be expected, so it is easy to criticize afterwards (in
comparison, Mexico bid is much more vague so it won't be possible to
list "what should have been done". But it tickles me a bit... and in
retrospect, I think bidders should provide clear statements on what they
will make every effort to provide. Or we should provide clear statements
in what is expected no matter what.
Again, overall, I am happy of that Wikimania and I think it generally
fullfilled the contract to a very large extent (in terms of program,
activities and services. Can't say in terms of budget). But I am
thinking of the future and in line with the general trend of
establishing criterias and measures of success, I think we should work
on providing more structured submission guidelines for next Wikimania.
Florence