Hey,
So, as with everything, Wikimania is going through a process where we
(as à group) will define if it pushes our mission forward or not.
First, WMF staff working so we can have the discussion with all the
cards in our hands. Which is not the case now.
Second, what is Wikimania purposes? Right now I fear there is none
clearly define.
Is it a community event?
Is it a knowledge sharing event?
Is it an outreaching event?
Is it a way to reward people?
...
One has to be define, a main one.
Then we will be able to talk about how it happens.
I have opinions but I rather keep them to myself until I have everything
in hand. But I love Wikimania, and I want to know if it's the best format,
and if it's not to fix it :)
Le 10 juil. 2016 4:37 AM, "Gnangarra" <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> a écrit :
Agree with the comments thats hard to measure the
value of a Wikimania,
and what an attendee will do with the experience. so here is my experience
My first Wikimania was 2012 in Washington DC, I was a little
introspective and embroiled in an ARBCOM case I shared a room with Richard
Farmbrough with whom I had a deep discussion about the case he gave me some
amazing advice about that process it literally reenergises my efforts...
While doing so he recommended a session about QRpedia, a really interesting
project. Two months later I'm back home and still editing when an
opportunity presents itself to propose a QRpedia project in Fremantle, that
produced the first Wikitown in Australia. The Freopedia project as it
became known opened the door to another WikiTown project in Toodyay called
Toodyaypedia, Next minute I'm nominated for a State Heritage award for the
work I've been doing through Wikipedia and the out reach projects that have
improved coverage of Western Australian History more doors start to open.
I'm on a roll really energised and its rubbing off on the local community
they willingly helping with every silly idea I try, so much so that I get
nominated to be a committee member(Vice President no less) of the local
chapter. London 2014 Wikimedia Australia pays for me to attend London where
I give back to the community my experiences and share my experiences about
WikiTowns/QRpedia(along with a few Tim Tams and Caramellow Koalas) in the
community village. Also while in London I got to attended a pre-wikimania
training session by WMUK that they offer to people doing outreach that was
a wonderful experience and helped me improve the way I do outreach here,[*side
thought:that should be taken on the road to every chapter who does or wants
to do outreach*].
I return even more enrgise and what to bring the Wikimania experience
here where more even more people can benefit directly rather than just
through my efforts. 2015 I'm presented with another opportunity to expand
the projects happening here this time writing in an Indigenous Australian
language and improving content about a subject area thats has been
inadeqautely covered for the first 10years of wikipedia. Along come an
offer from WMF to attend Mexico I'm torn between my commitment to the
Noongar Language work which included a workshop that coincided with
Wikimania and the opportunity to attend my 3rd event, of course my
commitment to the local project took precidence. The cost of that was not
finding out about the changes to the Wikimania processes and spending a lot
of time putting together a bid for Wikimania in Perth. The benefit of the
Noongarpedia project is that we now have the first Indigenous Australian
language in the incubator, with a number of other communities watching and
learning from our experiences, I just spent a week in Darwin which included
talking with people there and walking them through that project. Somewhere
in all of this I also became President of WMAu and with it WMAu has had
its most successful period, I like to think some that is because of the
energy I have brought to the table from my experience at Wikimania.
One Australian once theorised about how WMF measures success and
highlighted that the value is not in the physical numbers but in the
intangible connections that are made, he even put forward a PEG proposal to
demostrate that its the personal relationships that matter and how you
build them that have the true impact. Being isolated in Western Australia
made for the perfect ground to develop such a project ironically it was
declined because of the fact that the project lacked the generation of
numbers which would make success measurable.
We place too much emphasis on physical numbers to measure out comes yet
we all know that education is more than just numbers and community
development is about connections, energy and empowering others Wikimania
does, that we just need to find the right boxes to tick.
[conflict with Riskers response, apologies if I over lap]
On 10 July 2016 at 09:50, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew and Leila,
>
> There are quite a few ways of looking at the numbers (which is one
> reason that I'm hoping for a thorough analysis.) Please note that I think
> that conferences should happen; I am asking if this is the status quo is
> the optimal way of spending these funds. There are other ways of using
> funds for conferences that could be explored.
>
> For example, if a Wikimania costs $600,000 and there are 1,000
> attendees, that works out to a cost of $600 per attendee for 1000 people.
> Is that a wiser investment than spreading out the same funds among
> (hypothetically) 3,000 attendees at multiple national/regional conferences
> for an average expense of $200 per attendee? At this point I don't think
> any of us can answer that question.
>
> The Wikimania-going population, especially the people who go to many
> WIkimanias, are a vanishingly small percentage of the overall WIkimedia
> population. They tend to be active, but there are plenty of active
> Wikimedians such as myself who have never been to Wikimania, although I'd
> like to go next year. Does it make sense to spend so much money on such a
> small percentage of our community? There are reasons to think that the
> answer could be yes; for example, if Wikimania motivates highly active
> contributors and leaders to keep up the good work. However, it's not clear
> that similarly good effects couldn't be achieved on a broader scale by
> spreading the funds among more numerous smaller conferences.
>
> There is a good argument to be made that having lots of highly active
> contributors and project leaders from all over the world in the same place,
> and having WMF staff mix with them, is a good idea for purposes of
> improving communications and relationships. Generation of good PR press,
> and cross-pollination of ideas, are also important and I think that we
> should support those. However, similarly good outcomes might be achieved
> through multiple smaller conferences.
>
> I'm in favor of continuing to spend funds on conferences; what I think
> that none of us know is whether our current model of a single large
> conference is "better" than multiple national/regional conferences.
>
> Along the lines of Leila's suggestion, the idea of temporarily scaling
> up WMF's support for national/regional (or thematic) conferences while
> keeping Wikimania in place makes sense to me. That requires some
> willingness to spend the funds for both types of events for a few years.
> It's a bit of an expensive proposition though, and I'm wary of asking the
> WMF staff to spend more time traveling to more conferences. I guess I'm
> cautiously in favor of looking at this option if it's financially practical
> to scale up the support for focused conferences while maintaining support
> for Wikimania. Keep in mind that WMF Fundraising is worried about
> plateauing revenues, so we're working in a world of resource constraints
> and trying to do the best we can with what we've got.
>
> I'm looking forward to hearing what Katherine and Christophe think.
> And with that, I'm afraid that I must depart this thread to attend to other
> matters. (: Thanks for the good conversation, everyone.
>
> Pine
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Pine,
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'd also be interested in projections of total attendance and costs
>>> (including travel costs and staff time) for Wikimania vs. having more or
>>> expanded national and regional conferences.
>>>
>>
>> But then there is the benefit (which is not fully captured by
>> attendance that) we need to take into account, too, and that's where the
>> main problem starts. It's relatively easy to measure the costs of
>> conferences, it's very hard to measure their benefit for a variety of
>> reasons, one of which, in our context, is that it's hard to assign
>> price-tag to many of the projects the community and beyond drive, even if
>> you can clearly link them to Wikimania (which is a problem on its own). And
>> that's already the easier part of the benefit analysis. It can get way more
>> complicated if we want to assign a price-tag to how much it's worth for
>> each of us to learn more about others.
>>
>> And now add to all the above, that you are suggesting that we do
>> cost-benefit analysis for multiple conference models and compare them.
>> Think about designing control experiments, considering the interactions
>> between conferences (people who attend both vs. those who attend only one
>> kind), etc.
>>
>> I would not go down the path of cost-benefit analysis for a
>> conference such as Wikimania. We will loose too much time and money and
>> still the analysis will have so many questionable components.
>>
>> What industry and academic conferences usually do when they're in
>> doubt is that they become bold and start a new conference but keep the
>> original one in place. If the new conference attracts more audience, to the
>> extent that at some point organizing the original conference doesn't make
>> sense (too few attendees, lower quality abstract submissions, major people
>> in the field moving to the new conference), then they gradually stop the
>> original conference. It seems that following that approach would be more
>> beneficial than questioning the usefulness of Wikimania without more
>> extensively trying the other conference/meet-up types first and in parallel
>> to Wikimania.
>>
>>
>>> If WMF and the community are going to spend that much money every
>>> year on an annual conference, with the majority of that money coming from
>>> donors who give small-dollar amounts, I think that we need to think
>>> carefully and thoroughly about how we plan the conference (or conferences)
>>> to align with the goals of our donors and what we tell our donors.
>>>
>>
>> Two points to take into account here:
>>
>> * Wikimania is a major and mature conference and it's fair to compare
>> it to major academic conferences that I'm more familiar with. The cost of
>> such conferences is usually quite higher than Wikimania, if you consider
>> roughly the same attendance numbers. I would start worrying about the cost
>> of Wikimania only if the cost goes much higher than the industry standard.
>>
>> * I wouldn't recommend reconsidering how we plan for our major
>> conferences based on what we tell our donors. We should define our needs
>> and find a way to fund them.
>>
>> Leila
>>
>> --
>> Leila Zia
>> Research Scientist
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>>
>>> Pine
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I find it a bit over the top too to have such a letter, so strongly
>>>> worded, and signed by so many board chairs.
>>>>
>>>> It reveals a divide between those who participated in the IdeaLab
>>>> survey[1] and those who were at the Future of Wikimania session in
Esino.
>>>>
>>>> It would perhaps be interesting to see if correlations can be
>>>> revealed as to what demographic of Wikimedian prefer 1 year per
Wikimania
>>>> and what demographic prefer 2 year per Wikimania - like geographical
>>>> distribution, involvement in local Wikimedia groups (staff / board /
other
>>>> volunteer / not a participant), and past attendance at regional
Wikimedia
>>>> conferences and Wikimania.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outc…
>>>>
>>>> Thank you. I find it confusing that the letter starts with "The
>>>> chairpersons of the Wikimedia chapters state that Wikimania needs to be
>>>> arranged every year," which implies that all of the chapter chairs
are
>>>> united in agreement, but it appears several chapters didn't sign the
>>>> letter. Looking further at the content of the letter, I would have some
>>>> questions about some of the statements that were made there. In the
future,
>>>> I would encourage chapter chairs to have discussions about matters such
as
>>>> this on the Affiliates mailing list so that we can have more inclusive
>>>> discussions among more affiliates before sending letters like that. The
>>>> Wikimania situation is already convoluted, and I believe that letters
such
>>>> as this should get fuller discussion among affiliates before they are
sent
>>>> to WMF.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Pine
>>>> On Jul 8, 2016 20:04, "Christophe Henner"
<chenner(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My bad I forgot it already is on meta
>>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Statements/Chapter_chair…
>>>>> Le 9 juil. 2016 4:50 AM, "Pine W"
<wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Christophe. I, for one, have had difficulty figuring out
>>>>> what is going on with Wikimania in regards to varying decisions in
>>>>> different parts of WMF and the community, so I look forward to the
>>>>> clarifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I am currently neutral on the decision of whether to
>>>>> have annual Wikimanias, or alternate Wikimanias with years in which
there
>>>>> is emphasis on national or regional conferences. My hunch is that
some
>>>>> research about costs and benefits is needed so that we have reliable
data
>>>>> about a variety of scenarios before making a decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again for working on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> To the board chairs: I would be interested in seeing that letter.
>>>>> In the spirit of transparency, would you please publish it on Meta?
As you
>>>>> know I am an advocate for much more transparency from WMF, and I
would like
>>>>> for the affiliates to also to be transparent about governance matters
such
>>>>> as this one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Pine
>>>>> On Jul 8, 2016 19:18, "Christophe Henner"
<chenner(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same question was raised to the board a few days ago by
>>>>>> chairs of Wikimedia organizations asking Foundation's board
to make sure
>>>>>> there's a comprehensive decision on this very topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The chairs letter wasn't public, I let them share it on meta
or
>>>>>> here if they want to :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First step, in my opinion, is to set expectations and define the
>>>>>> scope (in the role of the event but also in the ressources (both
human and
>>>>>> financial) we commit to the event.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Katherine is working with the staff to provide groundings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the answer I provided them with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi chairs!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, thank you with the email, the feedback is clearly
>>>>>> useful and raises interesting point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, the Wikimania discussion definitly is on the table. Living
>>>>>> by what we said during Wikimania, we, as WMF, will make sure we
end up with
>>>>>> a clear answer to your questions but also to the different points
you
>>>>>> raise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wikimania is an important time in our movement, but as you said
>>>>>> it also comes with costs and challenges that we have to adress.
Katherine
>>>>>> is going to meet in the coming days with the staff in charge of
that topic
>>>>>> to start that discussion within WMF and provide groundings for a
>>>>>> comprehensive decision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We will try to be as diligent as possible on that topic, but I
>>>>>> would ask you to keep in mind that as we're in a transition
phase and that
>>>>>> might take a little more time than you could expect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again thank you for your email, I love the fact that he raises
>>>>>> issues but also includes the challenges we have to take care of
:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We'll get back to you as soon as possible to continue that
>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have all a really great day / night :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christophe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I concur with Coren’s conclusion, I’ll try to neutrally
>>>>>> report on the events at Wikimania which led to this result. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Full disclosure: I’m a fan of Wikimania being yearly, and was
>>>>>> asked to serve on the Wikimania Committee after Esino Lario. I
was also the
>>>>>> main moderator of the Wikimania 2016 session on the “Future of
Wikimania.”
>>>>>> These views are my own, and not anything official from the
committee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Background: Many folks (I’d say a majority) who I talked to in
>>>>>> Esino Lario early in the conference thought that the decision to
do
>>>>>> Wikimania every other year was a done deal, as a result of the
IdeaLab
>>>>>> consultation. I told them that might not necessarily be so. The
vote was
>>>>>> close, not particularly widely known, and we could still be
heard. Chris
>>>>>> Schilling from the WMF, who oversaw the Idealab consultation,
sought me out
>>>>>> specifically at the start of the conference and to my delight,
said that
>>>>>> the consultation was “just another data point,” and that it was
by no means
>>>>>> the final word on things. Obviously, this was good news to people
who were
>>>>>> interested in keeping a yearly Wikimania.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was scheduled to moderate the “Future of Wikimania” discussion
>>>>>> session [1] at the very end of the conference, and encouraged
people to let
>>>>>> their views be heard. It was under these conditions that we
entered into
>>>>>> the final discussion room and I asked Chris Schilling to give an
opening
>>>>>> statement to the room. Most people were happy to hear him say
that it was
>>>>>> “just another data point.” During the discussion, there was
overwhelming
>>>>>> support to keep Wikimania going every year, which is not a
surprise
>>>>>> considering this was *at* Wikimania. I encourage folks to peruse
the
>>>>>> Etherpad notes, which are quite extensive and expertly done by
several
>>>>>> folks there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some views I’d highlight:
>>>>>> - Having yearly Wikimania is important to keep the momentum of
>>>>>> the movement going, according to many
>>>>>> - A case for cancelling yearly Wikimania was to encourage/fund
>>>>>> regional meetups. However, there is no guarantee that those
regional
>>>>>> meetups would actually take place, or that WMF would necessarily
take the
>>>>>> money saved from Wikimania to fund them. Some folks from Asia
specifically
>>>>>> said that there is weaker linguistic, cultural and geographic
synergy for
>>>>>> an “Asian” conference like there is in Europe and Africa, which
is why it
>>>>>> has been hard to do one.
>>>>>> - One person noted that one trip to Wikimania served the same
>>>>>> role as several international trips to get the same benefit from
meeting
>>>>>> other Wikimedians/developers, so there are indeed cost
efficiencies in
>>>>>> having a central conference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>
https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Discussions/The_future_of_Wikimania
>>>>>> [2]
https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Wikimania2016-discussion7b
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Andrew Lih
>>>>>> Associate professor of journalism, American University
>>>>>> Email: andrew(a)andrewlih.com
>>>>>> WEB:
http://www.andrewlih.com
>>>>>> BOOK: The Wikipedia Revolution: http://
>>>>>>
www.wikipediarevolution.com
>>>>>> PROJECT: Wiki Makes Video
>>>>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Marc-Andre
<marc(a)uberbox.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2016-07-08 10:01 AM, Chris Keating wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Interestingly, I couldn't see any sign of the
Committee's
>>>>>>>> decision being informed by the WMF's consultation on
the future of
>>>>>>>> Wikimania, or anyone from the WMF's community
engagement department being
>>>>>>>> present.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wikimania is, and always was, a community led and organized
>>>>>>> event. The WMF, as its traditional biggest sponsor[1], has a
great deal of
>>>>>>> influence in the matter - but ultimately no decision power
beyond "fund and
>>>>>>> resource or not".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The committee's decision has indeed taken into account
the
>>>>>>> consultation you refer to - as well as the roundtable
discussion on the
>>>>>>> "Future of Wikimania" that took place earlier[2].
Our evaluation, which is
>>>>>>> reflected in that resolution, is that the consultation was
clearly flawed
>>>>>>> and that its conclusion does not reflect consensus - neither
of the
>>>>>>> community members who organize nor of those who attend
Wikimania.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Coren / Marc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] Although "underwrite" might be a better term -
the WMF has
>>>>>>> pretty much shouldered the vast majority of the costs and
given the most
>>>>>>> logistical support year in and year out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [2] Where the consensus was to overwhelmingly reject that
>>>>>>> consultation's conclusion in favor or continuing with
Wikimania as a yearly
>>>>>>> even given its irreplaceable role in our movement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>>>>>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>>>>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>>>>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>>>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>>>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU:
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery:
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org