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