My quick two cents on discussions, and other ideas on ad hoc sessions: Discussions are so new (and advertised way below the radar compared to presentations) that it seems we don't have enough data from one conference to judge their effectiveness. However, I will note that there is a need for their function, as we figure out how to structure it:
- I had one of the discussion slots: "Edit this Museum Exhibit about Wikipedia" which was quite useful for me and the dozen attendees. While it was organized around explaining and discussing the Computer History Museum exhibit I've been helping with, there were others from Europe looking to do a museum exhibit about Wikipedia. We also helped develop the idea of a "traveling" Wikipedia exhibit for newbies that might form a "Newbies Pavillion" at Wikimania 2014, as a way to reach out to new editors. - Ryan Lane wound up using a last minute lightning talk slot to discuss the latest SSL developments (post-Snowden) that wound up getting a packed room and having about 30 minutes of clarification and discussion. This would have made an ideal "one week before" discussion topic, given the late breaking Snowden news and Jimmy's public statements about defaulting to SSL. - Lightning talks this year could have been facilitated better -- the seating configurations were still row-by-row desk chairs and the rooms were small. As facilitator of the Wikimania lightning talks in 2006 and 2007, you definitely need bigger space and seating in the round. - I really like the speed dating idea, and even poster-like sessions that build on the chapters pavilion. - To further the lunch groups idea, why not have a whiteboard on a post at each lunch table, so people can advertise to passersby what that group is gathered for? Chapters, projects, language, etc. I tried to organize a quick lunch for folks involved with video, and it would have been easier for folks wandering around to scan each table's display to find out who had clustered there, and why. -Andrew Lih Associate professor of journalism, American University Email: [email protected] 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 Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Lodewijk <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Deror, > > while I appreciate your efforts, I feel it necessary to object to the > picture you draw here about the discussions. > > Already in a very early stage I contacted the program committee, asking if > it would be possible to set up a proper room for discussion tracks, and I > even proposed a method to come to actual topics (and not outdated ones). > However, the program committee insisted that I should simply 'submit' them > as regular sessions. This is not how discussions work! There should be much > more flexibility and much later deadlines for discussion sessions. > > I don't mean to blame anyone here, I just want to point out that because > of how things went, I don't think it is fair to simply extrapolate. A full > discussion track is very well possible, if you announce it as such, give it > the tools it needs, and put a proper procedure in place for suggestions. > The deadline should rather be 1 week before the conference than 3 months. > > I think I can come up with at least 5 people (not even counting you) who > would be willing to lead one or two discussions, and who I think are > capable to do so in a neutral way. At least, if organized. > > The hot seat model sounds interesting, although I would personally prefer > to make Wikimania /less/ about WMF and more about the community. > > Another very different model that has been suggested many times but nobody > has worked it out: wikimania wide speed dating. Set one plenary session > aside, and allocate people table numbers. Yes, this includes the keynote > speakers, Wikimania volunteers/organizers, board members and /all/ staff > members that are in town! And connect them semi-randomly (ideally avoiding > similar people somewhat). If we do that at the beginning of the conference, > I'm sure that the rest will be so much more vivid and effective! Because > after one hour of 8 x 5 min you know at least 8 people you never spoke > before and probably would not have talked with otherwise! > > I'd love to find more ways to use Wikimania effectively to strengthen the > community ties and improve exchange of thoughts and knowledge. > > Lodewijk > > > 2013/8/18 Deror Avi <[email protected]> > >> A Few emails have been circulating re the content and the programme of >> the conference, and I wish to put in my two cents. >> This year a track of "discussions" have been introduced. Though a full >> track (and rooms) have been set aside for this, a total of one discussion >> has been proposed to the programme committee (and has been accepted of >> course). >> I do agree with what Louis suggest, and with some of the things >> suggested. The breaks should remain breaks – time to rest, have coffee and >> have informal talks which are an important part of Wikimania. Time should >> also be set aside for discussions and for lightning talks, but the fact is >> – the community who comes to the conference does not propose discussions >> (and nobody volunteers to lead them). My experience from past conferences >> is that the "unconference" day is a waste of time. Most people already >> leave the conference and go touring or go home, and do not stay for the >> unconference talks. >> The fact is – no one wanted to lead a discussion this year, and no one >> came and said "I want a basic course of Wikipedia editing". >> What we can do different next year is to "impose" some discussion time. I >> have suggested during the conference that next year we will have a >> discussion track set aside, where, for example, one day, every half hour, >> one WMF board member will be in the "hot seat" answering questions, the >> best of which will be asked again in the Q&A session for the whole >> gathering to hear. On the second day, WMF teams will be in the hot sit to >> answer legal or technical questions. >> I also suggest that WMF stuff will submit talks in which they conduct a >> tutorial to various aspects such as the visual editor, wikidata etc – but >> this is of course up to them to submit, and for the entire conference >> programme committee to approve. >> As to the number of tracks – as I have shown in my lecture – this has not >> really changed in the past 8 years (with the exception of DC due to the >> large number of attendees) and I think four tracks + 2 workshops/tutorials >> + 1 discussion is a good composition for next year as well. >> And by "four tracks" I mean four presentations or panels tracks. This >> does not meant the entire time there will be four tracks. The conference >> may have 8 or 12 subject tracks (such as "women", "Asia", "GLAM", >> "culture", and the best submissions of all will be chosed and placed, thus >> a track may only be in one session of the conference if only one good panel >> or 3 good lectures have been submitted). I do believe that a conference >> session should be 90 minutes of which 3 * 30 sessions (allowing 25 min >> session + 5 min Q&A) but this is flexible, and can be 90 min panel and >> discussion, or 30 min talk + 30 min panel + 30 min discussion, or any other >> variant. But this also enables a 30 min break every two hours which is >> important. >> I personally (in my biased opinion) think the programme was good, and >> believe that a situation where the attendees say "there are two good things >> to listen to right now, which one will I chose" only leads to wanting to >> come again next year (as opposed to "there is noting interesting right now, >> I will go back to the hotel and rest"). >> Deror >> (Deputy programme chair for Wikimania 2011, 2012 and 2013) >> ------------------------------ >> >> >Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 02:46:32 -0700 >> >From: Luis Villa <[email protected]> >> >To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)" >> > <[email protected]> >> >Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] A thought: Different tracks >> >Message-ID: >> > <cam2wsz4sfggjcgqzeykbwx5+q7tobv0thecre1qxxljvfwm...@mail.gmail.com> >> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> > >> >On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> I would prefer more of Wikimania to be interactive and >> >> discussion-oriented; perhaps you would prefer more to be >> >> presentation-oriented. That's a good tradeoff for a program team to >> >> discuss. But presenters could then think consciously about which of >> >> these modes they intend to participate in. >> > >> > a simple change, the default language for submissions could be shifted >> >from "presentations" (currently used repeatedly as the 'default' term to >> >describe what is going on) to "discussions and presentations" or >> something >> >along those lines. Simply that reminder that presentations aren't the >> only >> >way to have a session at the conference might go a long way towards >> opening >> >things up. >> > >> >Luis >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimania-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
