I would have thought knowing who was proposing the presentation was a significant factor in its evaluation as that provides the critical point of whether the person has the knowledge to speak about the issue. Such games make the process appear to be unprofessional offering very little in the way of addressing critical issues and potentially opening up the community to abuse.
Annon review is fine as that enables the reviewers to be critical without a concern of some backlash, I hope that before you publish the reviews publicly that you consider the impact of those reviews, what is actually and ensure the reviews dont do harm to the person receiving them On 4 February 2016 at 06:15, Andy Mabbett <[email protected]> wrote: > I've just received feedback on one of my pitches saying, in part: > > "Bad boy Andy! This is supposed to be an anonymous review process, so > starting your abstract with your own name, is not entirely fair." > > -- > Andy Mabbett > @pigsonthewing > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
