Hi Andrew, I think your conclusions are largely the same as the points I'm trying to make, so all is good! Don't get me wrong, I do think Wikimania has an important impact, and don't actually want to stop having it every year, I'm just curious about the silence that has followed that WMF consultation.
I do think though that of everything that happens in the movement, Wikimania is (usually, largely) the thing where there is the least clarity about goals and the least thinking about impact. There are grant proposals to the WMF for much less expensive (and indeed, less *important*) things that have gone into significantly more detail about expected impact and ways of measuring it than Wikimania ever has. In this way, Wikimania is usually very much an outlier from the process of learning and evaluation that the rest of the 'organised part' of the movement is taking part in. So far as I can tell, there are some good reasons contributing to this (the desire to keep things flexible for whoever is volunteering to organise it in the host country, and the relatively short planning cycle for such a massive event) as well as some not so good. I was very pleased to see David talking about the impact of Wikimania at the metrics meeting, and hear about some interesting ideas about looking at its impact on South Africa - which is great, and significantly more than Wikimedia UK managed after Wikimania 2014 (another story there) - and it would be wonderful to see some kind of reflection about how we can measure the impact of Wikimania on the global Wikimedia community. Equally, I can't say that I have a clear understanding of who is responsible for what regarding Wikimania. The last thing I heard from the Wikimania Committee was the idea of a three-year rotation between North America, Europe and Everywhere Else, which now seems to have been quietly abandoned (like... has it?) Thank you for engaging in this conversation, Chris On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 4:28 PM Andrew Lih <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 4:31 AM Chris Keating <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Lodewijk, > > > > If Wikimania was an entity rather than an event, it would be in the > > top 5 entities in the movement - a smaller budget than WMF, Wikimedia > > Deutschland and the Wiki Education Foundation but larger than anything > > else... > > > > Chris, you seem to have a particular angle determined through fitting > particular data to your conclusion. A point by point breakdown will be > mired down in bickering, so let me address some misconceptions while also > embracing and agreeing with some of your feedback. > > Since I've been to every single Wikimania and serve on the steering > committee, obviously I don't share your existential doubt about Wikimania's > role in our movement. But read on for things I do agree with you on > regarding the future of the conference. Again: I'm not speaking on behalf > of the commitee. This is just me. > > - "If Wikimania was an entity rather than an event" - But it's not. The > goals, format and audience is completely different and makes for a > problematic financial comparison. But even if you get past that, I would > argue that annual Wikimania is indeed one of the "top 5" occurrences in our > community each year, even if it's not universally accessible to all > volunteers. It's where ideas and experiences are exchanged and the only > systematic way WMF openly interacts with the community in a face to face > format. Recall - WMCON/Wikimedia Summit is casting off the "learning and > capacity-building" and will be capped at 200 participants. This makes > Wikimania even more crucial in this role. > > Important initiatives of our movement started at Wikimania. You state in > your user page you took part in one of the first GLAM engagement with the > British Museum in 2010 with the Hoxne Challenge. Did you know that the GLAM > movement had its genesis with Wikimania 2008 in Alexandria, Egypt, when > Liam Wyatt and the Wikimania organizers had the first "backstage pass" and > meeting with their staff? [1] [2] > > - "it doesn't have any objectives" - But it does if you read the Wikimania > page, even if it is not down to the level of detail of an academic > conference or a board retreat. Wikimania is intentionally wiki-like in this > aspect, which may be what is perceived as a lack of objective. By design, > the ability of each team to run with a new concept is part of dynamic. One > of Wikipedia's pillars is "we're here to build an encyclopedia," and people > fill it with meaning. Similarly, the goal of Wikimania as "an annual > gathering of the Wikimedia community" is filled differently with meaning > from year to year with a BE BOLD ethos with different visions and > parameters of the organizing team. Some years there is an experimental idea > like 2016 Esino Lario.[3] Sometimes there is a button-downed public sector > co-conference like 2012 Tech@State. [4] > > - "online discussion that reached a conclusion that no-one appears willing > to support" - As Lodewijk mentioned previously, there were significant > issues with the way the consultation was run so that the conclusion was > dubious. If you asked me to find the least desirable time period to do a > consultation, it would be exactly the one chosen – "15 December 2015 to 19 > January 2016" when globally, most folks in the professional world and > academia are disengaged or removed from a computer screen. Additionally, it > is hard to produce useful dialogue around strict voting for three rigid > options. [5] Chris Schilling of the Foundation who oversaw the process was > clear in Esino Lario's meeting that the consultation was not binding as was > but one part of the discussion. > > - Here's what I agree with you on: > > -- Better reporting on results and evaluation of effectiveness - We do have > reporting on the outcomes on meta wiki, including detailed stats and > figures for each conference, as they need to be compared with the original > bid. But the long term analysis is often lacking, with folk knowledge being > more influential in decisions than explicit reporting and strategy. This > year's Wikimania evaluation by Douglas Scott was presented at the September > activities meeting and can be seen on the Youtube video. [6] But we rarely > get a chance to evaluate long term trends or effectiveness. > > -- Diversity in the Wikimania Committee - We should go beyond the existing > practice of tapping previous Wikimania leads to be members. I was brought > on as part of that trend, but it should be continued to expand the size and > diversity of backgrounds of the committee. To be fair, it's a rather > thankless job that was cobbled together over the years out of necessity > rather than by design. But we should do better here. > > - My overall view - Wikimedia/Wikipedia is a multibillion dollar brand that > is consistently in the top 10 most visited web sites in the world. It > shares that rarified air with companies in the hundreds of billions of > dollars in valuation. Wikipedia is built on the efforts of volunteers, and > it is vitally important we nurture that community or we die. Think about it > – spending in the area of $1 million is a paltry sum compared to the value > to our community and to the world. In fact, I'd argue we are very much > underspending in this area, and way too insular in how we work. We are not > systematically embracing our partners in open culture such as Internet > Archive, Creative Commons, Mozilla Foundation and GLAM institutions, while > they are running broad-based inclusive international conferences with a big > tent. We are consistently seen in the public eye as the hallmark of open > knowledge and the power of volunteerism, yet we do not lead with this > conference nor do we readily open our doors to collaborators. > > Thanks for your feedback. I don't want a debate on this issue to be seen as > a silencing tactic. Far from it. It should be a way to sharpen existing > practices and encourage new ideas. > > As the Wikimania Committee liaison with the Sweden 2019 team, I've > encouraged them to take on some of the things discussed above, such as > working more closely with like-minded institutions and to not necessarily > repeat all aspects of previous conferences. Discussions like these help > bring these issues to the fore and make the whole process more transparent, > which is a good thing. > > -Andrew > > [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/British_Museum > [2] - > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimania_2008_-_The_Wikimedia_delegation_(2689602220).jpg > [3] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids/Esino_Lario > [4] - https://wikimania2012.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech@State:_Wiki.Gov > [5] - > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes > [6] - https://youtu.be/TTtb4dEypQk?t=3m24s > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
