Re: [Wikimania-l] A Wikimania journal

[Edward Saperia]

The evaluation team did something a bit like this for 2014:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Wikimania_2014_Participant_Survey_-_Data_Summary.pdf

*Edward Saperia*
Founder Newspeak House 
email  • facebook  •
 twitter  • 07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG

On 22 October 2016 at 12:05, Andrew Lih  wrote:

> Actually, this kind of “journal” or mega-report is what we are planning to
> do for Wikiconference North America 2016, in that not only do we want to
> report back to the WMF what we did with the original grant, but we wanted
> to document best practices for future conferences. This also lets partners
> (San Diego Public Library and Balboa Park museums) know what we did
> during the conference so they can evaluate the ROI of in-kind donations and
> collaborations. It won’t happen immediately, but hopefully by the end of
> the year for an October conference.
>
> -Andrew
>
>
> -Andrew Lih
> Associate professor of journalism, American University
> Email: and...@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 Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey Gnagarra,
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification. The report would therefore be quite a
>> costly business, if you expect it to be executed by paid staff. And it
>> would probably go at the expense of what they would otherwise be doing.
>> 6-12 months is by the way a very long time to publication!
>>
>> Could you therefore clarify a bit better what your intended goals are
>> besides satisfying curiosity of people like you and me? Because I surely
>> can imagine I would appreciate such report as well, I'm just not sure I'd
>> consider that enough to produce it :) But if you could find additional
>> valued for it, who knows!
>>
>> Best,
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> 2016-10-22 12:27 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra :
>>
>>> Its not something that a volunteer could be expected to manage as it
>>> would need a dedicated person with resources to follow up with those
>>> involved and collate all the information
>>>
>>> I would see it as something done by the WMF either by their Wikimania
>>> team or the media team given the WMF already do a fair portion now for
>>> reporting, realising that it would  probably 6 months to year finish, even
>>> then it wouldnt capture all the benefits which take even longer to
>>> materialise. Once published the Wikimania wiki could be closed down.  The
>>> audience is the community, as well as those looking to be involved in a
>>> wikimania in the future also anyone that wants to see how international
>>> events are organised and our donars.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22 October 2016 at 18:09, Lodewijk 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hey Gnagarra,

 (changing topics here as we're going on a tangent)
 in an attempt to avoid/limit additional work for organizers that are
 totally worn out at the end of a cycle:
 - What would be your intended use for such document/journal?
 - What would be the intended readership
 - Would you imagine volunteering to organize such journal, even if
 you're not on the organizing team? After all, anyone could collect such
 information together.

 Best,
 Lodewijk

 2016-10-22 12:06 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra :

> It would be nice to see past events wrapped up into one journal
> covering all aspects from original discussion until the final reporting of
> the event including financials, attendee reports and media reports at the
> moment everything is spread across chapter, foundation, event pages which
> means lessons, pitfalls, successes, the work involved over time arent 
> where
> people can find easily
>
> On 22 October 2016 at 17:56, rupert THURNER 
> wrote:
>
>> the points lodewijk mentioned with styles, and independent user
>> groups working on it are quite valid points imo. additionally the purpose
>> of a wiki is to collaborate on a purpose. if the purpose is gone, no wiki
>> software is necessary. following that logic, one could argue to dump a 
>> past
>> wikimania wiki into a static html page is best. search could be done via
>> standard web search. if the wikis are not disturbing one could let them
>> just sit where they are.
>>
>> rupert
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Lodewijk <
>> lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The discussion has now been moved to https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Wikimania_wikis apparently, where it will
>>> probably also get archived not too 

Re: [Wikimania-l] A Wikimania journal

[Andrew Lih]

Actually, this kind of “journal” or mega-report is what we are planning to
do for Wikiconference North America 2016, in that not only do we want to
report back to the WMF what we did with the original grant, but we wanted
to document best practices for future conferences. This also lets partners
(San Diego Public Library and Balboa Park museums) know what we did
during the conference so they can evaluate the ROI of in-kind donations and
collaborations. It won’t happen immediately, but hopefully by the end of
the year for an October conference.

-Andrew


-Andrew Lih
Associate professor of journalism, American University
Email: and...@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 Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> Hey Gnagarra,
>
> Thanks for the clarification. The report would therefore be quite a costly
> business, if you expect it to be executed by paid staff. And it would
> probably go at the expense of what they would otherwise be doing. 6-12
> months is by the way a very long time to publication!
>
> Could you therefore clarify a bit better what your intended goals are
> besides satisfying curiosity of people like you and me? Because I surely
> can imagine I would appreciate such report as well, I'm just not sure I'd
> consider that enough to produce it :) But if you could find additional
> valued for it, who knows!
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-10-22 12:27 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra :
>
>> Its not something that a volunteer could be expected to manage as it
>> would need a dedicated person with resources to follow up with those
>> involved and collate all the information
>>
>> I would see it as something done by the WMF either by their Wikimania
>> team or the media team given the WMF already do a fair portion now for
>> reporting, realising that it would  probably 6 months to year finish, even
>> then it wouldnt capture all the benefits which take even longer to
>> materialise. Once published the Wikimania wiki could be closed down.  The
>> audience is the community, as well as those looking to be involved in a
>> wikimania in the future also anyone that wants to see how international
>> events are organised and our donars.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22 October 2016 at 18:09, Lodewijk 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Gnagarra,
>>>
>>> (changing topics here as we're going on a tangent)
>>> in an attempt to avoid/limit additional work for organizers that are
>>> totally worn out at the end of a cycle:
>>> - What would be your intended use for such document/journal?
>>> - What would be the intended readership
>>> - Would you imagine volunteering to organize such journal, even if
>>> you're not on the organizing team? After all, anyone could collect such
>>> information together.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>> 2016-10-22 12:06 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra :
>>>
 It would be nice to see past events wrapped up into one journal
 covering all aspects from original discussion until the final reporting of
 the event including financials, attendee reports and media reports at the
 moment everything is spread across chapter, foundation, event pages which
 means lessons, pitfalls, successes, the work involved over time arent where
 people can find easily

 On 22 October 2016 at 17:56, rupert THURNER 
 wrote:

> the points lodewijk mentioned with styles, and independent user groups
> working on it are quite valid points imo. additionally the purpose of a
> wiki is to collaborate on a purpose. if the purpose is gone, no wiki
> software is necessary. following that logic, one could argue to dump a 
> past
> wikimania wiki into a static html page is best. search could be done via
> standard web search. if the wikis are not disturbing one could let them
> just sit where they are.
>
> rupert
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Lodewijk <
> lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>
>> The discussion has now been moved to https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Wikimania_wikis apparently, where it will
>> probably also get archived not too distant in the future. I hope someone
>> will post a link here to that archive page.
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> 2016-10-22 11:07 GMT+02:00 Rehman Abubakr 
>> :
>>
>>> (cross-posting to Wikimania-l and Wikimedia-l)
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> As earlier discussions on this topic received relatively little
>>> response from the community, I'm sending this email to let you know 
>>> about
>>> the new topic posted at https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Meta:Babel#Wikimania_wikis, with regards to having a 

Re: [Wikimania-l] A Wikimania journal

[Lodewijk]

Hey Gnagarra,

Thanks for the clarification. The report would therefore be quite a costly
business, if you expect it to be executed by paid staff. And it would
probably go at the expense of what they would otherwise be doing. 6-12
months is by the way a very long time to publication!

Could you therefore clarify a bit better what your intended goals are
besides satisfying curiosity of people like you and me? Because I surely
can imagine I would appreciate such report as well, I'm just not sure I'd
consider that enough to produce it :) But if you could find additional
valued for it, who knows!

Best,
Lodewijk

2016-10-22 12:27 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra :

> Its not something that a volunteer could be expected to manage as it would
> need a dedicated person with resources to follow up with those involved and
> collate all the information
>
> I would see it as something done by the WMF either by their Wikimania team
> or the media team given the WMF already do a fair portion now for
> reporting, realising that it would  probably 6 months to year finish, even
> then it wouldnt capture all the benefits which take even longer to
> materialise. Once published the Wikimania wiki could be closed down.  The
> audience is the community, as well as those looking to be involved in a
> wikimania in the future also anyone that wants to see how international
> events are organised and our donars.
>
>
>
> On 22 October 2016 at 18:09, Lodewijk  wrote:
>
>> Hey Gnagarra,
>>
>> (changing topics here as we're going on a tangent)
>> in an attempt to avoid/limit additional work for organizers that are
>> totally worn out at the end of a cycle:
>> - What would be your intended use for such document/journal?
>> - What would be the intended readership
>> - Would you imagine volunteering to organize such journal, even if you're
>> not on the organizing team? After all, anyone could collect such
>> information together.
>>
>> Best,
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> 2016-10-22 12:06 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra :
>>
>>> It would be nice to see past events wrapped up into one journal covering
>>> all aspects from original discussion until the final reporting of the event
>>> including financials, attendee reports and media reports at the moment
>>> everything is spread across chapter, foundation, event pages which means
>>> lessons, pitfalls, successes, the work involved over time arent where
>>> people can find easily
>>>
>>> On 22 October 2016 at 17:56, rupert THURNER 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 the points lodewijk mentioned with styles, and independent user groups
 working on it are quite valid points imo. additionally the purpose of a
 wiki is to collaborate on a purpose. if the purpose is gone, no wiki
 software is necessary. following that logic, one could argue to dump a past
 wikimania wiki into a static html page is best. search could be done via
 standard web search. if the wikis are not disturbing one could let them
 just sit where they are.

 rupert


 On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Lodewijk  wrote:

> The discussion has now been moved to https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Wikimania_wikis apparently, where it will
> probably also get archived not too distant in the future. I hope someone
> will post a link here to that archive page.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-10-22 11:07 GMT+02:00 Rehman Abubakr :
>
>> (cross-posting to Wikimania-l and Wikimedia-l)
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> As earlier discussions on this topic received relatively little
>> response from the community, I'm sending this email to let you know about
>> the new topic posted at https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Meta:Babel#Wikimania_wikis, with regards to having a single
>> unified Wikimania wiki.
>>
>> I have copied the original post below for ease of reading. Please
>> post your comments on the meta page.
>>
>>
>> **
>>
>> Hi. I was looking at Special:SiteMatrix
>>  and couldn't
>> help noticing the whopping 14 separate wikis (and growing) for all the
>> different Wikimanias, including a separate wiki for a "Wikimania team". 
>> Is
>> there any current plans of a more sustainable or streamlined approach to
>> running these wikis?
>>
>> I am aware that this has been discussed a few times before, but no
>> significant effort was put into it. Wikimania project domain
>>  is the
>> most significant discussion which I could find, but participation was 
>> quite
>> low on that, with no(?) WMF staff comments.
>>
>> From what I understand from the above linked discussion, some key
>> points against a 

Re: [Wikimania-l] A Wikimania journal

[Gnangarra]

Its not something that a volunteer could be expected to manage as it would
need a dedicated person with resources to follow up with those involved and
collate all the information

I would see it as something done by the WMF either by their Wikimania team
or the media team given the WMF already do a fair portion now for
reporting, realising that it would  probably 6 months to year finish, even
then it wouldnt capture all the benefits which take even longer to
materialise. Once published the Wikimania wiki could be closed down.  The
audience is the community, as well as those looking to be involved in a
wikimania in the future also anyone that wants to see how international
events are organised and our donars.



On 22 October 2016 at 18:09, Lodewijk  wrote:

> Hey Gnagarra,
>
> (changing topics here as we're going on a tangent)
> in an attempt to avoid/limit additional work for organizers that are
> totally worn out at the end of a cycle:
> - What would be your intended use for such document/journal?
> - What would be the intended readership
> - Would you imagine volunteering to organize such journal, even if you're
> not on the organizing team? After all, anyone could collect such
> information together.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-10-22 12:06 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra :
>
>> It would be nice to see past events wrapped up into one journal covering
>> all aspects from original discussion until the final reporting of the event
>> including financials, attendee reports and media reports at the moment
>> everything is spread across chapter, foundation, event pages which means
>> lessons, pitfalls, successes, the work involved over time arent where
>> people can find easily
>>
>> On 22 October 2016 at 17:56, rupert THURNER 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> the points lodewijk mentioned with styles, and independent user groups
>>> working on it are quite valid points imo. additionally the purpose of a
>>> wiki is to collaborate on a purpose. if the purpose is gone, no wiki
>>> software is necessary. following that logic, one could argue to dump a past
>>> wikimania wiki into a static html page is best. search could be done via
>>> standard web search. if the wikis are not disturbing one could let them
>>> just sit where they are.
>>>
>>> rupert
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Lodewijk 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 The discussion has now been moved to https://meta.wikimedia.org/
 wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Wikimania_wikis apparently, where it will
 probably also get archived not too distant in the future. I hope someone
 will post a link here to that archive page.

 Lodewijk

 2016-10-22 11:07 GMT+02:00 Rehman Abubakr :

> (cross-posting to Wikimania-l and Wikimedia-l)
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> As earlier discussions on this topic received relatively little
> response from the community, I'm sending this email to let you know about
> the new topic posted at https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Meta:Babel#Wikimania_wikis, with regards to having a single
> unified Wikimania wiki.
>
> I have copied the original post below for ease of reading. Please post
> your comments on the meta page.
>
>
> **
>
> Hi. I was looking at Special:SiteMatrix
>  and couldn't
> help noticing the whopping 14 separate wikis (and growing) for all the
> different Wikimanias, including a separate wiki for a "Wikimania team". Is
> there any current plans of a more sustainable or streamlined approach to
> running these wikis?
>
> I am aware that this has been discussed a few times before, but no
> significant effort was put into it. Wikimania project domain
>  is the
> most significant discussion which I could find, but participation was 
> quite
> low on that, with no(?) WMF staff comments.
>
> From what I understand from the above linked discussion, some key
> points against a unified Wikimania wiki was that:
>
> 1. We will not be able to preserve old Wikimania wikis as a "time
> capsule"
> 2. Older Wikimania organizers may face new organizers "steamrolling"
> over their pages
> 3. Organizers will not have complete control over the site as old
> admins might interrupt for whatever reasons. (or vice versa)
>
> My though for these points was:
>
> 1. Why not have each Wikimania project branch their pages as
> wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016/Main page, or alternatively, have
> separate namespaces for each project (i.e. 2016:, 2017:, etc). We could
> then protect all pages under a project (i.e. 2016/ or 2016:) once a 
> project
> is over.
> 2. This could be avoided by protection, as stated above.