Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Tim, do you think that this list of all the useful stuff that talk pages can currently includes things that aren't being done because they are too advanced for newbie editors or too inconvenient for veterans? Regardless, you make a strong argument for keeping a meta-document that spans threads and/or should be more persistent. A lot of this stuff seems indispensable to recording decisions and linking to stuff that backs them up, avoiding constant rehashing of issues. My concern is how such a documents could be tied to pertinent threads in the discussion oriented software. Maybe we could create anchors in such a document that could make it easier for the right sections to be displayed alongside threads that reference them in the UI. The concept of a meta document, which uses wikitext and is editable using VE, would alleviate a lot of the concerns about Flow. It would be relatively simple to change processes from using 'Talk:x' to using 'MetaDoc:x' (still a big migration task, but less problematic than going through process re-engineering for every Wikipedia process in 250+ projects with their own language). If that meta document also had a talk namespace (MetaDocTalk:x), which uses wikitext, the old-timers (and bots) will still have a place to hold discussions and post notes using wikitext if they wish to. -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow
On Thursday, September 11, 2014, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com javascript:; wrote: Tim, do you think that this list of all the useful stuff that talk pages can currently includes things that aren't being done because they are too advanced for newbie editors or too inconvenient for veterans? Regardless, you make a strong argument for keeping a meta-document that spans threads and/or should be more persistent. A lot of this stuff seems indispensable to recording decisions and linking to stuff that backs them up, avoiding constant rehashing of issues. My concern is how such a documents could be tied to pertinent threads in the discussion oriented software. Maybe we could create anchors in such a document that could make it easier for the right sections to be displayed alongside threads that reference them in the UI. The concept of a meta document, which uses wikitext and is editable using VE, would alleviate a lot of the concerns about Flow. It would be relatively simple to change processes from using 'Talk:x' to using 'MetaDoc:x' (still a big migration task, but less problematic than going through process re-engineering for every Wikipedia process in 250+ projects with their own language). If that meta document also had a talk namespace (MetaDocTalk:x), which uses wikitext, the old-timers (and bots) will still have a place to hold discussions and post notes using wikitext if they wish to. -- John Vandenberg +1, at least as transition mechanism. --Martijn ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow
Exactly what I was thinking. Doesn’t mean it would necessarily work, but you are not alone... Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tim Davenport Sent: 10 September 2014 11:12 PM To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow Having listened for the last week or two, here's what I'm getting as the WMF perspective as the three primary things attempting to be remedied with Flow: 1) Newcomers and casual contributors have a very hard time using wiki markup language and find it difficult to participate in talk pages. Flow will be more intuitive for them. 2) The rendition of talk page discussion threads on mobile devices is bad. With more people using mobile devices and fewer using laptops, this problem is only going to become worse over time. Flow will alleviate this problem. 3) Wikitext becomes a sprawling mess on large talk pages, leading to vast walls of tl;dr text a morass of unsearchable archives. Flow will better organize discussions. Is this a fair representation of the rationale behind Flow? Am I missing some main (as opposed to utopian and theoretical) rationale for the change? = Now here is a list of the things which talk pages currently do: 1) Mark articles as significant to various work projects and track the content grade for each. 2) Provides details and links for BLP and other policies related to the subject. 3) Records the history of each page with respect to Articles For Deletion challenges, Good Article peer review histories, etc. 4) Maintains a record of actual and potential Conflict of Interest declarations. 5) Registers reader comments about the content. 6) Provides a forum for editor debates over content, sometimes including large blocks of proposed or removed text and including at times binding RFCs over content and detailed merger discussions. 7) Accumulates requested edits for protected articles. In addition, User-talk pages: 8) Gather warning templates and notification messages about editing problems. 9) Serves as a de facto email system for communication between editors. My outside the box suggestion is this: it seems likely that at least some of the vital functions of talk pages are going to be crushed by Flow and the mass archiving that its adoption will entail. Perhaps it would be better for a new third page to be generated for each article: MAINSPACE PAGE (the article itself) ABOUT THIS PAGE (templates and permanent records including 1, 2, 3, 4 above) DISCUSS THIS PAGE (the actual talk page for discussion of content and requested edits) Bear in mind that I still have no confidence that Flow will be superior to wikitext in any but the most superficial ways. I do suggest, however, that some future permutation of this or some other new discussion format has a better chance of acceptance by the core volunteer community if it preserves many essential functions of talk pages unaltered. Tim Davenport Carrite on En-WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR (USA) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4015/8192 - Release Date: 09/11/14 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
Dear all, Wikimania has been over for a month now and it is already time to discuss the next Wikimedia event, the Wikimedia Conference. A year ago, for the very first time, the movement set up a selection process to choose the host of the conference, 4 chapters applied and WMDE was chosen to host the 2014 edition. Setting up this process has improved the planning of the Wikimedia Conference and it would be ideal to follow the same organization for next year’s event. Wikimedia CH did not participate last year, but expressed its willingness to host for the 2015 edition. As we are already in September and that the next Wikimedia conference should be held in May 2015, we believe that the selection process to choose the next hosting team should begin as soon as possible to obtain the best deals location wise and also to have the time to prepare the program. As a representative of a candidate who wishes to apply for the hosting of the 2015 edition, we would like to open this discussion and put upfront the suggestion to form: *a location committee, in charge of setting up the bidding process and to evaluate them **a program committee, in charge of setting up the conference program By keeping the smooth process established last year, we can address two important issues, having a cost efficient conference if planned well in advance, and having a content efficient conference with well defined SMART objectives ;-) I took the liberty to set-up a Wikimedia Conference 2015 page, as well as a bidding page in order to kick off those discussions. In the hopes of setting up a constructive and collaborative process, I wish you all a very good day. _ Anh CHUNG, Chief Administrative Officer Wikimedia CH – Association for the advancement of free knowledge – www.wikimedia.ch Office +41 21 340 66 20 Mobile +41 78 888 76 38 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On 11 September 2014 09:27, Anh Chung anh.chung.w...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, Wikimania has been over for a month now and it is already time to discuss the next Wikimedia event, the Wikimedia Conference. Though I'm sure the event is worthy, I will repeat yet again the request from the Wikimania Committee for people to please stop calling it the Wikimedia Conference when it isn't about Wikimedia, just some Wikimedia organisations, and isn't an open conference, against the ethos of Wikimedia. Wikimedia Associations Meeting 2015 is much less misleading, and closer to reality. J. -- James D. Forrester Chair, Wikimania Committee jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] (speaking purely in a personal capacity) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
I think Wikimedia Affiliates Meeting or Wikimedia Movement Affiliates Meeting would better match the wording used elsewhere. -greg ___ Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later. On Sep 11, 2014, at 12:42 PM, James Forrester jdforres...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 September 2014 09:27, Anh Chung anh.chung.w...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, Wikimania has been over for a month now and it is already time to discuss the next Wikimedia event, the Wikimedia Conference. Though I'm sure the event is worthy, I will repeat yet again the request from the Wikimania Committee for people to please stop calling it the Wikimedia Conference when it isn't about Wikimedia, just some Wikimedia organisations, and isn't an open conference, against the ethos of Wikimedia. Wikimedia Associations Meeting 2015 is much less misleading, and closer to reality. J. -- James D. Forrester Chair, Wikimania Committee jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] (speaking purely in a personal capacity) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On 11.09.2014 18:42, James Forrester wrote: On 11 September 2014 09:27, Anh Chung anh.chung.w...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, Wikimania has been over for a month now and it is already time to discuss the next Wikimedia event, the Wikimedia Conference. Though I'm sure the event is worthy, I will repeat yet again the request from the Wikimania Committee for people to please stop calling it the Wikimedia Conference when it isn't about Wikimedia, just some Wikimedia organisations, and isn't an open conference, against the ethos of Wikimedia. Wikimedia Associations Meeting 2015 is much less misleading, and closer to reality. J. Against the funds of WMF. A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania. In addition there are not represented some Wikimedia organisations but all Wikimedia organisations, including the affiliated groups. Until a discussion is not opened and it does not reach a clear majority, it is called Wikimedia Conference. Regards -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: Against the funds of WMF. A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania. In addition there are not represented some Wikimedia organisations but all Wikimedia organisations, including the affiliated groups. Until a discussion is not opened and it does not reach a clear majority, it is called Wikimedia Conference. Regards Wikimedia Affiliate Conference is obviously much more accurate and descriptive. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: On 11.09.2014 18:42, James Forrester wrote: On 11 September 2014 09:27, Anh Chung anh.chung.w...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, Wikimania has been over for a month now and it is already time to discuss the next Wikimedia event, the Wikimedia Conference. Though I'm sure the event is worthy, I will repeat yet again the request from the Wikimania Committee for people to please stop calling it the Wikimedia Conference when it isn't about Wikimedia, just some Wikimedia organisations, and isn't an open conference, against the ethos of Wikimedia. Wikimedia Associations Meeting 2015 is much less misleading, and closer to reality. Against the funds of WMF. A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania. Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a lie. J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] (speaking purely in a personal capacity) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
/me mumbles something about a bikeshed that has a beautiful shade of blue. 2014-09-11 20:06 GMT+02:00 James Forrester ja...@jdforrester.org: On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: On 11.09.2014 18:42, James Forrester wrote: On 11 September 2014 09:27, Anh Chung anh.chung.w...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, Wikimania has been over for a month now and it is already time to discuss the next Wikimedia event, the Wikimedia Conference. Though I'm sure the event is worthy, I will repeat yet again the request from the Wikimania Committee for people to please stop calling it the Wikimedia Conference when it isn't about Wikimedia, just some Wikimedia organisations, and isn't an open conference, against the ethos of Wikimedia. Wikimedia Associations Meeting 2015 is much less misleading, and closer to reality. Against the funds of WMF. A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania. Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a lie. J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] (speaking purely in a personal capacity) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On 11.09.2014 20:06, James Forrester wrote: On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: Against the funds of WMF. A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania. Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a lie. J. Considering it a lie is an extreme evaluation in my opinion. In Wikimedia conference there are chapters (~40) and user groups (~15). At the start it was called chapters conference, now it's called Wikimedia Conference because it's more open. In my opinion it's not a problem to call it again chapters conference. To participate it's sufficient to be representative of a group, not only of himself. Considering the principle of delegation, it may be considered a Wikimedia Conference. Regards -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On 11/09/14 18:42, Ilario Valdelli wrote: On 11.09.2014 20:06, James Forrester wrote: On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: Against the funds of WMF. A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania. Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a lie. J. Considering it a lie is an extreme evaluation in my opinion. In Wikimedia conference there are chapters (~40) and user groups (~15). At the start it was called chapters conference, now it's called Wikimedia Conference because it's more open. In my opinion it's not a problem to call it again chapters conference. To participate it's sufficient to be representative of a group, not only of himself. Considering the principle of delegation, it may be considered a Wikimedia Conference. Regards I'm part of the Wikimedia movement, but there are no chapters nearby, nor are there any user groups that I know of relevant to my interests as yet. Thus there is nobody to represent me but myself. If this is Wikimedia, why can't I go to a Wikimedia conference? -I ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On 11.09.2014 20:48, Isarra Yos wrote: I'm part of the Wikimedia movement, but there are no chapters nearby, nor are there any user groups that I know of relevant to my interests as yet. Thus there is nobody to represent me but myself. If this is Wikimedia, why can't I go to a Wikimedia conference? -I ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe You may create your own user group and participate. I suppose that all people participating in Wikimedia conference don't represent their own (personal) interests (or they should not). If you participate in a project it's not so hard to create an user group. All projects are based on collaboration of individuals, so it should be not hard to find other members sharing the same interests. Wikisource created its own, for instance, and they don't need a single chapter to represent their position. Regards -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
I'm with James and Isarra here. Only a small minority of Wikimedians are part of chapters and affiliated groups; being a member of an organized group has nothing to do with being a Wikimedian, or even directly with Wikimedia itself. This is an exclusionary conference - not only do you have to be a member of one of these groups (or otherwise receive an invitation based on role within the WMF structure or as a speaker) to attend, but the conference isn't even open to all members of those groups. Please do not call it the Wikimedia conference. It may be many things, but it's not that. Wikimedia Affiliates Conference will do fine. Risker/Anne On 11 September 2014 15:12, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: On 11.09.2014 20:48, Isarra Yos wrote: I'm part of the Wikimedia movement, but there are no chapters nearby, nor are there any user groups that I know of relevant to my interests as yet. Thus there is nobody to represent me but myself. If this is Wikimedia, why can't I go to a Wikimedia conference? -I ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe You may create your own user group and participate. I suppose that all people participating in Wikimedia conference don't represent their own (personal) interests (or they should not). If you participate in a project it's not so hard to create an user group. All projects are based on collaboration of individuals, so it should be not hard to find other members sharing the same interests. Wikisource created its own, for instance, and they don't need a single chapter to represent their position. Regards -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
AHEM it is *NOT* easy to create a user group, especially if a chapter is against it. Look at how long the Wiki Borregos application has been left in limbo by Aff Comm and Ive saved some real doozies of emails from several members of said committee. Just a small taste... one of the first objections they had to our application was that the term Borregos (ram in Spanish) was a trademark of the Tec de Monterrey... and we are a group of students and faculty from the same institution! Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:26:24 -0400 From: risker...@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015 I'm with James and Isarra here. Only a small minority of Wikimedians are part of chapters and affiliated groups; being a member of an organized group has nothing to do with being a Wikimedian, or even directly with Wikimedia itself. This is an exclusionary conference - not only do you have to be a member of one of these groups (or otherwise receive an invitation based on role within the WMF structure or as a speaker) to attend, but the conference isn't even open to all members of those groups. Please do not call it the Wikimedia conference. It may be many things, but it's not that. Wikimedia Affiliates Conference will do fine. Risker/Anne On 11 September 2014 15:12, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: On 11.09.2014 20:48, Isarra Yos wrote: I'm part of the Wikimedia movement, but there are no chapters nearby, nor are there any user groups that I know of relevant to my interests as yet. Thus there is nobody to represent me but myself. If this is Wikimedia, why can't I go to a Wikimedia conference? -I ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe You may create your own user group and participate. I suppose that all people participating in Wikimedia conference don't represent their own (personal) interests (or they should not). If you participate in a project it's not so hard to create an user group. All projects are based on collaboration of individuals, so it should be not hard to find other members sharing the same interests. Wikisource created its own, for instance, and they don't need a single chapter to represent their position. Regards -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
Since before planning gets underway is the perfect time to clarify the conference title, and Anh Chung was kind enough to create the pages, I've taken the liberty of moving them to [[Wikimedia Affiliates Conference 2015]]. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
I believe names and how we treat them both hold great power and tell a lot about the name-giver and power relationships. Wikimedia means different things to different people (possibly all valid), it is both the name for the concept of the different sister projects and their combined ethos forming a network or movement [which involves some people interested in Meta issues who have not been invited to the Wikimedia Conference, and many many people who have been], as well as the name for anything that comes under the substituent parts of the network (all the individual editors, photographers, etc.) and sets of these groups (and individuals can be members of Wikimedia under a multitude of ways often belonging to both groups at the same time). The Wikimedia Conference, nor Wikimania will ever be truly open to all people of the second group (also rightfully called Wikimedia), but it can aim to be representative of the first. Hundreds of volunteers have put their time into building up the Wikimedia Conference idea and brand, and taking it away just because they have yet to achieve 100% success on one difficult to define metric seems ill-advised. I don't think taking away the name of the conference by trying to box it into overspecification (by way of adding extra words) would be the right direction: it sends the wrong message to the Wikimedians (who happened to be chapter members at one time or another) who have built up the event for the past 5-6 years as if they are not eligible to conduct activities under the Wikimedia name unless they invite absolutely everyone, and it opens the door for lazyness (if you call it the Affiliates Conference, don't complain if non-affiliates are not invited, whereas if you call it the Wikimedia Conference that will keep the organisers and participants accountable to making it more representative). Just as background, the conference has over the years and almost from the start went beyond chapters: first the WMF Board and staff, Chapters Committee members (including people who were not a member of any actual chapter at the time), then the movement roles discussion group was invited, followed by user groups, AffCom (still having members not part of any affiliate at the time) and thorgs, as well as the FDC (again, with members who are not members in any affiliate) were invited with some side meetings that had wider participation. It is no longer tied to just the affiliate organisations but simply to the governance and Wikimedians active offline [as well as online] side of the movement (people falling under one of the interpretations of Wikimedia). Last year I made the proposal to some of the organisers to think about opening a certain number of places for volunteers dedicated to the future of the movement, strategic and governance issues to be able to freely attend, to better live up to the name and the valid concern that tying participation to organisational roles leaves some people out that should be included. I could see that happening for the 2015 conference if the organisers work out the details, but even in that case I don't see the conference as being attractive to 80 thousand editors and that is perfectly fine. In any case, renaming the conference without the consent of the pool of participants (which might be given, after all the Conference had a different name in the first years) seems like a move out of power that belittles the work of the people involved. (And I think this is valid statement, even considering the valid anguish of all the brilliant volunteers who could not attend in previous years - this change has to come from the organisers to be real.) Best regards, Bence (Personal view, though I was lucky to organise the 2011 conference and participate in various roles in others; I don't at the moment hold any position serving as an entry ticket to the 2015 event, though I am considering paying my way if the conference opens up places) On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/09/14 18:42, Ilario Valdelli wrote: On 11.09.2014 20:06, James Forrester wrote: On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: Against the funds of WMF. A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania. Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a lie. J. Considering it a lie is an extreme evaluation in my opinion. In Wikimedia conference there are chapters (~40) and user groups (~15). At the start it was called chapters conference, now it's called Wikimedia Conference because it's more open. In my opinion it's not a problem to call it again chapters conference. To participate it's sufficient to be representative of a group, not only of himself. Considering the principle of delegation, it may be considered a Wikimedia Conference. Regards I'm part of the Wikimedia movement,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
Hi Bence, We strive not to be bound by bureaucracy, don't we? If we discover that a simple name (as generic as Wikimedia Conference) is slightly misleading, or not completely accurate, then why should we avoid changing it? Particularly as it appears that no process has begun to plan the next coming conference? If a group of people in New England USA (my geographic area) got together, perhaps with some of the chapters in the Eastern US, and created an event... We would not call it Wikimedia Conference, even though we would have as much right to that name as the affiliate conference. That would be confusing, and misleading. So at a moment when there is no cost to the change, no chance of further confusion, and before resources are invested in this name for the next cycle... This is the perfect opportunity to address what is, you must admit, a minor concern easily solved. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: I believe names and how we treat them both hold great power and tell a lot about the name-giver and power relationships. Wikimedia means different things to different people (possibly all valid), it is both the name for the concept of the different sister projects and their combined ethos forming a network or movement [which involves some people interested in Meta issues who have not been invited to the Wikimedia Conference, and many many people who have been], as well as the name for anything that comes under the substituent parts of the network (all the individual editors, photographers, etc.) and sets of these groups (and individuals can be members of Wikimedia under a multitude of ways often belonging to both groups at the same time). The Wikimedia Conference, nor Wikimania will ever be truly open to all people of the second group (also rightfully called Wikimedia), but it can aim to be representative of the first. Hundreds of volunteers have put their time into building up the Wikimedia Conference idea and brand, and taking it away just because they have yet to achieve 100% success on one difficult to define metric seems ill-advised. I don't think taking away the name of the conference by trying to box it into overspecification (by way of adding extra words) would be the right direction: it sends the wrong message to the Wikimedians (who happened to be chapter members at one time or another) who have built up the event for the past 5-6 years as if they are not eligible to conduct activities under the Wikimedia name unless they invite absolutely everyone, and it opens the door for lazyness (if you call it the Affiliates Conference, don't complain if non-affiliates are not invited, whereas if you call it the Wikimedia Conference that will keep the organisers and participants accountable to making it more representative). Just as background, the conference has over the years and almost from the start went beyond chapters: first the WMF Board and staff, Chapters Committee members (including people who were not a member of any actual chapter at the time), then the movement roles discussion group was invited, followed by user groups, AffCom (still having members not part of any affiliate at the time) and thorgs, as well as the FDC (again, with members who are not members in any affiliate) were invited with some side meetings that had wider participation. It is no longer tied to just the affiliate organisations but simply to the governance and Wikimedians active offline [as well as online] side of the movement (people falling under one of the interpretations of Wikimedia). Last year I made the proposal to some of the organisers to think about opening a certain number of places for volunteers dedicated to the future of the movement, strategic and governance issues to be able to freely attend, to better live up to the name and the valid concern that tying participation to organisational roles leaves some people out that should be included. I could see that happening for the 2015 conference if the organisers work out the details, but even in that case I don't see the conference as being attractive to 80 thousand editors and that is perfectly fine. In any case, renaming the conference without the consent of the pool of participants (which might be given, after all the Conference had a different name in the first years) seems like a move out of power that belittles the work of the people involved. (And I think this is valid statement, even considering the valid anguish of all the brilliant volunteers who could not attend in previous years - this change has to come from the organisers to be real.) Best regards, Bence (Personal view, though I was lucky to organise the 2011 conference and participate in various roles in others; I don't at the moment hold any position serving as an entry ticket to the 2015 event, though I am considering paying my way if the conference opens up places) On Thu, Sep 11,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
The name could be changed if the participants/organisers want to change it. As I tried to point out, I don't see the name as the underlying problem people really have, and changing it will not solve the problem of exclusion people see. We can make a conference that has a participants list that involves people that *should *or at least the people that really *want* to be there, we can also rename the conference for the people that *are *currently there and forget about those that want and should be there. I'd rather focus on the former. Regardless, I do feel an emotional connection to the name and I expect many people that have participated or organised it might feel this and I appreciate that those who have not been there can see it as a minor thing that can be changed without any cost. It might not be perfect, but it does have history and I do contend that the people that first started using it are Wikimedia, and they should not feel guilty about having come up with the idea first. Indeed, at this time, resources have been invested into the name and confusion is ebbing around the Wikimedia Conference name due to the years of history behind it. But in closing, I will once again point to my statements that names are symbolic and they can be changed. If the participants change the name that sends a totally different vibe than if the change is imposed on the participants, even if the end result is the same new name. Best regards, Bence On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Bence, We strive not to be bound by bureaucracy, don't we? If we discover that a simple name (as generic as Wikimedia Conference) is slightly misleading, or not completely accurate, then why should we avoid changing it? Particularly as it appears that no process has begun to plan the next coming conference? If a group of people in New England USA (my geographic area) got together, perhaps with some of the chapters in the Eastern US, and created an event... We would not call it Wikimedia Conference, even though we would have as much right to that name as the affiliate conference. That would be confusing, and misleading. So at a moment when there is no cost to the change, no chance of further confusion, and before resources are invested in this name for the next cycle... This is the perfect opportunity to address what is, you must admit, a minor concern easily solved. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: I believe names and how we treat them both hold great power and tell a lot about the name-giver and power relationships. Wikimedia means different things to different people (possibly all valid), it is both the name for the concept of the different sister projects and their combined ethos forming a network or movement [which involves some people interested in Meta issues who have not been invited to the Wikimedia Conference, and many many people who have been], as well as the name for anything that comes under the substituent parts of the network (all the individual editors, photographers, etc.) and sets of these groups (and individuals can be members of Wikimedia under a multitude of ways often belonging to both groups at the same time). The Wikimedia Conference, nor Wikimania will ever be truly open to all people of the second group (also rightfully called Wikimedia), but it can aim to be representative of the first. Hundreds of volunteers have put their time into building up the Wikimedia Conference idea and brand, and taking it away just because they have yet to achieve 100% success on one difficult to define metric seems ill-advised. I don't think taking away the name of the conference by trying to box it into overspecification (by way of adding extra words) would be the right direction: it sends the wrong message to the Wikimedians (who happened to be chapter members at one time or another) who have built up the event for the past 5-6 years as if they are not eligible to conduct activities under the Wikimedia name unless they invite absolutely everyone, and it opens the door for lazyness (if you call it the Affiliates Conference, don't complain if non-affiliates are not invited, whereas if you call it the Wikimedia Conference that will keep the organisers and participants accountable to making it more representative). Just as background, the conference has over the years and almost from the start went beyond chapters: first the WMF Board and staff, Chapters Committee members (including people who were not a member of any actual chapter at the time), then the movement roles discussion group was invited, followed by user groups, AffCom (still having members not part of any affiliate at the time) and thorgs, as well as the FDC (again, with members who are not members in any affiliate) were invited with some side meetings that had wider participation. It
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On 11.09.2014 21:26, Risker wrote: Please do not call it the Wikimedia conference. It may be many things, but it's not that. Wikimedia Affiliates Conference will do fine. Risker/Anne I think that the misunderstanding is here. This is not the Wikimedia Conference, this is one of several wikimedia/wikipedia conference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiCon (it's a limited example). I think that the idea that this is the wikimedia conference is in the head of someone. Calling it wikicon, or wikiconference, or wikimedia conference change a little bit. No one can have another Wikimania, but all people can have their own Wikimedia Conference/Wikicon/Wikiconference. So the change of the name in Wikimedia Affiliations conference is an imposition of few people to use a name that belongs to no one, neither to affiliated members nor to individual wiki(p/m)edians. Regards -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: The name could be changed if the participants/organisers want to change it. As I tried to point out, I don't see the name as the underlying problem people really have, and changing it will not solve the problem of exclusion people see. We can make a conference that has a participants list that involves people that *should *or at least the people that really *want* to be there, we can also rename the conference for the people that *are *currently there and forget about those that want and should be there. I'd rather focus on the former. Regardless, I do feel an emotional connection to the name and I expect many people that have participated or organised it might feel this and I appreciate that those who have not been there can see it as a minor thing that can be changed without any cost. It might not be perfect, but it does have history and I do contend that the people that first started using it are Wikimedia, and they should not feel guilty about having come up with the idea first. Indeed, at this time, resources have been invested into the name and confusion is ebbing around the Wikimedia Conference name due to the years of history behind it. But in closing, I will once again point to my statements that names are symbolic and they can be changed. If the participants change the name that sends a totally different vibe than if the change is imposed on the participants, even if the end result is the same new name. Best regards, Bence If the as-yet undetermined organizers choose to name it Wikimedia Conference, then I suppose no one will act to force them to stop. But we are Wikimedia as much as the organizers and participants are, as much as hundreds of thousands of volunteers are. In a Wikimedia Conference you might expect it to be open to those Wikimedians. With a narrower theme of governance, I doubt the prediction of it morphing into a second Wikimania would come true. And while I accept your assertion that the name has history and meaning to those who have participated there, I remain skeptical at the power the name holds for you and others. It is, as you'll agree, a fairly generic name. And less than a handful of events over as many years does not a venerable tradition make. So I would hope that the organizers, whoever they turn out to be, will make the simple gesture of adding a single word to the name of the event. It is still Wikimedia; it's just aimed at affiliates, those who organize and have attended the event up through now. Indeed, the conference of affiliates that you've attended in the past is valuable and worthy. I'd suggest you allow others interested to attend if resources permit, but I wouldn't ask you to fundamentally alter the nature of the event. Merely make it clear whom you represent, so that others don't feel you claim to represent them when you do not -- as Ilario seemed to with his principle of delegation comment. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On 11.09.2014 22:27, Nathan wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: But in closing, I will once again point to my statements that names are symbolic and they can be changed. If the participants change the name that sends a totally different vibe than if the change is imposed on the participants, even if the end result is the same new name. Best regards, Bence Indeed, the conference of affiliates that you've attended in the past is valuable and worthy. I'd suggest you allow others interested to attend if resources permit, but I wouldn't ask you to fundamentally alter the nature of the event. Merely make it clear whom you represent, so that others don't feel you claim to represent them when you do not -- as Ilario seemed to with his principle of delegation comment. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe It's different. The question to limit participants is more an organizational question than a need to close the access. Personally I supported a lot the idea to have regional or thematic Wikimedia conferences. The affiliated groups uses the name Wikimedia Conference but this name doesn't belong to them and they don't require that it must be unique. Naturally if they decide for the name Wikimedia Affililiatons Conference they must have the right to ask that no one will use the same name in organizing a conference. Regards -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
I can see that people who are (also/only/additionally) part of different interpretations of the word Wikimedia might feel excluded by the use of the name by a subset of people who also make up a valid constellation under the name Wikimedia. I cannot tell if this feeling involves the small number of posters on this list or is a wider feeling. Similarly, I can only speak for my own opinion. Changing the name going forward could alleviate those feelings and I am not opposed to such a decision by the participants. Nevertheless, I still claim that the conference needs to continue to be improved rather than renamed (as the latter will unlikely to solve wider issues about the questions of who makes certain decisions and where important discussions are had in the movement), and I tend to agree with Ilario that the Wikimedia Conference X does not necessarily have to be exclusively used for this conference. Best regards, Bence ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
Is this really a discussion about the name of a conference or is it more a discussion about inclusion and exclusion with the underlying question if this conference, which once was set up as a meeting for the organizations within the Wikimedia movement, should be open for non-organized Wikimedians as well. Which would probably be a different conference. Alice. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: The name could be changed if the participants/organisers want to change it. As I tried to point out, I don't see the name as the underlying problem people really have, and changing it will not solve the problem of exclusion people see. We can make a conference that has a participants list that involves people that *should *or at least the people that really *want* to be there, we can also rename the conference for the people that *are *currently there and forget about those that want and should be there. I'd rather focus on the former. Regardless, I do feel an emotional connection to the name and I expect many people that have participated or organised it might feel this and I appreciate that those who have not been there can see it as a minor thing that can be changed without any cost. It might not be perfect, but it does have history and I do contend that the people that first started using it are Wikimedia, and they should not feel guilty about having come up with the idea first. Indeed, at this time, resources have been invested into the name and confusion is ebbing around the Wikimedia Conference name due to the years of history behind it. But in closing, I will once again point to my statements that names are symbolic and they can be changed. If the participants change the name that sends a totally different vibe than if the change is imposed on the participants, even if the end result is the same new name. Best regards, Bence If the as-yet undetermined organizers choose to name it Wikimedia Conference, then I suppose no one will act to force them to stop. But we are Wikimedia as much as the organizers and participants are, as much as hundreds of thousands of volunteers are. In a Wikimedia Conference you might expect it to be open to those Wikimedians. With a narrower theme of governance, I doubt the prediction of it morphing into a second Wikimania would come true. And while I accept your assertion that the name has history and meaning to those who have participated there, I remain skeptical at the power the name holds for you and others. It is, as you'll agree, a fairly generic name. And less than a handful of events over as many years does not a venerable tradition make. So I would hope that the organizers, whoever they turn out to be, will make the simple gesture of adding a single word to the name of the event. It is still Wikimedia; it's just aimed at affiliates, those who organize and have attended the event up through now. Indeed, the conference of affiliates that you've attended in the past is valuable and worthy. I'd suggest you allow others interested to attend if resources permit, but I wouldn't ask you to fundamentally alter the nature of the event. Merely make it clear whom you represent, so that others don't feel you claim to represent them when you do not -- as Ilario seemed to with his principle of delegation comment. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
There is no reason to change the name, and no reason to invent a second Wikimania. Also because of finances, the Spring meeting should be really limited to people who make the movement work better. I repeat that, in my opinion, some newer or smaller organisations don't fit really in, or should not be represented with as many people as an older or larger organisation. For newcomers I could imagine regional meetings with a special focus to their needs. It is certainly possible to improve the meeting by some better planning. For a jolly Let's come all together and have a nice chat about anything it is just too expensive... Kind regards Ziko Am Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 schrieb Alice Wiegand : Is this really a discussion about the name of a conference or is it more a discussion about inclusion and exclusion with the underlying question if this conference, which once was set up as a meeting for the organizations within the Wikimedia movement, should be open for non-organized Wikimedians as well. Which would probably be a different conference. Alice. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: The name could be changed if the participants/organisers want to change it. As I tried to point out, I don't see the name as the underlying problem people really have, and changing it will not solve the problem of exclusion people see. We can make a conference that has a participants list that involves people that *should *or at least the people that really *want* to be there, we can also rename the conference for the people that *are *currently there and forget about those that want and should be there. I'd rather focus on the former. Regardless, I do feel an emotional connection to the name and I expect many people that have participated or organised it might feel this and I appreciate that those who have not been there can see it as a minor thing that can be changed without any cost. It might not be perfect, but it does have history and I do contend that the people that first started using it are Wikimedia, and they should not feel guilty about having come up with the idea first. Indeed, at this time, resources have been invested into the name and confusion is ebbing around the Wikimedia Conference name due to the years of history behind it. But in closing, I will once again point to my statements that names are symbolic and they can be changed. If the participants change the name that sends a totally different vibe than if the change is imposed on the participants, even if the end result is the same new name. Best regards, Bence If the as-yet undetermined organizers choose to name it Wikimedia Conference, then I suppose no one will act to force them to stop. But we are Wikimedia as much as the organizers and participants are, as much as hundreds of thousands of volunteers are. In a Wikimedia Conference you might expect it to be open to those Wikimedians. With a narrower theme of governance, I doubt the prediction of it morphing into a second Wikimania would come true. And while I accept your assertion that the name has history and meaning to those who have participated there, I remain skeptical at the power the name holds for you and others. It is, as you'll agree, a fairly generic name. And less than a handful of events over as many years does not a venerable tradition make. So I would hope that the organizers, whoever they turn out to be, will make the simple gesture of adding a single word to the name of the event. It is still Wikimedia; it's just aimed at affiliates, those who organize and have attended the event up through now. Indeed, the conference of affiliates that you've attended in the past is valuable and worthy. I'd suggest you allow others interested to attend if resources permit, but I wouldn't ask you to fundamentally alter the nature of the event. Merely make it clear whom you represent, so that others don't feel you claim to represent them when you do not -- as Ilario seemed to with his principle of delegation comment. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
If it is to be limited to certain people, why not just have a pre conference with Wikimania? Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 23:36:36 +0200 From: zvand...@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015 There is no reason to change the name, and no reason to invent a second Wikimania. Also because of finances, the Spring meeting should be really limited to people who make the movement work better. I repeat that, in my opinion, some newer or smaller organisations don't fit really in, or should not be represented with as many people as an older or larger organisation. For newcomers I could imagine regional meetings with a special focus to their needs. It is certainly possible to improve the meeting by some better planning. For a jolly Let's come all together and have a nice chat about anything it is just too expensive... Kind regards Ziko Am Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 schrieb Alice Wiegand : Is this really a discussion about the name of a conference or is it more a discussion about inclusion and exclusion with the underlying question if this conference, which once was set up as a meeting for the organizations within the Wikimedia movement, should be open for non-organized Wikimedians as well. Which would probably be a different conference. Alice. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: The name could be changed if the participants/organisers want to change it. As I tried to point out, I don't see the name as the underlying problem people really have, and changing it will not solve the problem of exclusion people see. We can make a conference that has a participants list that involves people that *should *or at least the people that really *want* to be there, we can also rename the conference for the people that *are *currently there and forget about those that want and should be there. I'd rather focus on the former. Regardless, I do feel an emotional connection to the name and I expect many people that have participated or organised it might feel this and I appreciate that those who have not been there can see it as a minor thing that can be changed without any cost. It might not be perfect, but it does have history and I do contend that the people that first started using it are Wikimedia, and they should not feel guilty about having come up with the idea first. Indeed, at this time, resources have been invested into the name and confusion is ebbing around the Wikimedia Conference name due to the years of history behind it. But in closing, I will once again point to my statements that names are symbolic and they can be changed. If the participants change the name that sends a totally different vibe than if the change is imposed on the participants, even if the end result is the same new name. Best regards, Bence If the as-yet undetermined organizers choose to name it Wikimedia Conference, then I suppose no one will act to force them to stop. But we are Wikimedia as much as the organizers and participants are, as much as hundreds of thousands of volunteers are. In a Wikimedia Conference you might expect it to be open to those Wikimedians. With a narrower theme of governance, I doubt the prediction of it morphing into a second Wikimania would come true. And while I accept your assertion that the name has history and meaning to those who have participated there, I remain skeptical at the power the name holds for you and others. It is, as you'll agree, a fairly generic name. And less than a handful of events over as many years does not a venerable tradition make. So I would hope that the organizers, whoever they turn out to be, will make the simple gesture of adding a single word to the name of the event. It is still Wikimedia; it's just aimed at affiliates, those who organize and have attended the event up through now. Indeed, the conference of affiliates that you've attended in the past is valuable and worthy. I'd suggest you allow others interested to attend if resources permit, but I wouldn't ask you to fundamentally alter the nature of the event. Merely make it clear whom you represent, so that others don't feel you claim to represent them when you do not -- as Ilario seemed to with his principle of delegation comment. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Alice Wiegand me.ly...@gmail.com wrote: Is this really a discussion about the name of a conference or is it more a discussion about inclusion and exclusion with the underlying question if this conference, which once was set up as a meeting for the organizations within the Wikimedia movement, should be open for non-organized Wikimedians as well. Which would probably be a different conference. I think this discussion is both. But the immediate, acute, and solvable problem (the inaccurate name of the conference) should not be ignored, just because there *might* be a larger, hazier problem that will not be solved today or tomorrow. Some progress is better than no progress. Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the conference, but I find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that assessment, but clearly some others in this thread do. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On 11/09/14 22:06, Pete Forsyth wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Alice Wiegand me.ly...@gmail.com wrote: Is this really a discussion about the name of a conference or is it more a discussion about inclusion and exclusion with the underlying question if this conference, which once was set up as a meeting for the organizations within the Wikimedia movement, should be open for non-organized Wikimedians as well. Which would probably be a different conference. I think this discussion is both. But the immediate, acute, and solvable problem (the inaccurate name of the conference) should not be ignored, just because there *might* be a larger, hazier problem that will not be solved today or tomorrow. Some progress is better than no progress. Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the conference, but I find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that assessment, but clearly some others in this thread do. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] What Pete said. We could go into issues with the exclusionary nature itself, such as that it would exclude representatives of groups who ran into trouble becoming official - despite such a conference likely being one of the best venues for them to bring up and discuss with relevant others how to actually address or resolve that trouble that excluded them in the first place... ...but that sort of thing is much harder to resolve/address. The name, at least, is simple, and should also make a lot of the other problems less glaring in the process. -I ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/09/14 22:06, Pete Forsyth wrote: Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the conference, but I find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that assessment, but clearly some others in this thread do. What Pete said. We could go into issues with the exclusionary nature itself, such as that it would exclude representatives of groups who ran into trouble becoming official - despite such a conference likely being one of the best venues for them to bring up and discuss with relevant others how to actually address or resolve that trouble that excluded them in the first place... ...but that sort of thing is much harder to resolve/address. The name, at least, is simple, and should also make a lot of the other problems less glaring in the process. Assuming the issue of the name is the sticking point ... What about the Wikimedia Meta-Conference? Or Meta-Wikimedia Conference? Or MetaWiki Conference? It's more about the organisations in the background than keep the movement going. It doesn't seem (from my second-hand knowledge of the event) that a regular editor would get a lot out of it? Regards, Charles (User:Chuq) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
I personally prefer silver unpainted bikesheds. That way, they don't need constant repainting. Perhaps it would be best to decide the program. Or indeed something else about it. Targets. Audience. Anything. Our conference baby will indeed need a name, and a name is important, but let's have a pregnancy first. This thread could do with refocusing :-) On 11 Sep 2014 19:28, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: /me mumbles something about a bikeshed that has a beautiful shade of blue. 2014-09-11 20:06 GMT+02:00 James Forrester ja...@jdforrester.org: On 11 September 2014 10:52, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: On 11.09.2014 18:42, James Forrester wrote: On 11 September 2014 09:27, Anh Chung anh.chung.w...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, Wikimania has been over for a month now and it is already time to discuss the next Wikimedia event, the Wikimedia Conference. Though I'm sure the event is worthy, I will repeat yet again the request from the Wikimania Committee for people to please stop calling it the Wikimedia Conference when it isn't about Wikimedia, just some Wikimedia organisations, and isn't an open conference, against the ethos of Wikimedia. Wikimedia Associations Meeting 2015 is much less misleading, and closer to reality. Against the funds of WMF. A second conference open to the public would be a second yearly Wikimania, and to open it means to have a budget more or less equal to Wikimania. Indeed, which is why we keep asking for the name to stop being a lie. J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] (speaking purely in a personal capacity) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On 11 September 2014 19:19, Charles Gregory wmau.li...@chuq.net wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/09/14 22:06, Pete Forsyth wrote: Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the conference, but I find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that assessment, but clearly some others in this thread do. What Pete said. We could go into issues with the exclusionary nature itself, such as that it would exclude representatives of groups who ran into trouble becoming official - despite such a conference likely being one of the best venues for them to bring up and discuss with relevant others how to actually address or resolve that trouble that excluded them in the first place... ...but that sort of thing is much harder to resolve/address. The name, at least, is simple, and should also make a lot of the other problems less glaring in the process. Assuming the issue of the name is the sticking point ... What about the Wikimedia Meta-Conference? Or Meta-Wikimedia Conference? Or MetaWiki Conference? It's more about the organisations in the background than keep the movement going. It doesn't seem (from my second-hand knowledge of the event) that a regular editor would get a lot out of it? Regards, This is the same problem. It's usurping the Wikimedia name, and this proposal also usurps the Meta (all communities communication forum) name. It is neither for Wikimedia (as a whole) nor for Meta. It's for designated members of affiliates/chapters. It's okay for it to be what it is. But let's call it what it is. It's not about the colour of the bikeshed. It's about calling a bikeshed a community centre. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
But we don't even have a bikeshed or a community centre yet :-P On 12 Sep 2014 00:52, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 September 2014 19:19, Charles Gregory wmau.li...@chuq.net wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/09/14 22:06, Pete Forsyth wrote: Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the conference, but I find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that assessment, but clearly some others in this thread do. What Pete said. We could go into issues with the exclusionary nature itself, such as that it would exclude representatives of groups who ran into trouble becoming official - despite such a conference likely being one of the best venues for them to bring up and discuss with relevant others how to actually address or resolve that trouble that excluded them in the first place... ...but that sort of thing is much harder to resolve/address. The name, at least, is simple, and should also make a lot of the other problems less glaring in the process. Assuming the issue of the name is the sticking point ... What about the Wikimedia Meta-Conference? Or Meta-Wikimedia Conference? Or MetaWiki Conference? It's more about the organisations in the background than keep the movement going. It doesn't seem (from my second-hand knowledge of the event) that a regular editor would get a lot out of it? Regards, This is the same problem. It's usurping the Wikimedia name, and this proposal also usurps the Meta (all communities communication forum) name. It is neither for Wikimedia (as a whole) nor for Meta. It's for designated members of affiliates/chapters. It's okay for it to be what it is. But let's call it what it is. It's not about the colour of the bikeshed. It's about calling a bikeshed a community centre. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
We do have a community centre. It's called Meta. It may not be a very elegant one, and there are definitely parts that can be improved, but it's our virtual community centre. Risker/Anne On 11 September 2014 19:54, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: But we don't even have a bikeshed or a community centre yet :-P On 12 Sep 2014 00:52, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 September 2014 19:19, Charles Gregory wmau.li...@chuq.net wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/09/14 22:06, Pete Forsyth wrote: Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the conference, but I find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that assessment, but clearly some others in this thread do. What Pete said. We could go into issues with the exclusionary nature itself, such as that it would exclude representatives of groups who ran into trouble becoming official - despite such a conference likely being one of the best venues for them to bring up and discuss with relevant others how to actually address or resolve that trouble that excluded them in the first place... ...but that sort of thing is much harder to resolve/address. The name, at least, is simple, and should also make a lot of the other problems less glaring in the process. Assuming the issue of the name is the sticking point ... What about the Wikimedia Meta-Conference? Or Meta-Wikimedia Conference? Or MetaWiki Conference? It's more about the organisations in the background than keep the movement going. It doesn't seem (from my second-hand knowledge of the event) that a regular editor would get a lot out of it? Regards, This is the same problem. It's usurping the Wikimedia name, and this proposal also usurps the Meta (all communities communication forum) name. It is neither for Wikimedia (as a whole) nor for Meta. It's for designated members of affiliates/chapters. It's okay for it to be what it is. But let's call it what it is. It's not about the colour of the bikeshed. It's about calling a bikeshed a community centre. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the name. On 12 Sep 2014 00:57, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: We do have a community centre. It's called Meta. It may not be a very elegant one, and there are definitely parts that can be improved, but it's our virtual community centre. Risker/Anne On 11 September 2014 19:54, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: But we don't even have a bikeshed or a community centre yet :-P On 12 Sep 2014 00:52, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 September 2014 19:19, Charles Gregory wmau.li...@chuq.net wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/09/14 22:06, Pete Forsyth wrote: Personally, I have no problem with the existence of the conference, but I find its name alienating. Not everyone agrees with that assessment, but clearly some others in this thread do. What Pete said. We could go into issues with the exclusionary nature itself, such as that it would exclude representatives of groups who ran into trouble becoming official - despite such a conference likely being one of the best venues for them to bring up and discuss with relevant others how to actually address or resolve that trouble that excluded them in the first place... ...but that sort of thing is much harder to resolve/address. The name, at least, is simple, and should also make a lot of the other problems less glaring in the process. Assuming the issue of the name is the sticking point ... What about the Wikimedia Meta-Conference? Or Meta-Wikimedia Conference? Or MetaWiki Conference? It's more about the organisations in the background than keep the movement going. It doesn't seem (from my second-hand knowledge of the event) that a regular editor would get a lot out of it? Regards, This is the same problem. It's usurping the Wikimedia name, and this proposal also usurps the Meta (all communities communication forum) name. It is neither for Wikimedia (as a whole) nor for Meta. It's for designated members of affiliates/chapters. It's okay for it to be what it is. But let's call it what it is. It's not about the colour of the bikeshed. It's about calling a bikeshed a community centre. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the name. But, most of the people on this list wouldn't have anything to do with this conference -- surely there's a better resource for conference-planning. The thing most of us have a stake in is the name of the conference, and -- perhaps -- nothing more. Pete ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
I like the idea of having this event be a pre-conference for Wikimania. That may reduce total travel costs and travel time for the people who usually attend both events. This may also simplify planning for people and thorgs. Pine On Sep 11, 2014 5:25 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the name. But, most of the people on this list wouldn't have anything to do with this conference -- surely there's a better resource for conference-planning. The thing most of us have a stake in is the name of the conference, and -- perhaps -- nothing more. Pete ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
... 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) On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the name. On 12 Sep 2014 00:57, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: We do have a community centre. It's called Meta. It may not be a very elegant one, and there are definitely parts that can be improved, but it's our virtual community centre. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
An editor has moved the pages back, for anyone interested. Amusingly illogical rationale in the edit summary, but what can you do. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
On 11 September 2014 22:07, Charles Gregory wmau.li...@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 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives
Minutes and slides from last week's quarterly review of the Foundation's Release Engineering and QA team are now available at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Release_Engineering/September_2014 . On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi folks, to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process, starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the Board [1]: - Visual Editor - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero) - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams) - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity I'm proposing the following initial schedule: January: - Editor Engagement Experiments February: - Visual Editor - Mobile (Contribs + Zero) March: - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects) - Funds Dissemination Committee We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on their recent progress, which will help set some context that would otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will also create open opportunities for feedback and questions. My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here which we can use to discuss the concept further: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews The internal review will, at minimum, include: Sue Gardner myself Howie Fung Team members and relevant director(s) Designated minute-taker So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker. I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks: - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter, compared with goals - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would? - Review of challenges, blockers and successes - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other action items - Buffer time, debriefing Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world. In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in engineering. As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can help inform and support reviews across the organization. Feedback and questions are appreciated. All best, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015
So basically you're arguing that if people want to have a more sensible discussion about the who, what where, they should use a closed mailing list? Like it was done in the past? Fine with me. Please continue the discussion about the color, but it would be more effective to have started a separate thread about it than hijack this one which had some serious time-sensitive and open questions. And yes, discussing whether we should discuss the color of the bikeshed is distracting too. I suggest we use 'the Oompa Loompa discussion meeting' and be done with it. Best, Lodewijk 2014-09-12 2:25 GMT+02:00 Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com: On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the name. But, most of the people on this list wouldn't have anything to do with this conference -- surely there's a better resource for conference-planning. The thing most of us have a stake in is the name of the conference, and -- perhaps -- nothing more. Pete ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
