Bleh; the new list settings are CONFUSING! Reply forwarded below: On 26 August 2012 13:16, Thomas Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 August 2012 02:32, Edward Saperia <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ah, the downside of doing your work open and in public is that people see >> a half finished doodle of a budget and get overexcited and you come back to >> 45 emails in your inbox... >> > > Yes indeed; and it was posted to the worst list possible :( > > >> >> Yes, it's likely that the Wikimania 2014 London Bid Committee is going to >> be applying for a grant to help it put together a good bid, but we're still >> figuring out which roles are required and waiting for other inputs, so the >> numbers were really just placeholders for now. > > >> The deeper question I see here is - what sort of event does the community >> want Wikimania to be? It's a conference that is really beginning to come of >> age, and with this comes growing pains. From a 200 person glorified pubmeet >> it's become a five day long 1000+ person multi-track affair with all the >> attendant expectations on AV, travel logistics, social events, catering, >> multi-tiered accommodation... and unless it's not handled well, potentially >> a very frustrating experience for a lot of wikimedians who have invested >> their time and money travelling to take part. >> > > I've tried ot cover some of this on the CC's meeting page. I am just > heading out the door so this addition might be a bit rough... > > As I noted we need professionalism to cover infrastructure - the unseen > things that always get complained about when they don't quite work right > (although; professional approaches often fail here too - been to lots of > bigwig conferences where the wifi is cruddy). More than anything these > things need attention to detail (which is why hiring a media company or PCO > etc. is not a good approach). > > As we have a staff infrastructure in London as it is we should build upon > this to meet our organisational needs, it will be cheaper. > > >> With the correct facilitating software, a lot of people have been able to >> collaborate together to build a killer encyclopaedia. Similarly, a well >> designed conference can allow for positive interactions between a very >> large number of people. As the size increases, the complexity increases, >> the risk increases, and the cost increases - but so do the possible >> benefits. >> >> Let us be clear: running an event this size is not cheap. A Wikimania >> costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, and probably significantly more in a >> place like London. Tickets to your >> average<http://www.websummit.net/get-tickets/> >> tech <http://www.leweb.co/register/paris> >> event<http://www.ted.com/pages/tedglobal>of a similar size and scope would >> easily cost £1000+ per delegate, and in >> comparison a Wikimania is basically free. This means that we need to do a >> lot more work fundraising, which takes a lot of time and planning, and a >> chief concern of potential sponsors is whether the event will be delivered >> to a professional standard. We are finding that a lot of the groundwork for >> the event has to be laid well before the bid process even starts. Not to >> sound patronising, but event organisation is different to wiki editing; >> there are deadlines which must be met, and mistakes that cannot be reverted. > > >> So let us ask ourselves, why should the community spend so much donor >> money on Wikimania (bids)? What is Wikimania there to achieve? >> >> WMF's policy on grants: >> >>> Grant requests should support the achievement of Wikimedia's mission and >>> strategic priorities. We favor high impact requests over low impact >>> requests; try to break new ground, and to increase your group's capacity >>> for new programs and partnerships. >>> >> >> Holding such a conference is high impact, breaks new ground, and fosters >> links to local >> institutions<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_in_London>and >> builds relationships with sponsors >> and >> partners<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013_bids/London#Partner_Organisations>. >> It's fantastic for encouraging >> innovation<http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Encourage_Innovation>and >> with Jimmy >> on >> hand<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014_bids/London#Supporters>courting >> the press it should be great for increasing awareness >> and >> participation<http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Increase_Participation>too. >> It seems as good a thing to invest in as any - after all, if it didn't >> have community support, a thousand people probably wouldn't show up to it >> every year! >> >> > This is the one thing I've disagreed with on your approach so far. I've > not really said much because you are getting up and doing something, which > is more than anyone else. And not to be discouraged! > > But the focus of the event should be Wikipedians. Awareness and press is > nice, but we get a lot of that anyway - and we don't necessarily want it > focusing on US (i.e. the volunteers) rather than the project. > > (the one caveat to that is that I think we should pursue plans to hold big > "come edit Wikipedia" sessions during Wikimania for newbies etc. like > editathons/training on a MASSIVE scale). > > The other things you mention are cool, but secondary to providing a > friendly, safe, conference for Wikipedians to get together. > > Tom >
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
