Jump to content

Grants talk:IdeaLab/Towards a New Wikimania/Outcomes

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following Wikimedia Foundation staff monitor this page:

In order to notify them, please link their username when posting a message.

Towards European Wikimania?[edit]

While it is quite strange to see every other Wikimania cancelled by only 8 votes, I think that there is one extremely likely but quite unfortunate consequence of this decision. There is only one region that never tried to organise a regional conference and this region is Western Europe, as all other regions (Eastern Europe, North and Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Southeast Asia and Australia) already organised or tried to organise their regional conferences. Western Europe never did, as historically Wikimania served as a regional conference for Western Europe. Promoting regional conferences in years without Wikimania would most likely lead to a regional Western European conference. Such conference can be way more accessible for most Europeans than a Wikimania in Asia or Americas and it can even make an impact similar to that of Wikimania (just because in almost any group from stewards to GLAM volunteers Europeans form a majority or at least a plurality), but unfortunately it will not have the same diversity of participants. I wonder whether this was the expected impact but this is something that will likely happen — NickK (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@NickK: Hi Nick, I can speak to your concern about the voting. We are still working on the page here for public release on Monday next week, so I can understand why Option 3 may not seem like a clear choice. On the matter of votes, the difference in the level of support between the Global Rotation (Option 1) and Alternating (Option 3) is indeed not particularly large. That said, there were other factors considered, such as feedback from a nontrivial number of participants that Wikimania has generally not been accessible to them, and that it would be desirable to have better access to and more support for regional and thematic conferences. Some also stressed that these regional and thematic conferences have the benefit of being more focused in scope. A number of individuals also were concerned with the overall and rising cost of Wikimania. Lastly, the most important decision here is that this model is going to be an experiment; if it's clear that alternating model is disruptive or worse than the model we had before, it's fair to say Wikimania will be held on an annual basis again. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@I JethroBT (WMF): Thanks for your answer. It is surprising that it was not stated that Wikimania and regional conferences are not mutually exclusive like it was in previous years. Having said that, it is good to know that 2018 would be an experiment, and it might be an interesting experiment indeed — NickK (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
NickK, I should point out that there has never been a regional conference for Southeast Asia. We're trying to organize one, and in the times that we've wanted to organize one, it has been shot down over concerns of "impact" coming from WMF staff (who have noted that this will not be funded by the WMF unless it can be demonstrably shown that such a conference will boost impact). Very different from all the other regions you've mentioned, where such conferences have taken place.
Of course, my concern over this entire process is that even if there is no Wikimania in 2018 (something I oppose for its obvious benefits), we still won't be able to get a regional conference off the ground because of those very same concerns. Better an imperfect Wikimania than no Wikimania and no regional conference, if you ask me. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
👍Fuzheado likes this.
@Sky Harbor: I know the problem with ESEA Meetup, but Wikimedians from ESEA region do have a goal to organise such a conference, thus I have written already organised or tried to organise. I don't know what will happen 2018: it might happen that ESEA will get a regional conference "by default" (with a fancy Hilton New Delhi or something similar booked by WMF), but it might happen that ESEA Meetup will be refused again due to the lack of impact.
I do not think however that the situation is that different from all other regions. I was behind Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2014, and I spent a lot of time demonstrating impact. Given that WMF already refused to fund Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2013, we had to spend a lot of time to document issues and needs of our regional groups, and we managed both to convince WMF staff that this conference will have an impact and make the impact itself (new regional project, several new user groups, sharing information on some common problems etc.) I am pretty sure that you can try again and organise it even in 2016 provided you have a well-prepared and convincing programme — NickK (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@NickK: The big difference between CEE and ESEA, if you ask me, is that there are chapters in Central and Eastern Europe that have the financial resources and expertise to organize such a conference. The 2013 meeting in Modra, for example, was financed by Wikimedia Polska and Wikimedia Serbia, plus it also benefited from government support. We can't say the same for ESEA countries, where only Wikimedia Indonesia (and, more distantly, Wikimedia Taiwan and Wikimedia Philippines) has the resources to potentially put a conference together without WMF support. I should note that it has been pointed out on one occasion by the WMF that they (Wikimedia Indonesia) should fund it, given the turbulent history of Asian collaboration within the movement. We're really lucky to even get pan-Asian collaboration off the ground last year, and I'm concerned that we will continue to be harangued by this need for "impact" now that Wikimania's gone and we're effectively compelled to organize a regional conference in 2018 without WMF support. --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Sky Harbor: I would partly agree and partly disagree. I do not agree that CEE chapters have more experience: there were two Wikimanias in ESEA including a recent one in Hong Kong, and you can definitely use this experience. On the other hand, it would be very disappointing if you would get neither Wikimania nor regional conference in 2018 as this would mean the entire process failed. And I agree that asking a local chapter to pay for the entire regional meeting is not reasonable. I really hope that you would manage to organise ESEA Meeting and I do hope that WMF will support your efforts, as there is no point in this plan without concrete actions from WMF to support regional events — NickK (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • NickK Australia isnt a region its a single country/chapter the recent change presented a one in 3 year cycle of opportunity for those outside Europe/US now this makes it a one in 6 years cycle if at all how does such a process address diversity. Your point clearly demonstrates one of the failings with Wikimania is the presumption that its Western Europes conference to which the presence of others is tolerated rather than a global event Gnangarra (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
    @Gnangarra: Sorry, I should have written "Australia and Oceania" instead of "Australia". What I mean is that diversity-wise the proposed system would be likely worse than the current one:
    • On one hand, during the last few years Wikimania WMF put a lot of efforts into making Wikimania more diverse, owing to both scholarships (3/4 of scholars were from Global South) and to geography (Mexico City is definitely not in Western Europe, and Hong Kong in 2013 was actually pretty close to Australia). Instead, in a non-Wikimania year Western Europe will most likely need something to fill the vacuum, thus we are likely to have the Western Europes conference to which the presence of others is tolerated you mention. I do not want this to happen, but the proposed system would make it quite likely (the "tolerated" people being the few "ambassadors" from other regions). And personally I would regret not being able to meet people from other continents: for instance, I recall having interesting discussions with Fremantlepedia people in London, as we would miss many opportunities for collaboration.
    • On the other hand, Australia and Oceania will receive a big advantage and a big disadvantage. You are likely to get a small regional event each non-Wikimania year and WMF is likely to support you in organising it (thus you are likely to have WikiConference Australia or WikiConference Australia and Oceania in 2018), which should be a big step forward for the Australian (and Oceanian) communities. You are also likely to get a right to host Wikimania, but only once in 2 (Wikimania once in two years) * 3 (EU/US/other rotation) * 7 (seven other regions rotation) = 42 years. That is right, Australia and Oceania can get Wikimania once in 42 years, which will make it once in a lifetime event. At the same time, Western Europe will get a large event four years out of six (3 European Wikimanias in non-Wikimania years and 1 out of 3 Global Wikimanias). I find this disappointing, as all regions except Western Europe and US/Canada will be able to invite foreign Wikimedians just once in 42 years, which is just terrible for the diversity — NickK (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
    agree one 42 is not generating diversity, a one two year option for Oceania where there is only WMAU community thats currently active there maybe more incentive for a NZ org to develop none of this will generate the impact necessary to warrant continued support from the WMF, the same issue will befall Africa. To me Washington was a great learning opportunity I was then able to pay it forward/back in London by sharing the Fremantle and Toodyay projects, the biggest failing in this process is the lack of recognition of the impact that the intangible aspects of the meeting hold. Maybe counter intuitive but instead of 1 single annual global event(now bi-annual) the future of Wikimanias lies in multiple smaller global(not regional) events which occur over two days combined with a larger less frequent mayor event(with a scholarship fund that enables significant attendees numbers) that rotates through each region equally. Until its equally distributed it will always have the same people participating the same people making decisions with the same outcomes the same failings the same concerns. Gnangarra (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
    This is probably what WMF understands under thematic conferences. It would be indeed good for diversity but it would be quite impractical: imagine that you have to travel to Berlin to discuss chapter governance in April, then you go to English Wikipedia conference in Calgary in July, then you go to Buenos Aires to discuss QRpedia in October etc. That would be nice if we had had single-purpose Wikimedians but visiting a few conferences a year will eat all your paid leave and all your money — NickK (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
    "Hong Kong in 2013 was actually pretty close to Australia"? It is 7408 km from Hong Kong to Canberra (which is about the centroid of the Australian population). For comparison, it is 4089 km from San Francisco to Montreal 5227 km from London to Montreal. Kerry Raymond (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Underrepresented groups (hint: gender and Global South)[edit]

It is common for proposals in the public sector to have impact statements for various values held by the organization, for instance minority participation or environmental impact, but I have never seen anything like this incorporated into any Wikimania discussions.

According to the 2011 Strategic Plan, the Wikimedia movement values increased participation by women and by the Global South. Has anyone ever done an impact statement? For instance, what about Wikimania 2015? There were considerable efforts on behalf of women--new initiatives, etc, but did anyone take stock afterwards? I don't mean to downplay what was done--it was a tremendous turnaround for the Foundation in terms of listening to the volunteers and being responsive to concerns, but has anyone even done some basic demographics?

What percentage of the attendees were women? What percentage of the attendees with scholarships were women? And more importantly, what percentage of the women were in some subject outside of gender topics? Has anyone ever asked this question, or has it been assumed that women would always be in this little gender ghetto where they write BLP's of women? Women do have a huge range of interests besides gender studies, and the BLP people do know how to draw women into the current program by appealing to the paucity of coverage in their field of expertise. But at some point it needs to go further than that, and there needs to be some technical support from the Foundation for those goals. Just for starters, let's assume that "politics is local" and count how many women are represented by local chapters and how that can be leveraged. As I understand it, each local chapter gets two free trips for their members. Since the selection is usually done by the local leadership, and the local leadership is usually male, this results in the local leadership selecting themselves, thus perpetuating higher and higher percentages of male participants, not just at the local level but the international level as well. What if the WMF could leverage female leadership on the local level by making two additional slots available specifically for women. You will not have women in international positions of leadership if they are not in the local pipelines. The other area the participation of women could be leveraged is by a point system favoring selection of presentations with at least one woman presenter. This would encourage mentorship of women by men who are already experienced with the proposal process, and bringing of women into of the mainstream of Wikimedia life outside of the gender topic ghetto.

More could be done with language groups as well, I believe they only met the last day, as an interest group, maybe some translation could be introduced that would start to integrate these groups earlier and align them with the movement as a whole--I believe there is much in the GLAM movement and the gender training that could rub off on the smaller wikis, and perhaps vice versa. But some kind of dialogue would have to be started with the various language wikis--a long term task, I fear, but probably a rewarding one.

It is also probably worth mentioning that many women shy away from public acknowledgement of their contributions because of the very real fear of off-site harassment, fears of doxing, and very real pressures that can be brought to bear on their personal lives and careers as a result of participation in the Wikimedia movement. Requiring that a participant's contributions be public for consideration of scholarships is a huge barrier to participation by women that often goes unacknowledged by men. In the absence of effective counter-harassment measures, a way must be found for anonymous contributions by women. —Neotarf (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You raise a good point about impact, although several statements are wrong. Firstly, statistics from Wikimania 2015 scholarship programme are publicly available here, and Global South scholars are already a majority. Secondly, each local chapter gets two spots for Wikimedia Conference, not for Wikimania, and you have a public list of attendees at Wikimedia Conference (not sure that all of them publicly disclosed their gender, but you can still have an approximate figure). And it is not true that local leadership is usually male, many local chapters have female executives or chairpersons, most have women on their board, and Wikimedia Sverige even has a majority of women on their board.
On the other hand, there is one point I cannot agree with: women coming to Wikimania need an encouragement, but they do not need the quotas you mention. It is wrong to assume that most women write BLPs of women: in Mexico City I did not meet even a single woman who would be interested exclusively in BLPs of women, instead, I met a lot of women who presented successful initiatives (copyright reform presented by Julia Reda, Wikidata presented by a female project manager, GLAM, education, software, community development and many other projects). We should encourage women to make presentations at Wikimania, but we should not consider them as some "bonuses" to male presenters who added women just to increase their chances, it is simply sexist. Showing women that we value their contributions is much better than saying them that we value their gender — NickK (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
When men mentor other men, and bring their male friends into leadership positions with no expectations of any quid pro quo, you never hear any talk about "quotas". But if you try to give women the same advantages, and without displacing any men already in place, suddenly it's "discrimination". Using an elected official as an example of a woman who is welcome in the movement kind of illustrates the existing disparity in gender-based barriers to participation. Take a look at any photo of Jimbo's last Wikimania speech. Where are the women? —Neotarf (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Of course we have a problem with diversity, but we have too little women at Wikimania not because of discrimination but because there are too little women in our movement. But I cannot agree at all that women must be mentored by men because this is a discrimination. There were two female members of my chapter (WMUA) at Wikimania and both made presentations, both presented the projects they were actively involved in, and both were not mentored by men for this. And here is a photo of Jimbo giving an award to a woman, during his speech at Wikimania last yearNickK (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
The woman receiving the honorable mention award from Jimbo is Susanna Mkrtchyan who did a youth camp with Armenian Wikipedia.
The point is not that no women never ever go to Wikimania, because everyone knows that is not true. The point it that there are so very very very few women. I'm seeing less than 3%. And whenever you talk about redressing some of these inequalities, and looking for the gendered barriers to participation by women, it seems you always have someone show up who is terribly terribly concerned about repression of men. The Wikimania experience can be a valuable tool for energizing the local chapters, but do you only want to engage with the male element? If you do not look for it, you will not see it; if you do not build it, they will not come. —Neotarf (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I know who Susanna is. I don't know where the 3% figure is coming from because in reality 30% of Wikimania 2015 attendees were women (36% at Wikimania 2014). I am concerned not with repression of men but with repression of women, as "each man should bring a woman along" is a dishonour for these women: this suggests that women cannot get to Wikimania without male assistance. But given that some 30—36% of all attendees are women this is definitely not the case — NickK (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Jimbo's Wikimania 2015 speech--where are the women?
I don't understand why being mentored is "a great dishonor for women" but not for men, as men help each other all the time, without expecting anything in return, as far as becoming romantically involved or whatever.
Where are all these women? I'm just not seeing any 30% here. If you look at the shots of the volunteers, there are a lot of women in those pictures. That 30% includes everyone--WMF employees, volunteers, members of the press, but where are the figures for just the ordinary users? It looks like if women want to participate, the entry path is to 1) become an elected official and an expert on copyright law or 2) offer to clean up and you get a free registration. Don't get me wrong, I think the local volunteers are great, and I hope it generated some enthusiasm for the Spanish Wikipedia, but how is Wikimania being leveraged to promote women's participation on the local level? This is an opportunity to use the resources of the WMF to promote its stated goals, and to introduce some women into the leadership structure. Here is another photo of Wikiwomen's lunch. This is a really small percentage of the total number of ordinary users attending. With each step up the organizational structure, it seems the women are fewer and fewer, and they are isolated both from leadership roles and from mainstream (non-gender) topics. And it seems no one is collecting this type of data. —Neotarf (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Women are not completely isolated from leadership roles: look at ED meeting, women were in majority there (and since then two more chapters, namely, WMSE and WMUK, got a male ED replaced with a female ED. I find that it would be a dishonour because Wikimania presentations are about sharing learnings, achievements and failures and not about reading something you don't really know. We should invite women to participate in these projects and then share their learnings at Wikimania, not go to Wikimania just to share learnings of a man who asked them to do it to increase his chances. The problem is not at Wikimania but before Wikimania: we should encourage women to be involved in the projects and share their learnings afterwards but not to be mentored specifically to increase chances of some men to attend Wikimania — NickK (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
What percentage of the attendees were women? In 2014 Wikimania 32% of total attendance were women, in 2015 it was 30%. --EYoung (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
What percentage of the attendees with scholarships were women? Very similar to overall attendance --EYoung (WMF) (talk) (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Translation bug all over the layout.... Please put more effort and improve the process of i18n and l10n![edit]

Hello there, I need some help. The translation template is missing out a lot of sections for us to translate! Is it possible to make a translation center such as this one in the consultation of 2016 strategy? I know it need someone patiently to deal with the issue. I also think it is rather important to do so. Thank you. --Liang(WMTW) (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Shangkuanlc: I've left out tags for the quotations, but I think everything else has been marked up for translation. Let me know if I've missed something specific. If we need to have a separate spot to talk about translation issues, I can create a page here:
Grants talk:IdeaLab/Towards a New Wikimania/Translations
There aren't a lot of templates and things of that nature that require translation in this case, however. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply


"Based on the above findings from this consultation, the following next steps are now under consideration: 2018: Year of no Wikimania." Was that really the consensus? I did not have the impression that this was intended by most participants in the survey... ---Gereon K. (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Gereon K.: If we agree that participants leaned toward Option 3, which reads "Hold a Global Wikimania every two years," I suspect that consequence would be generally understood by participants. Maybe there is something confusing about the term "Global Wikimania?" And maybe we should just call it Wikimania (as it is intended to be global?) In fairness, there was a lot of support for keeping it annual (Option 1), but please refer to my response to NickK above for rationales favoring an alternating approach from participants. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
the results were predetermined by the questions being asked, no it wasnt clear that there would be no 2018 wikimania nor was clear that these questions were being asked to determine such an outcome but rather they were looking for alternative ways options to what they considered was a problematic process. The whole process was present as a discuss piece for further consideration not a decision piece for immediate implementation. Given that it involved selective participants, with many of the participants already canvassed because of their participation in the decision in Mexico meant that the result was predetermined and isnt a reflection of the wider community opinion. Gnangarra (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
+1 There was no option to keep the current process. So everybody who did comment on something else but not on the hosting options could be in the basket of people supporting the current way of running Wikimania. I certainly am. I am also disappointed to see that none of the progressive ideas on the talk page has been taken into consideration. --Pgallert (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
"Analysis of responses showed there were about 55 instances of support (61.1%) for Option 3"
Are we cancelling Wikimania 2018 because 55 people said so? That would be insane. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
The feedback requested was worded something like 'either qualtrics (private), or talk page (public)'. At least I assumed that the survey is not necessary if I comment on talk. --Pgallert (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Issue 2 - false outcome[edit]

Issue 2 is a failure as the question predetermined the outcome because it didnt include the current/now cancelled bidding system as an option.. Gnangarra (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's a good point. I would like to know how the opinions "against selection process in Option 1" were counted. I have left one on the talk page and I suppose that it might have been counted as a support for the Option 3 (as this is the only option allowing current selection process) — NickK (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
you had no choice either support the option as a whole or oppose it, rather than express percentage of votes it'd be interesting to see it expressed by actual distribution of numbers for each Gnangarra (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Gnangarra and NickK: (also pinging Denis Barthel and Pgallert based on similar conversations below.) We did indeed code for instances where people rejected all options that were laid out under issue 2, and when people voiced preference for the existing system for Wikimania planning:
  • Rejected all options: 9 instances (10% of the 90 who answered Issues 1 & 2)
  • Maintain current system: 4 instances, (4.4% of the 90 who answered Issues 1 & 2)
With that said, I'd like to speak to the concern that the status quo was not an option. The consultation laid out a variety of problems with Wikimania that were gathered broadly from organizers, hosts, volunteers in our communities, WMF staff, and Wikimania-related committees. These problems spanned over general processes of planning Wikimania (like the bidding system and event coordination), concerns over the roles that different entities have, defining the outcomes of the conference, and issues over communication practices and resources related to running Wikimania. These concerns have persisted for some time, and were compelling enough that the status quo was not considered viable. For what it's worth, speaking as someone who attended Wikimania 2014 in London before working for the WMF, I was completely unaware of these problems, and I thought the conference was fantastic as an attendee. Learning about these issues recently, quite frankly, came as a shock to me, because I assumed the conference planning process was more or less fine as the conference itself felt fairly successful. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@I JethroBT (WMF): Thank you for the figures, although these 9 people are mathematically bigger than the difference between options 1 and 3, and the 4 instances were definitely against options 2 and 3. Is it possible to get also numbers for the following codes: "annual Wikimania" and "Wikimania every other year"? Thanks — NickK (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@I JethroBT (WMF): Sorry for reminding but could you please provide the numbers? Thanks — NickK (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@NickK: No problem. I can say right away that the "Wikimania every other year" is equivalent with folks who supported Option 3; there wasn't any other place where that came up. I'll look into the "annual Wikimania" bit tonight and tomorrow morning and get back to you by tomorrow. I also want to be clear that while I'm glad to provide this data, the numbers were only one factor that led us to these conclusions. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@NickK: So, I've looked at instances where people voiced support for an "annual Wikimania" in one form or another, specifically ones independent of those who explicitly voted for Option 1. The issue with the 9 people in their rejection of the options we laid out is either that 1) an affirmative statement supporting anything in particular was not present (6 instances) or 2) they proposed an option along the lines of increasing support for both Wikimania and regional conferences every year (3 instances), which we would probably would have included if our budget would practically allow for such a consideration. The four who insisted on maintaining the current system did not really justify why, or explain why the problems we identified with the status quo here are unimportant or otherwise not problematic. One of them even said "I'm OK with either the status quo, option 3, or option 1." (And in fact, there were about 10 folks who were OK with either of these options). So, while there a small number of individuals who supported an annual Wikimania independent of option 1, they are tied to requests that are impractical or not justified. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
My impression was that if I support no change option I support the status quo. I didn't think it would be necessary to reject all options in order to be seen as in the 'pro status quo' group. But really, WMF has sufficient money, and Wikimania is the highlight of the year. I wouldn't throw that out just because its direct impact does not seem to be enough bang for the bucks. Reminds me a bit of the elections in former GDR: If you make a cross next to the candidate you voted pro. If you made no cross you approved of the candidate, and therefore voted pro. Only if you carefully stroke name and affiliation was this counted as a contra vote.--Pgallert (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The value of experimenting[edit]

As I argued elsewhere as well, I sincerely hope that we'll wait until after this year's Wikimania and their experiments with community engagement to see how we can learn from that - before setting further steps. It is a bit silly to have all these experiments, then throw them down the drain because there was a uninformed consultation (which would even be impossible at this precise time). Effeietsanders (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

👍Fuzheado likes this.

Comparison with status quo[edit]

Only three options were offered to choose from, all with major downsides compared to the status quo. I am hoping that WMF at least will be honest in comparing the outcome they crafted from this (imho somewhat biased - even if not intentional) with the existing situation. That is a much more reliable way to work it out. And ideally, that would of course be done after some more real life discussions at the upcoming Wikimania. There is no need to rush I'd think. Effeietsanders (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

its kind of hard to say lets discuss this at Wikimania because that makes the absurd presumption that those who have an opinion will be able to attend and participate, noting that we are in this mess because of decisions made at Wikimania in Mexico which left many communities unknowlingly working on bids for many months despite Montreal having already been decided upon along with a whole change in processes. Gnangarra (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
There are many people who feel the status quo was unacceptable, especially as costs are escalating. I am thrilled at the prospect of funds in 'the off year' going towards regional conferences. That is an exciting fundamental shift. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Consultation - participants - consensus ...[edit]

Just to have it clear: all these buzzwords and formulas are camouflage to the fact, that this "consultation" was utterly predetermined by excluding any "participant", that neither was interested in the one or the other of the "options" the survey makers specified before (or it's combination). This "consensus" was clearly designed by survey. Denis Barthel (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I hate the idea and doubt the validity of the research[edit]

Hoi, I blogged about this idea, it will seriously weaken the global cohesion of our community. You fail to understand what Wikimania means for people who are not so parochial in thinking. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@GerardM: Two points of clarification from your blog enry:
  1. The notion is that "local" conferences may be held every other year. Regional and thematic conferences can still be held during Wikimania years, and I expect many will.
  2. One third of only 82 respondents pointed to the unique value of Wikimania. This is inaccurate; 90 participants responded to the question about the unique value of Wikimania.
I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
That may be. I do resent the notion of this plan forcefully. We will lose the cross over that Wikimania brings. We are not science we are not divided in our own ivory towers. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm an amateur Wikimedian[edit]

Wikimedia is not what I live from. I have a job, a family. It means that I have two restrictions to my activities: time and money. I enjoyed London 14. I couldn't afford to go to Mexico 15, mainly due to lack of time. So when I'm told I could go to WYX Wikievent in Christchurch (NZ), Toronto or Cochabamba, I know from the very begining that I can't go. Period.
I do live I good life. I'm not persecuted. I can eat every day as many times as I need. I live on a house, I have a car, wifi, safe drinking water. I edit Wikimedia on my free time, because I do have free time, I don't have to work 14-hour shifts every day. I know I belong to a fortunate minority of people. So I wouldn't even dream of asking for a grant to attend Wikimania.
I enjoy meeting with other Wikimedians. Last december I met a Portuguese Commonist in Seville, very interesting. I drove to Seville, I paid my petrol and my hotel. In London 14, I met a lot of people, it was a great experience. And I would like to repeat that experience. But I cannot go to Manila, to San Francisco, to Mexico City, to Buenos Aires. I will drive with my family to Esino this year. That's what I can afford. That's why I think affordable events are important.
Unrelated comment: please write for normal people. BLP is a bank in Argentina, a law firm somewhere else and who-knows-what in this page. As for CEE I do know what it is, but for common Spaniards is just an old form to call the European Union. I could have written my text something like Odo, a ver cualo quieren stos killos. But I try to make myself understood. B25es (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sample size[edit]

82 people answered questions on Qualtrics and 37 people talked on the discussion forums. So the number of participants was a small fraction of the attendants of each Wikimania edition.

Please take the results of this consultation qualitatively, not quantitatively. That is, analyse the opinions and suggestions for their meaning, not their number. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree the size of the sample is simply too small to reasonably take those results as binding. Anthere (talk)
Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@NaBUru38, Anthere, and Daniel Case: On the numbers, some context may be useful here. Invitations for this consultation included community members who had attended Wikimania, or were interested in doing so. Average attendance of community members (i.e. not staff, performers, press, non-Wikimedian conference volunteers) at Wikimania from the past three years (~700 in 2013, ~550 in 2014, ~1075 in 2015) is about 775. Proportionally, this sample is just above 15% of this average. With a higher sample, could we have a smaller margin of error? Sure, but I'd more or less expect a larger sample would more or less continue to reflect a split Options 1 & 3 (also with some folks being OK with either, as they were in this sample). Numbers aside, I think NaBUru38's point is the more compelling one, which is why I've provided some details of these opinions here and in this response above. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC).Reply
Also important to note here are other factors that will affect decision making around Wikimania for 2018: Outcomes from Esino Lario this year should be assessed in addition to the matter of the actual budget we have for events in 2018. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
This year, about 600 people applied for a scholarship to attend Wikimania. Many more Europeans will attend without a scholarship. So I think demand is far from low.
If there were less editions, there would be even less opportunities to attend one. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bidding status[edit]

I note that option one specifically identifies a movement away from a bidding process for sites. However, the leading contender, option three, is silent on the status. Perhaps I missed something, but it may be worth clarifying whether sites are determined by the traditional bidding process or some other process in option three.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Sphilbrick: Good point, I'll clarify this issue later today on the outcomes. The idea with option 3 was to basically alternate between Options 1 & 2 year to year with the understanding that for years when Wikimania is held, it would be under something other than the bidding system. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
That was my guess but as you realized it isn't clear so I'm happy to hear that you will clarify it.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply