Talk:Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2015/Programme

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

About translating[edit]

If there is an interest, I can present something about translation of articles:

There is also proposal about Minority Translate from Estonia, which should be presented also. --KuboF (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion for guiding principles in designing the programme[edit]

To the attention of the rest members of the Programme committee: Levon, Asaf, Tomasz, Cornelius, Eva, Sven-Erik, Kaarel, Greta, Elgun :)

As a person who must organize international conferences at least twice a year, I am constantly on the watch for good/bad practices. I gave a careful thought about the specifics of the CEE Meeting and can formulate several suggestions for the principles that - in my opinion - shall guide us through the process of designing the conference programme. I'd be glad to have them discussed in advance.

  1. No more than two parallel sessions at a time.
    Rationale: Given that most (smaller) countries will send no more than two representatives, this would ensure maximizing the experience for most people, and not lead to unnecessary frustration.
I agree, also i think that 2 parallel sessions should not have similar topic. E.G No 2 parallel sessions about Wiki Loves Monuments and in the same time Wiki Loves Earth.Margott (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 Ijon (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 Milica (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 Packa (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. 30-minute long coffee breaks.
    Rationale: This will ensure that (relatively small) delays in the speakers' timing or Q&A will be compensated by the length of the coffee break, and will not lead to delaying the programme afterwards. :)
    +1 Ijon (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Evening session after supper.
    Rationale: We are on a retreat in the countryside, with no sightseeing distractions. Let us officially make a good use of the evening hours. :)
    That might be tiresome. Most people are usually tired after 10 hours of listening lectures and prefer rather some sort of relaxation, after supper... Polimerek (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree it might be too much for some (but also that some, including me, would welcome it). We should think of a way to make it optional or low-stakes to join or miss. Ijon (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe first day, but second day the people will be tired. Packa (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think lightning talks is good idea. Users who have new ideas and who want to say something after the sessions they participated during the day or who had no time to prepare presentation for the conference can make a 5 minute long speech.--Wertuose (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Distribute workload with respect to attention span.
    Suggested distribution: Morning sessions are more intensive, structured and learning-oriented: lectures, presentations. Afternoon sessions (especially the session after the afternoon coffee break) are more relaxed and more discussion-oriented: with lightning talks, brainstormings, workshops (?). Evening sessions can be dedicated to edit-a-thons, photo-tons, Wiki Dojo and other forms of Wikimedian fun.
  4. "TakeAway" at the end of each session
    Suggested format: In a 1.5-hour session, 1 hour goes for presentations and Q&A, and half an hour goes for personal reflection on what has been just heard and systematization of the lessons learnt. This is usually supposed to happen after the end of a conference, but we are here on a "concentration camp", so this is the time, when we can best concentrate on how to make use of others' experience, how to adapt others' solutions to our own problems. The "TakeAway" can take the form of a shared document on Etherpad, where everybody can take their own notes, and simultaneously keep track of what other people in the room share as takeaways.
    It might be somehow artificial - I would rather left it to natural dynamics of each session. Polimerek (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Like Polimerek: maybe for a special lesson it will be a good idea, but usually not. Packa (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Problem—Solution oriented approach in formulating the sessions and grouping the talks.
    Rationale: Let us make a good use of the contributions per countries of "Valuable learnings", "Strengths", "Weaknesses", "Needs" and "Questions", and match as much as possible the Country-Providers with their "Valuable learnings/Strengths" to respective Country-Beneficiaries with their "Weaknesses/Needs/Questions".
    In this respect, I will add soon a separate discussion thread with my suggestions. Spiritia 08:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Suggested timing of the sessions
Morning 1 09:30 - 11:00 1.5 hours
Coffee break 11:00 - 11:30 0.5 hours
Morning 2 11:30 - 13:00 1.5 hours
Lunch 13:00 - 14:30 1.5 hours
Afternoon 1 14:30 - 16:00 1.5 hours
Coffee break 16:00 - 16:30 0.5 hours
Afternoon 2 16:30 - 18:30 2 hours
Supper 18:30 - 20:00 1.5 hours
Evening 20:00 - 21:30 1.5 hours
Free time

Spiritia 08:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft of the timetable[edit]

I drafted a 3-in-1 table with available timeslots, mainly following my initial proposal, with more-or-less clarified times of arrival on 11 Sept., and departure on 13 Sept. Named the evening sessions "relax" taking into consideration Tomasz's comment, yet I believe that we really need to plan them now, and only abandon them in case that we don't have enough speakers. 30-minute coffee breaks and the 1.5 hour supper before this should really be enough to keep people refreshed. Spiritia 21:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spiritia, thank you for the great work on the timetable! I'm a little bit concerned about the last parallel sessions on Friday and Saturday - both evenings will imho make more than one person to want to clone themselves (education and the language tools; volunteers and low cost projects).

I don't know how to solve this problem - or if this is a real problem. Pseudacorus (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can assure you that it's definitely hard to make so many interesting and important topics not compete in time, and still fit in the general time framework. I believe that is why we have 2 representatives from a country, so that each can go to a parallel session and thus both altogether cover it all. However, since I've rearranged the whole programme taking into consideration many other proposals and comments, these topics also got rearranged so you may want to check now the revised version from today. Spiritia 22:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spiritia, thanks for the timetable. I want to express my view about 2 hour sessions. I think at the end of the day it will be uncomfortable to seat at the same place such a long time without break. 1.5 hours OK for the last sessions, because everyone will be tired at that moment. And let's give 0.5 hours free time before supper.--Wertuose (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taken into consideration in the revised version as of 14 August. Spiritia 22:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiGerald — the Ukrainian Wikipedia Monthly Newsletter Bulletin[edit]

In April 2014 I initiated a «ВікіВісник» («WikiGerald» in English) a monthly newsletter bulletin about the development of Ukrainian Wikipedia in last month.

There are 16 issues already published. I would gladly share the experience and lessons learned.

  • What should be included in the newsletter bulletin and what should not.
  • The core and extra content
  • The sources of the data
  • The ways to spread out the newsletter bulletin — among editors community as well as in massmedia.

--Perohanych (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a bit misleading to call it a newsletter. It is just a monthly statistical bulletin, it does not contain any news (see latest edition). It contains just raw data, most of which is useless even for many Wikipedians, like rankings of editors, patrollers and administrators by number of actions. Sometimes you highlight trends (usually negative ones: for example, in April 2014 you highlighted 2% drop in page views, solely because April has 30 days instead of 31, but failed to highlight 12% increase in number of active editors), but in most cases you send raw data without explanations, which is hardly interesting for media. I do not think that a monthly statistical bulletin is something most wikis need, it would be better to invite someone working on a real newsletter, such as en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost or (closer to CEE) de:Wikipedia:KurierNickK (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not aware of a similar «bulletin» in any CEE Wikipedia. The statistical data is essential for measurement of growth or decline of community efforts, results of the community work and the popularity of this or that Wikipedia. I do understand that there is a competition for obtaining a scholarship, but a fair competition means rather submitting your own presentations, than criticizing the submissions of your colleagues. --Perohanych (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, I am not participating in this competition, as I am not applying for scholarship at CEE Meeting 2015. Secondly, my goal is to provide an objective information to the programme commitee. You are not the right person to talk about what should be included in the newsletter and what should not: your newsletter does not include any news, so do you really want to explain to others that they should not include news into their newsletters? Nor you are the best person to say what is the core and extra content: the core content of a newsletter is news (obvious), while core content of your "newsletter" is raw data, do you want to show that this is a right approach? I like statistics, but please do not call it a newsletter and do not teach others how to write newsletters: people from en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost or de:Wikipedia:Kurier are definitely in better position than you to talk about it — NickK (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please discuss my submission, but not me. I think that it is a severe violation of w:Wikipedia:No personal attacks to declare who is and who is not the right person to talk about something on the meeting. --Perohanych (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does not matter how to call it — a newsletter or a bulletin. And I do not pretend to be the best person in the world in anything. But I suppose that it would be important and interesting for participants to learn my experience in the outlined topic. --Perohanych (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does matter. At CEEM 2014, many people reported that sessions did not meet their expectations or were irrelevant. If you want to talk about statistics but announce that you want to talk about newsletters, that would be a classic case of such sessions — NickK (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A real Wikipedia statistics, and knowledge how to use and interpret it — is among the most interesting things for wikimedians. I am a professional statistician (former Deputy Head of Statistics Department of the Ukrainian Railways). If I were you I would not predict the level of satisfaction from the future sessions. And I did not report at CEEM 2014 :-) --Perohanych (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that really matters, I also have a professional knowledge of statistics, and I do know that if April drops 3% compared to March, that's because of 30 days instead of 31 and not because Board of Wikimedia Ukraine does bad job. And it is very bad that you did not answer the survey at CEEM2014, this prevents us from getting your ideas. And I am not speaking of predicting satisfaction, I am speaking of clearly defining goals of each session. If you poorly define goals you are unlikely to get satisfaction, but I can't promise you the opposite, of course. To sum up, it's great that you clearly specified that you want to speak about statistics and not about newsletters, and it's up to the programme team to decide how it fits — NickK (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did I say that April drops 3% compared to March because of the Board of Wikimedia Ukraine does bad job? And did I say that I did not answer the survey at CEEM2014?
To sum up, I want to specify clearly that I want to speak about using statistics in newsletters. But also about some other topics concerning statistics and newsletters, like what statistics is the most essential for newsletters and why. --Perohanych (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Perohanych, how much time would you think that you wouldistics is most at need for presenting that. Can it fit in the format of lightning talk (5-7 minutes)? Spiritia 14:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Spiritia, for presenting that I would need either 5-7 minutes (a lightning talk) or 20 minutes (more deep presentation). But I am sure that 5 minutes would be sufficient. Anyway I plan to publish a detailed written presentation. --Perohanych (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Perohanych:, you can already add your proposal using the submission form here: Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2015/Programme/Submissions#Lightning_talks. Thank you! Spiritia 10:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata edit-a-thon[edit]

This session is a must have, IMO. Some people should come well prepared with focus on importing data from CEE Wikipedias. I see that there is lots of data imported from English, German, other big Wikipedias, but not so much in smaller ones. For example, I checked lvwiki, there are 749 pages with coordinates which are not in Wikidata. Another focus could be on tools like Wikidata Game, lists like Wrong nationalities on Wikidata and others. --Papuass (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1. --2001:4C50:33F:D600:445:71D:2EFA:504A 20:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Papuass:, can you please copy-paste the submission template from here and fill it in in the respective page Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2015/Programme/Wikidata edit-a-thon. We can schedule the edit-a-thon in one of the two evenings. Spiritia 10:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main topics/interest[edit]


As there is already announced registration form for the conference we must decided ASAP about the main topics and make a call for lectures/workshops/discussion panels etc.. I just colected information from Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2015/Questions&Needs and made a list of topics by the level of potential interests (i.e. I calculated country if it clearly comunicated interest in either contributing or listening to the topics):

  • WLM/WLE and other photo-contests (Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Ukraine) 10
  • GLAM projects (Bulgaria, Czech Rep. Hungary, Latvia, Macedonia, Poland, Russia, Ukraine) 9
  • Education programs (Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Macedonia, Russia, Serbia) 9
  • Volunteer support (i.e. meetings, workshops, micro-grants, Wiki-Expeditions, etc.) (Armenia, Austria, Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Macedonia, Serbia) 8
  • Staff and other internal organizational chapters issues (Armenia, Austria, Belarus. Estonia, Poland, Latvia, Serbia, Ukraine) 8
  • Technical wiki issues (tools, bots, etc) (Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Ukraine) 7
  • Low-cost projects (Belaruss, Bulgaria, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia) 7
  • Promotion of projects/media coverage (Azerbaijan, Latvia, Serbia, Slovakia, Ukraine) 5
  • Advocacy (i.e. FoP, legislative changes, etc.) (Estonia, Greece, Russia, Poland, Ukraine) 5
  • Other contests (Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Ukraine) 4
  • APG/FDC issues (Austria, Serbia, Ukraine) 3
  • Alternative funds collecting (Belarus, Poland, Russia) 3
  • Gender gap (Albania, Latvia) 2

Probably those with lower interest can be combined with the top ones...

Anyway we have to decide about it ASAP.

Polimerek (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good job! Once we have the topics scaled down by the level of potential interest, the next steps should be: 1) to determine the total number of sessions, 2) to determine the different types of sessions (e.g. presentations, workshops, discussions, panels, etc.), 3) to start a discussion based on the information provided in the Q&N on the topics and 4) to invite speakers and facilitators from the community. My suggestion is that panels and general discussions are more appropriate for topics with higher level of potential interest, while presentations and lightning talks for some other relevant topics that were not mentioned so frequently.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In a bit more digestible form, here is a spreadsheet with (almost all, 99%) of all recorded Valuable Learnings, Strengths, Weaknesses, Needs and Questions, separated by topic, and then sorted by Countries-Beneficiaries (W-N-Q) and Countries-Providers (VL-S) of experience, knowledge, etc. This can help better matching the topics for the programme. Spiritia 07:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft from 13 August[edit]

I propose for discussion the following draft version of the programme. I would like to give rationale for some of my decisions taken while arranging the programme in this way.

  • General considerations.
    • Timing. Starting hour 9:30 is proposed with respect to the fact that there will be up to 4-5 people sharing rooms, and starting earlier will make it difficult for them. Evening sessions are more relaxed, discussion- and brainstorming-oriented.
    • Duration. Day 1: 6.5 hours, Day 2: 8 hours, Day 3: 4.5 hours, but it can easily extended with 1.5-2 hours, depending on the arrangement for the return trip to Tartu, return flights of the majority of people, etc (not sure about this aspect, so I decided to stay on the safe side!).
    • Choice of topics for parallel sessions.. I have tried to profile and match topics in a way to minimize the cases when same people would love to attend simultaneously two parallel sessions, and thus avoid frustration as much as possible. This is, of course, practically impossible, and probably some improvements can be suggested, as long as they do not contradict other important considerations.
    • Thin red lines. The longest Day 2 exhibits two thin red lines running along the two parallel sessions. Room 1 is devoted to Content and Community topics like contests and content collaborations. Room 2 is devoted to management and financial issues, and might be of specific interest to chapter and user group representatives.
    • Least relocation. A broad theme, covered in 2+ panel session is arranged so that whenever possible people would not relocate between the two rooms, but stay in the same room.
  • Topics
    • Day 1. Morning session. (1.5 h) Official opening and the 'State of the Movement' keynote lecture, as in Kiev 2014.
    • Day 1. Afternoon session 1. (1.5 h) After the official opening and the 'State of the Movement' lecture, there is a panel session "Insights from Wikimania Mexico", which hasn't been discussed, but I believe that it is reasonable to start with, and those of us, who attended Wikimania will be able to share their experience and lessons learnt with the majority who haven't been there. Proposed speakers: Asaf (WMF), Anna (WMF), Sven-Erik (EE), Filip (SR), Tomasz (PL), Andrei (RO), Jan (CZ), Mikheil (KA), Vassia (BG), ..., the list can be expanded!. In parallel, I believe that the topic of "Article contests", especially in the light of the massively attended CEE Spring contest, will also be a topic that fits well for a starter.
    • Day 1. Afternoon session 2 (2 h). Education. I place it in the 2-hour slot, since many countries in the region have national WEPs, and we will not run out of speakers and listeners. I even feel that one more 1.5 session somewhere can be allocated about it. About speakers, the discussion shall probably be moderated by Anna. In parallel with Education, is the topic of Technical and language tools. Many tools have been proposed for presenting: receipt handling tools (Ukraine, Czech R.), language translation tools (Czech R., Estonia, Esperanto UG), the tools for wlX-campaigns (Ukraine), article contest counter and copyvio watchdog (Slovakia), also categorization tools shown at Wikimania ?...
    • Day 1. Evening session (1.5) The Floor is Yours: Lightning talks (5-7 minutes). Will be nice to secure at least 5 prepared topics for lightning talks, and also let people improvise, present their communities, share ideas, discuss in groups, brainstorm. So far the proposed evening session is only one, but this can again be split in two, and have something new/extended in this timeslot.
    • Day 2. Morning session 1. (1.5 h) Room 1 talks on photo contests (Wiki Loves Earth/Monuments/..., European Science Photo Competition) (potential contributors from Ukraine, Poland, Austria, Bulgaria, ?). Room 2 talks about good practices in Chapter management (Estonia, Poland, Serbia). It may include an open discussion on 'How to improve organizational effectiveness?' (at least 3 countries noted it in their needs: Estonia, Serbia, Ukraine)
    • Day 2. Morning session 2. (1.5 h) Room 1 on 'Cross-border cooperations and wiki expeditions'. Proposed speakers: Poland (wikiexpeditions, Galicia project?), Macedonia (Mariovo Off-road?), Serbia, ...? Room 2: Sharing experience in APG / PEG issues. Proposed speakers: WMF, Estonia, Poland, Austria, Serbia. The topic fits well the thematic scope and audience profile of the previous panel in this room.
    • Day 2. Afternoon session 1 (1.5 h) Room 1 on 'GLAM issues', which are a topic which is of interest in many countries in the region, and there are proposed topics from Macedonia, Poland, Czech R. In Room 2 the financial topic develops further with "External funding". Possible contributors here is Belarus with a talk on their experience with crowdfunding. If there are not enough lecturers, we can shape it as an open discussion and brainstorming.
    • Day 2. Afternoon session 2 (2 h) Room 1 discusses "Volunteer support". Serbia and Esperanto UG has proposed to talk about experience with external Voluntary Services. Belarus proposed a talk on different topic communities and grassroot initiatives. There are multiple countries that declared having small community and volunteer base, and problem recruiting people for offline work; and would benefit on learning from others' good practices. A short brainstorming session on finding solutions to this problem can also be arranged. In Room 2 there will be a discussion on "Low-cost projects", as this is a topic in which many countries have what to say: Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine.
    • Day 2. Evening session (1.5 h) Per proposal from the WMF, there is a scheduled a "Fail Fest" for this timeslot. It can take the form of a free open discussion, when participants are welcome to share their communities' epic fails, and summarise the lessons learnt, or ask for advise from the audience. The length of each fail story will depend on the number of speakers, but is expected to resemble the Lightning Talks from Day 1, with tentative duration of 5-7 minutes.
    • Day 3. Morning session 1. (1.5 h) Room 1 talks about the organization of "Wiki meetings, wiki conferences, WikiCamps", as this is a topic on which several countries can share their knowledge (Poland, Hungary, Czech R., Armenia, Macedonia. In parallel, Room 2 discusses "Freedom of Panorama and other legal issues". Possible contributors: Russia, Bulgaria/Austria (Dimi_z?). FOP has been mentioned by several states (Latvia, Estonia, Greece) in their reports. Albania and Latvia would seek help in increasing the understanding of free licenses in general public, i.e. countries which have solved this problem are welcome to contribute with talks.
    • Day 3. Morning session 2. (1.5 h) Room 1 is scheduled to discuss gender gap, which is a weakness declared by at least 2 countries - Belarus, Latvia. If the topic is not widely considered to be interesting and relevant this year (despite of the valuable discussion in Kiev), it can be merged with, e.g. "Volunteer support", and leave this timeslot open. Room 2 talks about Institutional and Media Outreach, where talks can be reasonably expected from Ukraine, Armenia, Hungary (government), Hungary and Slovakia (organizations and movements), and Macedonia, Poland, Ukraine (mainstream media).
    • Day 3. Afternoon session. (1.5 h) Keynote speech on "The future of WCEE" and Closing ceremony. Discussion/Announcement about the host of WMCEE'2016.

As a conclusion, the programme now contains opening session, closing session, 16 parallel session and 2 evening relax sessions. 6.5 + 8 + 4.5 = 19 astronomic hours or 10 + 14.5 + 7.5 = 32 working hours if we consider separately the length of the parallel sessions. There are however various options how to further re-schedule the programme:

  1. Depending on the travel arrangements for the return to Tartu, one more timeslot may be included as an afternoon session on Day 3, before the keynote and closing session.
  2. The evening relax sessions, which are now merged (all people in one room), can be back split in two. Spiritia 13:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. We can have shorter lunches.
  4. We can try starting 9:00 rather than 9:30.
Seems to be good plan. I am only not sure about usefulness of Wikimania session. I guess roughly 50% (if even not more) participants of CEE meeteing were on Wikimania, and probably the lessons from Wikimania were also spread locally. Maybe - instead of Wikimania session we could give a chance to WMF for at least one topic/workshop they mentioned below? Polimerek (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine. Let's wait for comments about the "Insights from Wikimania" and we'll decide. Cornelius with the proposed topic for insights from Wikimedia Conference is also to be considered.
About the storytelling, that's easy to rearrange (merging Gender gap with Volunteer support), moving wiki meetings/conferences/camps after the FOP/Legal issues, and thus having two consequent timeslots: "Institutional and Media Outreach" and the one for Communications/Storytelling. I'm simply not aware if we have to invite a storytelling expert from WMF (budget?) or we are supposed to deliver it by ourselves (who's prepared well enough to deliver it in the way WMF expects to have it delivered?). Are there other options? Spiritia 14:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Learning & Evaluation Topics[edit]

The Learning & Evaluation team from the WMF is happy to offer workshops as we have done at Wikimedia Conference and Wikimania gatherings, to teach about some key tools and to facilitate shared learning workshops at this year's CEE meeting. We are, of course, open to further suggestions and can most certainly customize our content to the priority topics shared above, but the workshops we can offer that seem most useful to this gathering are:

Tools to Measure & Track (Tools Rotations) -- 60 minutes A roundtables session with three break-out group choices to learn about a handful of tools available for measuring work across the wikis. Participants who attend all three tables will learn the basics about five cool tools, how they work, and what they do. The tools which will be shared include:

  • Category Tools: GLAMorous and CatScan, two awesome tools from Magnus Manske helpful for monitoring categories of content, these tools are especially useful for monitoring image categories
  • Education Extension: A tool for connecting groups of users participating in a program or event together for easier coordination and impact tracking
  • User & Page Metric Tools: Wikimetrics and Quarry, two powerful tools for measuring the editing behavior across the wikis of groups of users

Wikimedia Program Toolkits -- 30 - 60 minutes Overview workshop (and practical session) for using program toolkits for education, writing contests, and photo events and how to help them grow. Participants will learn about our new program toolkits to help connect community leaders to resources and best practices for planning, running, and evaluating programs as well as to each other as Wikimedia organizers. If scheduled for the full 60 minutes the session will also include a hands-on learning activity in which participants will, in addition to learning about the resources, gain practice in using and contributing to the toolkits.

Storytelling to Advance the Wikimedia Movement -- 60 minutes A workshop with brief presentation followed by applied group learning activity for telling a story. While storytelling is a skill that few people naturally possess, many can learn ways to better incorporate storytelling practices to better share learning across the movement. The workshop will focus on the key types and aspects of storytelling as well as provide a framework for developing stories so that we might learn together from participants experiences.

A possible evening event:

Fail Fest - Learning Together -- 60-90 minutes A very brief overview about learning from failure including a useful strategy for framing failure stories. The overview will be followed by a share from an actual project failure and then smaller break-out groups for participants to share their stories and practice framing them for shared learning.

Please let us know if these workshops are of interest or if there are other ways we might contribute to developing shared learning at the event.

JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good ideas, and I included them partly in the current draft of the programme. The Programme is proposed to start with "Insights from Wikimania Mexico", and I believe that we will mention learnings from the Learning day. The Fail Fest, in my opinion, is also a must do, and I proposed it for the evening (relax) session. Spiritia 10:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further information from L&E:
Glad to see some thoughts on integration into the programme. As I posted on the facebook discussion, if the programme plan will only request two of the four presented L&E workshop ideas, that would certainly leave us free to also assist with the facilitation of a couple sessions if that is also desired. Of course, we would also be happy to also split up our program toolkits overviews to include within the relevant writing or photo event sessions you are organizing panels for. Happy to support knowledge exchange and learning however works best - we look forward to further information on we can do so! JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jamie, please check the revised version of the program as of today, 14 August. I have included all proposals and stuck to the longer timings (30-60 minutes --> 60, 60-90 minutes --> 90). and have organized them in one room, so that all attendees be able to benefit. Spiritia 22:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User group and affiliate presentations[edit]

Is it possible to add into on of the slot opportunity for differents wiki group and initiative presentations? We would like to present Belarusian Wikimedia User Group for other participants. 15 minutes is enough for us. Thanks. --Mr. Zabej (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! How about preparing a poster for the User Group (rather than a presentation), and be around it during a coffee break? You have proposed input for the conference "Crowdfunding project for wiki community needs an example "Helper for new Wikimedians"." which matches two of the currently proposed panel session: "Low-cost projects" and "External funding". In which does it fit better? Spiritia 10:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think "Low-cost projects" is the most appropriate session for it... --Mr. Zabej (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I didn't find a better place to place this, so I created another section. So, as I understand, people need to volunteer themselves as speakers/panelists/participants in the sessions, so I thought I could chime in with what I could help with. Also, some of the sessions might be better off as workshops or open conversations/debates (many to many), rather than broadcast-type (one to many) presentations/lectures. So, where I could participate with WMRS insights:

  • Education program
  • Cross-border cooperations and wiki expeditions / Sharing experience in APG / PEG issues (both at the same time, but I guess the latter is better for me)
  • Wiki meetings, wiki conferences, WikiCamps

--FiliP ██ 19:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Filip, for taking responsibility about the topics above (I have also noted that Serbia is potential contributor in these areas), and I would encourage you to make a list with the sessions that in your opinion can be in the many-to-many format. 20:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I see the following as something that can be done in a group:
  • Article contests
  • Education program
  • Pretty much everything on Saturday and Sunday (especially "Good practices in Chapter management", "Sharing experience in APG / PEG issues", "Volunteer support", "Bridging the gender gap").
--FiliP ██ 20:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dungodung:, please fill in your inputs in the submission form, under the respective panel sessions at Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2015/Programme/Submissions. Thanks a mil! Spiritia 10:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's ask Dimitar Dimitrov to have a presentation on FoP and legal issues? Pseudacorus (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have already asked him to try to scratch some funding from somewhere. He said that he will do his best, but he wasn't sure about the (all) the money. :) Spiritia 22:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dimi z:, will you be able to make it to the conference? Spiritia 10:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Longer sessions?[edit]

Looking at lessons learned from CEEM 2014, where I think we see an appetite for sessions with more concrete outcomes that go deeper than the surface of each topic, I would like to propose removing a few topics, in favor of longer sessions (at least for some of the topics), to allow more meaningful progress to be made.

Concretely, I would suggest these topics in particular could benefit from longer sessions:

  • "Technical and language tools"
  • "Bridging the Gender Gap"[1]
  • "Institutional and Media Outreach"

It seems to me that each of these can be made into a longer session where enough experience would be shared, or enough discussion could take place, for a significant portion of participants to come away with concrete new ideas or skills.

(separately, I will note that there is very little value in topic titles on their own -- it is up to us all to make "Technical and language tools", or "Article contests", be a meaningful and productive sessions, with a good chance of producing concrete outcomes.)

If there's some support for this idea of (at least a few) longer sessions, we can further discuss which sessions should be made longer, and which should be dropped. Ijon (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taken into consideration in the revised version as of 14 August. Spiritia 22:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. This session, in particular, seemed to just scratch the surface in CEEM 2014, when we ran out of time.

Session proposal[edit]

Hello, hello,
one of the reasons why I have the intention and will to participate in the CEE meeting is to present the outcomes of the WMCON Follow-Up Process and to gather input for the next Wikimedia Conference. So, therefore I'm proposing a session I'd like to hold:

The Wikimedia Conference and its Program and Engagement Coordination

45-60 mins
Session Format
presentation (20 min), discussion (25-40 min)
Room Setting
The WMF and WMDE jointly agreed on WMDE being the host to organize and facilitate the conferences in Berlin in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Starting in 2015, the conference was organized for the first time with a long-term perspective, specific goals and with proper involvement of all affected parties. For the first time as well, Wikimedia Deutschland hired a Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC) whose primary assignment it is to support the program development and liaise with the participants and speakers throughout the year.
In this session, Cornelius will present what happened since the Wikimedia Conference 2015. He had identified seven major topics, which are being developed by several thematic ambassadors and brought to other conferences as well (Wikimania, WMCEE meeting) . The plan is to include their outcomes in the programme design process, which will lead to better better programme of the Wikimedia Conference 2016. Especially for the this, Cornelius is looking for input and comments regarding the finetuned programme design which he will introduce shortly as well.
Desired Outcome
Common understanding of the PEC’s role; comments and feedback to the WMCON 2016 programme design.
Next Steps and Milestones
In October, the programme design process for the next Wikimedia Conference starts. Input given in this session will be considered while creating the 2-3 main topics of the conference.
Anticipated Long-Term Impact
A better (as in: more focused, more effective, more sustainable) programme of the Wikimedia Conference 2016 and a movement continuously working on its main topics
Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE)
Not needed.

Best regards, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Sunday morning there is a session called "Wiki meetings, wiki conferences, WikiCamps" - is it suitable for Cornelius' presentation? Pseudacorus (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I included it as a separate slot in the revised version as of 14 August. Spiritia 22:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's very kind of you. Thank you. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finalized programme[edit]

This evening, the programme committee had a fruitful discussion about the submitted talks and the final form of the programme. Participants: Cornelius, Greta, Levon, Tomasz, Vassia, Kaarel and Asaf (on Drive). Several decisions were taken about the arrangement of the programme, taking into consideration number and quality of talk proposal per session, session timings, potential outcomes from sessions, conflicting participation in parallel sessions for some speakers, probable drop-outs, potential moderators with experience and interest in session topics.

  • One decision was about the rearrangement of the programme: this is the result.
  • Session moderators were proposed:
Day 1
Timeslot Room Session title Moderator Notes
14:00 - 15:00 Room 1 WMF: Wikimedia Programme Toolkits Done WMF
15:00 - 16:00 Room 1 WMCON Follow-Up Process Done Cornelius no need of facilitator
15:00 - 16:00 Room 2 Legal issues and Freedom of Panorama Done Tomasz
16:30 - 18:30 Room 1 Organizing WikiMeetings, WikiConferences and WikiCamps Done Cornelius 1 hour or 1h 30 minutes for TakeAway
16:30 - 17:30 Room 2 Technical tools Done Nikola We may have 1 more talk over Skype from Ilya (Ukraine)
17:30 - 18:30 Room 2 Language tools Done Asaf
20:00 - 21:00 Rooms 1 Lightning talks Done Asaf
21:00 - 22:00 Room 1 Wikidata edit-a-thon Martins
Day 2
Timeslot Room Session title Moderator Notes
9:30 - 11:00 Room 1 Article contests Done Kaarel with a takeaway session at the end
9:30 - 11:00 Room 2 Good practices in chapter management ............ Claudia 20-30 minutes, Tomasz 20-30 minutes and then Vojtech to have discussion
11:30 - 13:00 Room 1 Photo contests Done Levon Question about takeaways and discussion in the end
11:30 - 13:00 Room 2 Funding Done Filip Session needs rewording, not sure what we decided here
14:00 - 15:30 Room 1 WMF: Tools to Measure & Track (Tools Rotations) Done WMF
16:00 - 18:00 Room 1 Education Programme. Part I Done Anna 4 talks here
16:00 - 18:00 Room 2 Bridging the gender gap Done Nikola lots of time for discussions and take aways
18:00 - 19:00 Room 1 CEE 2016 Collab (Brainstorming session) Done Anna
20:00 - 21:00 Room 1 Education Programme. Part II Done Anna 1 work in groups "Roadmap...", needs furniture rearrnagement
20:00 - 21:00 Room 2 WMF: Fail Fest – Learning Together Done WMF
21:00 - 22:00 Room 1 Wikidojo Done Nikola 7-10 people needed
Day 3
Timeslot Room Session title Moderator Notes
9:30 - 11:30 Room 1 Institutional and media outreach Done Cornelius Dimi and then Polish, Vassia, Bojan
9:30 - 11:30 Room 2 Volunteer support Done Asaf 2 submissions which leaves enough room for discussion in the end.
12:00 - 13:00 Room 1 WMF: Storytelling to Advance the Wikimedia Movement Done WMF
14:00 - 15:30 Room 1 Low-cost projects Done Marek
14:00 - 15:30 Room 2 Cross-border cooperation Done Levon 3 lectures and then split to interest groups
16:00 - 17:00 Room 1 The Future of WMCEE Kaarel? Open discussion
  • Several talks need to be shortened and/or merged. Speakers will be personally informed.
  • We still need to decide how to proceed with session "State of the movement" right after the Opening ceremony. Two days for discussion whether the audience would expect to hear one-to-many presentation with an overview of the last year, or would prefer representatives from each country to make a 1-2 minute talks about the state of their communities. Please leave your comments about this below. A poll will be created in the FB group, too.

Spiritia 00:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can only imagine how much hard work went into preparing and revising and finalizing this programme. Thank you, Vassia, for all of your efforts on behalf of the programme committee and all of CEE. This is -- and you are -- much appreciated. <3 Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]