Talk:Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2016/Needs

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


State of the Movement[edit]

I think that once per year it is a great chance to listen to (and hear) everybody. Maybe short presentations from EVERY community going? 3-5 minutes per community --アンタナナ 13:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs to be coordinated, presentations have to be sent in before, so that the session goes smoothly and finishes on time. --Papuass (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and yes. I would go for three minutes, so that the 29 communities are ready in 1,5 hours, else the session will get to be too long and people tend to stop listening after 90 minutes. Alternatively, we could start with a 15-30 minutes long overview and have a short break in the middle of the presentations of the communities. Then we could give everyone 5 minutes. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very good proposal. Also, we need schedule, so I agree with a proposal of Papuass. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think that having somebody experienced in communications from WMF would be good --アンタナナ 10:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1. The social media part of the WMCON16 pre-conference was very good, indeed, especially JElder (WMF). It would be wonderful if he could find time for us. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for thinking of me, Lord Bumbury. My new CEE friends from WikiCon Berlin were great there and following up afterward. Are you guys asking for a remote talk or if I can come to Armenia? I'd like to ask my bosses, and want to be able to give them details. Do you need a session or two like I did in Berlin? Thanks again! JElder (WMF) (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it would be wonderful, if you can come up in person. for example, WMUA's working on its communication strategy (as a follow-up from WMCON, Olena Zakharian :)), maybe other communities are also implementing something learned there. so it would be a great chance to learn smth new and share the results with you and others --アンタナナ 14:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking of a talk or two in person, Jeff. I am not very convinced that remote talks can be nearly as good as talks in person. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me ask! Thanks again for thinking of me, Lord Bumbury and アンタナナ. JElder (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy to report that I got approval to attend CEE and would like to do a talk or two if you like, Lord Bumbury and アンタナナ!
This is great news! --Lord Bumbury (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lightning talks[edit]

This session is really helpful, and if we have enough participants willing to share their project and ideas, we can have this session every day --アンタナナ 10:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 --Lord Bumbury (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 --Ehrlich91 (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 (probably) --Wintereu 15:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content Translation / Machine Translation for Wikipedia[edit]

If there are interested in this, it would be great if Amire80 / Aaharoni-WMF can join us (Александр Сигачёв suggested that it can be done via skype) --アンタナナ 18:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks for thinking about me :)
I'll be happy to help! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Actually, the system has changed a (great) bit. And we have new affiliates. It may be okay to include a session about Grantmaking from WMF, and maybe also include something learned by Wikimedia Sverige (John Andersson (WMSE) presented their findings at WMCON 2016 during lightning talks and How to get external grants for your organization sessions) --アンタナナ 09:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This should be split in general picture and technical session, but it depends on background of people who will come to the conference. We need ideas and brainstorming about this. Europeana Art History Challenge can be showcased. --Papuass (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oh, and I know, I know who is passionate about this! Ijon / Asaf (WMF) can you help us with some vision on shaping this section? a proof link :) --アンタナナ 14:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I think like I said in Berlin, that Wikidata is future of our movement, so definitely we need a separate session about this. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem with this is that it is still highly technical and most people who come to the conference are community leaders. If we want a CEE+Wikidata=❤ project, we need to get more technical people together and make them agree on things. The problem with example I showed at WMCON (Cycling team module) is that it still has lots of problems despite being used on 23 Wikipedias. It does not respect local formatting style for infoboxes and has other formatting problems. --Papuass (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It'd be great to have someone who will present and discuss the development strategies and perspectives of Wiktionary. How does the WMF see the future of Wiktionary and how the community can make it better.--David Saroyan (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think (correct me if I'm wrong!) only you folks (Armenia) are working with Wiktionary in a deliberate way, among the CEE groups. There is in fact no "development strategy" for Wiktionary at the moment. The one bright hope is Wikibase/Wikidata support for Wiktionary, that would enable separating lexemes into their different senses and matching them at each sense level with other languages, example sentences, etc. This would only happen after the current major sister-project Wikidatafication, that of Commons, so I think the future of Wiktionary would only be a good topic for CEEM 2017, at the earliest. Ijon (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple video editing training[edit]

I think lots of us would benefit from training how to edit simple videos (screen recording, Wikipedia instructions, our events). I have never done it, but I guess could learn something in few hours, but practical tips and style guidelines would be useful. Just remembered this from a brief chat with Magalia at WMCON: sometimes we have some video recordings which we never bother to edit so we never use them. --Papuass (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia CEE Spring[edit]

Country vs language vs Wikimedia affiliate organisation[edit]

It seems we need to discuss the contest and how we can better organise it. One of the issues was raised by Strainu here: Talk:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2016#Country vs language vs Wikimedia affiliate organization --アンタナナ 10:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1--Strainu (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1--Liridon (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article lists[edit]

At WMCON16 アンタナナ and NickK pointed out to me that the Bulgarian lists were too large and contained articles which would never be written, e.g. such, that did not exist in English. I'd like to discuss the number and expected quality of the articles from the lists. --Лорд Бъмбъри (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The CEE moniker[edit]

In addition to my specific opinion about CEE Spring, discussions on Facebook led me to believe that we should decide on a set of rules that can be applied more or less mechanically to any project issued from our group: when can something be called CEE something?--Strainu (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copied from FB: One opinion is that we should remain in these loose CEE region borders, but we can work with other communities outside region on individual projects. Limits should be set at least to:
  1. scolarships for CEE conference, to keep reasonable travel costs
  2. CEE Spring, because it is about the region and there are some links or common history, one of important aspects of contest.
--Papuass (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surveys: Workshop[edit]

I think that a survey workshop can be useful. Asking the right questions is crucial for getting the right answers. Edward taught 8 tips for great surveys (see the slides) during Pre-conference for Wikimedia Conference 2016. And there is a presentation on Designing Effective Survey Questions by Jaime (see below). We can ask the ones interested to have their surveys ready (planned or already done), so Edward can analyze them and improve. We can ask people to get a Qualtrics account before the event, and try to work closer with Edward during the event (see Surveys for more information) --アンタナナ 01:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy to help with this アンタナナ! Others have used surveys before event (during registration) and after as well. I can work on gathering these if that will be helpful? --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, Edward. I think this kind of surveys will be super helpful! --アンタナナ 10:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry - I just realized I misread this :) - you meant a surveys workshop for the meeting. Yes - I would be happy to help plan this workshop. As well as help with a a pre-survey for the conference :) Thanks! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Informing all communities[edit]

Antanana and I wrote to every community about this page during the last week. For Chapters and User Groups their pages on Meta were used, all the rest was informed on their village pumps on their Wikipedias. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion moderators and facilitators[edit]

Discussion moderators and facilitators are needed. Please list your name here if you have experience with at least one of these and are willing to take responsibility for it during the conference. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. --Artificial123 (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. --Lingveno (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarifications on position of the Republic of Srpska[edit]

Hello. It would appear there are some misunderstandings with position of Republic of Srpska, given that our Wikimedia Community of the Republic of Srpska was listed as a user group which is not country based. This is not true. Republic of Srpska is one of the political entities, recognized by the international community, from the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It has its own government, territory, laws, citizens and institutions. The other political entity is Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In a political construction that is somewhat complicated there is also District of Brčko which is condominium of both Republic of Srpska and Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Given that the Republic of Srpska is constituent part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the base of Wikimedia Community of the Republic of Srpska is state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and political entity of Republic of Srpska. In regards to everything said above it would be most precise to list our community under Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are currently the only recognized user group in B&H and as such represent it. We understand that the political organization of Bosnia and Herzegovina can be confusing for those who are not familiar with it, which can lead to mistakes, but would appreciate if mistakes as this one would not repeat in the future and if the current one is addressed. I would also point out that Bashkortostan is part of the Russian Federation and as such also has a country base. Kind regards. Ljubiša Malenica (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Republika Srpska is not a country, despite it has some political power as a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a sovereign and independent country/state, while Republic of Srpska is just a political entity, nothing more. One can't compare Bashkortostan in Russia with Republic of Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Republic of Srpska is not recognized as country. It's not republic even if it contains "republika" in its name. --Munja (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project management session[edit]

Many of the communities have asked for sessions on project management, but there are so many possible topics to choose from, therefore the programme committee would be grateful if the members of the participating communities could define better which topics should be covered at most. We offer you a list of possible topics, which can be extended:

  • overview
  • definition of goals
  • project environment and stakeholder analysis
  • risks and chances management
  • project end and reporting
  • leadership
  • communication
  • teamwork and team roles
  • creativity techniques
  • ethics
  • ...

Best regards, --Lord Bumbury (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]