Wikimedia Conference 2014/Feedback evaluation

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikimedia Conference 2014 from above

Results of the feedback survey[edit]

tl;dr: you can find the #wmcon survey evaluation (PDF) (1,24 MB) on Wikimedia Commons.

Methodology[edit]

  • Online feedback survey via Google Forms (here as a pdf file available, 186 KB)
  • Data collection:
    • April 13th – May 5th, 2014 (after Wikimedia Conference 2014)
    • Conference participants: 141
    • Participants invited to the survey (via email): 141
    • Completed questionnaires: n=78 (55 % of conference participants)

Summary[edit]

Content / program[edit]

  • A broad majority of the respondents judged the conference as a good opportunity to exchange ideas about movement issues (100%), as being suitable for their background (97%) or providing useful information (92%). Slightly falling behind: reaching a shared understanding (76%).
  • Overall satisfaction with different program facets was very high, ranging from 98% [‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’] for the overall flow of the conference to 86% for session formats and selection of topics. Only in terms of call to action/ definition of next steps there appear to be some major weaknesses (57%, ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’).
  • The most favored sessions were “Chapters Dialogue” (50% of mentions), followed by “Meet the WMF Board of Trustees” (29%) and “Let’s make better mistakes tomorrow” (24%).
  • The facilitation of the conference by external facilitators was appreciated by 93% of the respondents and regarded as useful especially for big/ plenum sessions. Regarding smaller sessions, some more dynamic facilitation methods to engage the audience were demanded occasionally.
  • Overall, the programming process was appreciated, as it led to adequate speakers and session formats. Observed differences between certain participants in terms of expectation, experience or background led to suggestions to create formal tracks or special conferences for specific groups.
  • Some respondents emphasized the need for shorter and more focused sessions. Some regrets about important sessions being staged at the same time.

Networking[edit]

  • In terms of networking, 40% of the respondents reported making up to ten new working contacts, 37% reported 11-20 new working contacts and 21% made even more than 20 (21-60) new working contacts.
  • Meeting all the Wikimedia people at the conference mainly helped to gain knowledge (99%, strongly agree or agree), share knowledge (99%) and to achieve a better understanding of each others' views (99%). At least 84% felt supported to join or start an initiative. 79% of the respondents judge the conference as helpful to release tensions.

Learning[edit]

(open comments only)

  • General knowledge transfer mainly referred to a better understanding of each others perspectives, structure and strategy of the global movement and governance/ strategy issues on chapter/affiliate level.
  • Many respondents emphasized the learning effect due to the exchange with other chapters about activities and programs conducted, best practices and shared challenges of chapters/ affiliates.
  • Single learning topics mentioned more frequently: program evaluation, grantmaking and fundraising, GLAM programs, software development, hiring staff, Conflict of Interest and EU advocacy.
  • The main benefits for each respondent emphasize Understanding, Meeting People Face2Face, Networking, Sharing of Experiences and Learning.

Organizational aspects[edit]

  • The ratings for the organizational aspects of the conference were generally very positive. Especially the support by organizers during the conference (100% ‘excellent’ or ‘good’), the WMDE space (100%) and the conference venue (99%) were highlighted here. In the open comments, positive remarks mostly concern the organization and support by WMDE and the supportive staff at the venue.

Some limitations applied to the WiFi, accommodation and catering aspects:

  • 85% of the respondents rated the conference WiFi as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’, but some open comments described it as ‘OK but not totally sufficient’.
  • Regarding the accommodation (88% ‘excellent’ or ‘good’) it was appreciated to have all conference participants together in one (affordable) hotel. However, friendliness of the hotel staff, support at the hotel and the hotel’s neighbourhood aroused some criticism.
  • The catering at the conference was only partly appreciated. Whereas 80% of the respondents rated it as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’, some open comments referred to the need for more choice according to religious or dietary preferences.

Overall evaluation[edit]

  • The overall rating of the conference was very good. The broad majority of the respondents rated the conference as being ‘excellent’ (54%) or ‘good’ (43%).
  • Up to 49% of the respondents stated that their expectations regarding the conference were even exceeded. For 42% of the respondents their expectations were completely met, whereas only 9% stated that their expectations were not entirely met.

Outlook[edit]

(open comments only)

  • For future Wikimedia conferences respondents emphasize keeping e.g. the bidding and program development process, but recommend a higher involvement in the program process. Many aspects of the conference are described as good e.g. networking opportunities, atmosphere, organizing, disciplined program or the productive way of working together. Wishes for changes focus on a broader range of participants, clearer session descriptions, a stronger orientation on results, more discussion/ practical work, best practices from chapters and an increased interaction with the WMF. Furthermore, the need to define clearer goals and outcomes of the Conference was expressed.
  • From the respondents point of view, important movement issues to be tackled in the future, focus on deepened mutual understanding of movement partners, working on truly joint strategies, broadened communication in the movement, improved structures and processes (e.g. for grantmaking, decision-making, support of smaller chapters/ affiliates on their way etc.) and expanded cooperation especially between different chapters/affiliates.

Detailed survey evaluation[edit]

  • You can find the detailed survey evaluation as a pdf file (1,24 MB) on Wikimedia Commons.