Hello,
I'm currently interested on knowing how the wikipedia scale from the
technology perspective: the wikipedia infrastructure, its servers and
application. Are there any wikimania talks that I could refer to?
Paper and video would be good.
Regards,
--
Zaki Akhmad
Indonesia
Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I just
can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will
follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
I wrote my last response on that few minutes ago:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Activity_Plan#5.2_Wikiconference_2013
"Hire a production company for half of this cost. It's really waste of
donors money, for what we expect to be done by volunteers, or for a minimum
costs. If every one who going to bid for Wikimania will spent this amount
of money (and why them not? if UK can, why others not?), it's mean that for
4 places every year we are "spending" more than 260,000$ only for the
bid!!!. --217.132.1.140 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)"
I really think the "Wikimania" groups need to speak about that. It's the
first time a group/chapter spending such amount of money for bid, and it's
open a door for next cities to do the same - with money which can uses to
invest in Wikimania itself.
Itzik
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>wrote:
> Maybe the question should first be: what kind of Wikimania do we want.
> Personally, I would be totally happy with down scaling the conference a
> bit. Less visitors (500-600), less events and less professional. Let it be
> more volunteer focused, and yes, perhaps also a bit more chaotic. That also
> means we can change the nature of bids: more back to basic and more focus
> on location, venue and accomodation. If we can bring the budget down, we
> also need to focus less on sponsorships etc, which should make the bidding
> easier and more open to more groups of dedicated volunteers.
>
> I know other people have a different opinion about it, and would rather
> make the conference more professional, less risky, more fancy etc. I prefer
> it to be a lower key community event.
>
> Lodewijk
>
On a general note, I agree with Lodewijk and some of the other sentiment
that it may be wise to take Wikimania back in the direction of a somewhat
more informal, community-centric social experience.
However, I very much disagree that this has to mean a *smaller* Wikimania,
I would rather see Wikimania growing, year by year, as a global social hub
for volunteers and fans in the wide world of the emerging free knowledge
movement.
And look forward to our Wiki-Woodstock bid for NY, coming 2019 or so! ;)
Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
Just to clarify Wikimedia UK's position regarding Wikimania 2014.
So far the Wikimedia UK board has made no decisions and received no
proposals regarding Wikimania 2014 - spending money on it or otherwise.
What we do have is a section in the current draft of the 2013 activity plan
suggesting allocating £40,000 for Wikimania 2014. This draft is currently
up for community consultation before we discuss it at our September board
meeting. As a result of the discussion there we will develop a proposal to
vote on, and whatever is accepted, we will then send to the FDC; how the
FDC will respond, no-one knows. Then when we know the FDC's opinion, we
will have another version, and then when the fundraiser out-turn is known
in January there will be a further iteration before our actual 2013 budget
is finalised. So there is plenty of work left to do on this. What's more,
since our financial year runs from February and bid selection is in April
it's inevitable that most of any budget allocation we make for Wikimania
would be for *after* a successful bid, rather than before it.
While I can understand why this it a topic of interest, I'm not sure there
is any need to get worked up about it. We make a conscious effort to do our
planning as openly as possible, and share early drafts of documents with
the community for input. We are also unable to reject proposals that have
not yet been made. Please think carefully about whether shouting at us as a
result is a good idea ;-)
Personally I hope that we end up with a very strong, volunteer-led, London
bid which will be successful and that Wikimedia UK will be able to support
Wikimania 2014 in every way possible - but there is still a very long way
to go yet.
Many thanks,
Chris Keating
(User:The Land)
Chair, Wikimedia UK
No, I'm not completely illiterate. I'd appreciate it if you kept your
replies on-list. Perhaps you should take a break from this discussion until
you have had a chance to calm down. You aren't doing yourself or WM-UK any
favors with these kinds of comments.
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:47 AM, HJ Mitchell <hjmitchell(a)ymail.com> wrote:
> Are you completely illiterate, or do you always reply to people without
> reading their emails first?
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> Phone: 024 7698 0977
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
>
Hi,
One could also read that differently. But lets not go into that discussion
right now - it is not about whether WMUK is right or wrong to allocate such
amounts of money (if it were to make that decision at all, as stated it is
only a draft proposal by a working committee to the board and then we as
members still have a say about it), it is much rather about the future:
what kind of wikimania do we want? I explained my preference (primarily
volunteer run, lower expectations and less expensive - focus on the
community rather than the PR component) and others have explained that they
have (sometimes) other views such as móre professional, móre visitors and
móre fancyness. The London bidding team is clearly opposite to my personal
view of what a Wikimania would ideally look like. Lets not try to play it
on the jury of the 2013 wikimania (which I was in, by the way) but lets
have the general discussion about what we would like to see for 2014 and
further. Based on that, we can indeed try to draw conclusions.
Lodewijk
2012/8/26 WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>
> I agree that it would be wrong for chapter money to go into Wikimania
> bids, especially as some bid teams have access to resources that others
> don't. However London lost the last bid against Hong Kong partly because
> it was deemed not to have "solid support from the chapter". Considering how
> much support there was from the chapter it would be difficult to see how
> the UK chapter could give more solid support without supplying paid staff
> time. So the logical response to the jury's decision
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-May/003491.html is
> to budget for more solid support from the chapter.
>
> If the Jury had said that both bids were very good , but for 2013 it was
> really time for another Wikimania in the Far East then we'd be in a
> different situation.
>
> WSC
>
>
>
> On 25 August 2012 20:32, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Staffing is a very good thing to spend money on—while executing the
>> conference. Spending $62,000 on staff for a bid would be worth the
>> investment if bidding for Wikimania were anything like bidding for the
>> Olympics, but it is not. The spirit of Wikimania is ultimately from its
>> volunteer leadership, and if the Wikimedia UK volunteers cannot muster that
>> spirit to run their own bid, they have no hope and no soul.
>>
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Itzik Edri wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, it's undiplomatic to interfere with others budget plans - but I
>> just can't ignore how the future of Wikimania will look like if others will
>> follow UK plans to invest £40,000 only for the bid process (about 62,000$).
>>
>> I wrote my last response on that few minutes ago:
>>
>> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Activity_Plan#5.2_Wikiconference_2013
>>
>>
>> "Hire a production company for half of this cost. It's really waste of
>> donors money, for what we expect to be done by volunteers, or for a minimum
>> costs. If every one who going to bid for Wikimania will spent this amount
>> of money (and why them not? if UK can, why others not?), it's mean that for
>> 4 places every year we are "spending" more than 260,000$ only for the
>> bid!!!. --217.132.1.140 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)"
>>
>> I really think the "Wikimania" groups need to speak about that. It's the
>> first time a group/chapter spending such amount of money for bid, and it's
>> open a door for next cities to do the same - with money which can uses to
>> invest in Wikimania itself.
>>
>>
>> Itzik
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
Bleh; the new list settings are CONFUSING! Reply forwarded below:
On 26 August 2012 13:16, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 26 August 2012 02:32, Edward Saperia <edsaperia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, the downside of doing your work open and in public is that people see
>> a half finished doodle of a budget and get overexcited and you come back to
>> 45 emails in your inbox...
>>
>
> Yes indeed; and it was posted to the worst list possible :(
>
>
>>
>> Yes, it's likely that the Wikimania 2014 London Bid Committee is going to
>> be applying for a grant to help it put together a good bid, but we're still
>> figuring out which roles are required and waiting for other inputs, so the
>> numbers were really just placeholders for now.
>
>
>> The deeper question I see here is - what sort of event does the community
>> want Wikimania to be? It's a conference that is really beginning to come of
>> age, and with this comes growing pains. From a 200 person glorified pubmeet
>> it's become a five day long 1000+ person multi-track affair with all the
>> attendant expectations on AV, travel logistics, social events, catering,
>> multi-tiered accommodation... and unless it's not handled well, potentially
>> a very frustrating experience for a lot of wikimedians who have invested
>> their time and money travelling to take part.
>>
>
> I've tried ot cover some of this on the CC's meeting page. I am just
> heading out the door so this addition might be a bit rough...
>
> As I noted we need professionalism to cover infrastructure - the unseen
> things that always get complained about when they don't quite work right
> (although; professional approaches often fail here too - been to lots of
> bigwig conferences where the wifi is cruddy). More than anything these
> things need attention to detail (which is why hiring a media company or PCO
> etc. is not a good approach).
>
> As we have a staff infrastructure in London as it is we should build upon
> this to meet our organisational needs, it will be cheaper.
>
>
>> With the correct facilitating software, a lot of people have been able to
>> collaborate together to build a killer encyclopaedia. Similarly, a well
>> designed conference can allow for positive interactions between a very
>> large number of people. As the size increases, the complexity increases,
>> the risk increases, and the cost increases - but so do the possible
>> benefits.
>>
>> Let us be clear: running an event this size is not cheap. A Wikimania
>> costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, and probably significantly more in a
>> place like London. Tickets to your average<http://www.websummit.net/get-tickets/>
>> tech <http://www.leweb.co/register/paris> event<http://www.ted.com/pages/tedglobal>of a similar size and scope would easily cost £1000+ per delegate, and in
>> comparison a Wikimania is basically free. This means that we need to do a
>> lot more work fundraising, which takes a lot of time and planning, and a
>> chief concern of potential sponsors is whether the event will be delivered
>> to a professional standard. We are finding that a lot of the groundwork for
>> the event has to be laid well before the bid process even starts. Not to
>> sound patronising, but event organisation is different to wiki editing;
>> there are deadlines which must be met, and mistakes that cannot be reverted.
>
>
>> So let us ask ourselves, why should the community spend so much donor
>> money on Wikimania (bids)? What is Wikimania there to achieve?
>>
>> WMF's policy on grants:
>>
>>> Grant requests should support the achievement of Wikimedia's mission and
>>> strategic priorities. We favor high impact requests over low impact
>>> requests; try to break new ground, and to increase your group's capacity
>>> for new programs and partnerships.
>>>
>>
>> Holding such a conference is high impact, breaks new ground, and fosters
>> links to local institutions<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_in_London>and builds relationships with sponsors
>> and partners<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013_bids/London#Partner_Organisa…>.
>> It's fantastic for encouraging innovation<http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summar…>and with Jimmy
>> on hand<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014_bids/London#Supporters>courting the press it should be great for increasing awareness
>> and participation<http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summar…>too. It seems as good a thing to invest in as any - after all, if it didn't
>> have community support, a thousand people probably wouldn't show up to it
>> every year!
>>
>>
> This is the one thing I've disagreed with on your approach so far. I've
> not really said much because you are getting up and doing something, which
> is more than anyone else. And not to be discouraged!
>
> But the focus of the event should be Wikipedians. Awareness and press is
> nice, but we get a lot of that anyway - and we don't necessarily want it
> focusing on US (i.e. the volunteers) rather than the project.
>
> (the one caveat to that is that I think we should pursue plans to hold big
> "come edit Wikipedia" sessions during Wikimania for newbies etc. like
> editathons/training on a MASSIVE scale).
>
> The other things you mention are cool, but secondary to providing a
> friendly, safe, conference for Wikipedians to get together.
>
> Tom
>
I agree with what was said by Manuel.
I am in favour of larger events (we do not stop people from writing in Wikipedia, and all who can afford it should come to wikimania).
I am in favour of professional events - where schedule is kept, and Wifi is working, and food is tasty and sufficient.
All a good bid needs in the first stage is to describe a good venue (which is well located near cheep dorms and reasonable hotels). No money is required for that. At the second stage the bid should include a reasonable budget – for that all that is required is a list of quotes form companies – again – no cost is needed.
I am against wasting donors money.
In my personal opinion, the best bid is done by legwork (going to see the venue and places around it), writing letters and having meeting. This can be done by volunteers.
So my personal opinion is that the bid should cost 0$.
At most - have the chapter pay for public transportation for going to the meetings.
But what do I know.
Deror
Ah, the downside of doing your work open and in public is that people see a
half finished doodle of a budget and get overexcited and you come back to
45 emails in your inbox...
Yes, it's likely that the Wikimania 2014 London Bid Committee is going to
be applying for a grant to help it put together a good bid, but we're still
figuring out which roles are required and waiting for other inputs, so the
numbers were really just placeholders for now.
The deeper question I see here is - what sort of event does the community
want Wikimania to be? It's a conference that is really beginning to come of
age, and with this comes growing pains. From a 200 person glorified pubmeet
it's become a five day long 1000+ person multi-track affair with all the
attendant expectations on AV, travel logistics, social events, catering,
multi-tiered accommodation... and unless it's not handled well, potentially
a very frustrating experience for a lot of wikimedians who have invested
their time and money travelling to take part.
With the correct facilitating software, a lot of people have been able to
collaborate together to build a killer encyclopaedia. Similarly, a well
designed conference can allow for positive interactions between a very
large number of people. As the size increases, the complexity increases,
the risk increases, and the cost increases - but so do the possible
benefits.
Let us be clear: running an event this size is not cheap. A Wikimania costs
hundreds of thousands of pounds, and probably significantly more in a place
like London. Tickets to your average <http://www.websummit.net/get-tickets/>
tech <http://www.leweb.co/register/paris>
event<http://www.ted.com/pages/tedglobal>of a similar size and scope
would easily cost £1000+ per delegate, and in
comparison a Wikimania is basically free. This means that we need to do a
lot more work fundraising, which takes a lot of time and planning, and a
chief concern of potential sponsors is whether the event will be delivered
to a professional standard. We are finding that a lot of the groundwork for
the event has to be laid well before the bid process even starts. Not to
sound patronising, but event organisation is different to wiki editing;
there are deadlines which must be met, and mistakes that cannot be reverted.
So let us ask ourselves, why should the community spend so much donor money
on Wikimania (bids)? What is Wikimania there to achieve?
WMF's policy on grants:
> Grant requests should support the achievement of Wikimedia's mission and
> strategic priorities. We favor high impact requests over low impact
> requests; try to break new ground, and to increase your group's capacity
> for new programs and partnerships.
>
Holding such a conference is high impact, breaks new ground, and fosters
links to local institutions<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_in_London>and
builds relationships with sponsors
and partners<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013_bids/London#Partner_Organisa…>.
It's fantastic for encouraging
innovation<http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summar…>and
with Jimmy
on hand<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014_bids/London#Supporters>courting
the press it should be great for increasing awareness
and participation<http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summar…>too.
It seems as good a thing to invest in as any - after all, if it didn't
have community support, a thousand people probably wouldn't show up to it
every year!
Ed
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 9:14 PM, <wikimania-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>wrote:
> Send Wikimania-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimania-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimania-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimania-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid (Joseph Fox)
> 2. Re: UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid (Theo10011)
> 3. Re: UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid (Thomas Morton)
> 4. Re: UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid (Joseph Fox)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:19:17 +0100
> From: Joseph Fox <josephfoxwiki(a)gmail.com>
> To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
> <wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] UK budget plan for 2014 Wikimania bid
> Message-ID:
> <
> CADbK8XcMSQDbSsrUwDKT16TTcoPXt4vZch7M+RCcBvW8eLRyTg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I understand this. But people here seem to have seen that they'll be making
> up a financial plan for the event, then announcing that there is no raw
> passion underneath the money. I'm just telling you that there are a *lot*
> of
> very active and very passionate Wikimedians in the UK looking to make the
> best possible event.
>
> Also remembering that Brits are all tightfisted, of course, so they'll not
> be silly with their money ;)
>
> (Also, James, my apologies for the assumption. I wonder if WMUK will be
> able to negotiate such a discount...)
>
> Joe
>
> On 25 August 2012 21:15, Manuel Schneider <manuel.schneider(a)wikimedia.ch
> >wrote:
>
> > Am 25.08.2012 22:10, schrieb Joseph Fox:
> > > To be honest I'm rather offended that the UK bid is being written off
> > while
> > > it's still 2014. I agree with you, but London is far from the cheapest
> > city
> > > in the world, as I'm sure you're aware - money will be required.
> >
> > from my experience on the Wikimania Jury I can assure you that it is
> > pretty much taken into account how much Wikimania experience the bidding
> > team has and how much the understand to make a Wikimania as Wikimania is.
> >
> > /Manuel
> > --
> > Regards
> > Manuel Schneider
> >
> > Wikimedia CH - Verein zur F?rderung Freien Wissens
> > Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge
> > www.wikimedia.ch
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimania-l mailing list
> > Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
> >
>
Hello again!
Videos of Wikimania 2012 sessions have begun making their way to YouTube. As videos are uploaded, they will be made available here: <http://www.youtube.com/user/wikimediadc>. If there is a lecture you want to see that has not been uploaded yet, it will be uploaded in the coming weeks.
Once we have all the videos, we will send hard drives of the videos off to the server farms for direct upload to Wikimedia Commons, with both low-resolution and full HD versions being made available.
Enjoy these videos! The presenters did a fantastic job and I know there were many sessions I wish I could've went to.
All the best,
James Hare
Coordinator, Wikimania 2012