Talk:Call for Participation

Sample notices to send out: see Call for Participation/Distribution for lists to contact and sample messages to send.

Thoughts on a Call for Participation

Discussed earlier were three possible tracks: on outreach, wiki philosophy and collaboration, and bridging global cultural divides. More notes on each below. These are different from the tracks proposed in the current draft.

Outreach track

This part should include presentations and events promoting Wiki among the general public. We would like Wiki to be visible around the city, maybe we ought to prepare a series of smaller events outside Ołowianka, perhaps in the Old City, the airport and train station. Wherever there is a WLAN access (restaurants), there should be information that You can edit Wikipedia here (or something similar). How about screens with a scrolled Recentchanges page (à la the more friendly LiveRC)?

Suggested issues:

• Workshops for media representatives: a series of workshops (multilingual?) about how Wiki works, what are the rules and defense mechanisms. Journalists need data too, they can access it through Wikimedia. The cooperation with media is possible. This is the time to show how the attitude to the copyright-related issues can be changed in 15 minutes;
• Interwikinight Live: Wikipedia as a tool and source of information for linguists, an analysis of linguistic and intercultural aspects. Languages are dying around the world, Kashubian is one of them. Wiki is the tool to keep the alive.
• Wikiekspedycja (Wikiexpedition, held before Wikimania): A few-days long excursion to gather knowledge and data (photos, recordings, etc.) about Pomerania. Co-operation of the local Wiimedians as well as encouraging new people to work on Wikipedia and show them that you do not need to sit in a library to gather information. We invite foreign Wikimedians, too.
• Wikiwystawa (Wikiexpo): A series of expositions or one, longstanding exhibition presenting wikimechanics to the public. Preferably outside Ołowianka (Długi Targ street, etc.)
• ...

Wiki track

This track is for big discussions of the Wiki: Past, present, and future.

This track is for summing up some of the issues we've had since the beginning. Many discussions have been held, some are still alive, perhaps we may find new issues to fascinate us in the future.

For example (some of these can be split into more sessions):

• Wikipedia is always "under construction": the quality of content, oposing viewpoints (high quality vs many stubs left to be expanded). What is "quality"? What makes Wikipedia to be perceived as "quality content"? Flagged revisions, for and against.
• Stub sorting: Origins, progress, extinction of a long-lasting discussion on metadata on the Polish Wikipedia.
• Notability contra relevancy?: Summary of the dynamic discussion on the German Wikipedia in the late 2009 (the discussion featured fefe of the Chaos Computer Club).
• Vandalism: Origins and psychological aspects of the phenomenon. Maybe we could invite a notorious vandal? :)
• Which of the Five Pillars will cease to exist in 10 to 15 years? Why?
• Wikimoeba - Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, do not expand in a uniform manner. There are topics which are omitted while others have many contributors. Is this accidental? Is this a general trend? Are "humanists" a minority? Or maybe such divisions will no longer be relevant thanks to Wikimedia?

Global track

North meets south, east meets west and lets be Global Citizens !

How can people of a different cultural background create an encyclopedia according to common rules? Cultural differences between different language versions of Wikipedia. Same subject in the eye of different cultures. Controversial issues. Varied ideas for the development of Wikimedia - can we share this knowledge, too?

Whether these aspect can be discussed, depends a lot on the participants who wish to make a presentation. We would like to inspire potential speakers and to spark many ideas by inviting the right people. Some potential topics include:

• Policy differences across major projects and wiki-cultures: The ten largest Wiki projects have significantly different policies in areas such as treatment of newcomers, notability and quality standards, and standards for acceptable images. Are projects learning from one another? Do these differences exist in spite of good communication, representing differences in wiki culture, or because communication is not good?
• One article per topic... per language: We limit each language to a single article per topic to ensure collaboration towards a single set of ideas, references, comparisons, and analyses. But we require separate articles for different languages, even when two communities might wish to collaborate on a single article while maintaining its content in two languages. Is this merely a technical limitation (and if so how should it change), or is it a deep statement about the incomparability of values as mapped onto language?
• Global translation teams and tools: In some ways, Wikimedia is a beacon for large-scale translation of messages, discussions, and votes across dozens of languages. In others, it has avoided adopting tools long since taken for granted by the tech-savvy translation community (translation memory and linkage, specialized translation dictionaries). And in yet others, Wikimedia contains the seeds for an open translation dictionary and framework which is not available elsewhere under a free license.
• How should we address preserving small languages?: Do we have anything in common with efforts like the Rosetta Project?

Translations

If you have a work in Polish that needs translation into English, please contact one of the following translators:

• saper ;-)
• Psychology

If you have a work in Hindi or Kannada that needs translation into English, please contact the following translator:

• Pramukh Arkalgud Ganeshamurthy

About Wikimania 2010

About this year's Wikimania: this is a chance for every participant to help open up the Wiki community. We want to show that Wikipedians are ordinary people who at some point became fascinated with creating this online encyclopedia, dictionary, atlas, and image repository. One of our goals is to expose the inner life of Wikimedians -- how is it possible that our projects have not become yet another digital junkyard? We also encourage participation that demonstrates the numerous ways to participate, and examples of how different people find a way that suits them best.

The proposed conference slogan is: Wikipedia is coming out / Wiki wychodzi z podziemia / Wikipedia geht aus / Википедия выходит из подполья

For the conference production, this means Wikipedia will be visible around Gdańsk. People who come to Gdańsk should see that something new and exciting is going on that week, with demonstrations for the general public that Wikipedia is a living organism, not just a common search result. Also interested and willing Wikipedians can post this slogan on their social networking profiles, so as to let more and more people around the world know about this unique event.

Today:

• Many internet users visit Wikipedia and Wiktionary;
• Not everybody knows who creates Wikipedia, why, that it is a not-for-profit endeavor, and that it is free for reuse;
• Most people think that contributing to Wikimedia projects is a complicated task for dedicated professionals only; the edit tab and the slogan "...that everyone can edit" are not so visible.

Hoewever, the Wikimedia community is composed of people of different professions, different ages, different interests; and no matter where you are from, you have something to contribute to Wikipedia and its sister projects. Wikipedia in itself stands as a unique information revolution in this information centric era.

The proposed conference slogan is: Wikipedia is coming out - this seems inappropriate given Wikimedia's stance on this topic. GreenReaper 21:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

On possibilities for Wikimania outreach

In Poland (as opposed to the U.S. for example) it will be easier to attract the attention of the national and the European media. The conference will be one of the biggest events in this area and one of the most important knowledge event in Poland during the whole year.

Gdańsk is a great size: the event will not be lost in an enormous crowd, whereas the island of Ołowianka and the old part of the city will help as avoid excessive commotion; and we can hope for tourist interest in the summer. And Gdańsk is a university city, with two major institutions and related advantages.

IP editing

I just noticed that we don't have IP editing enabled for wikimania2010.wikimedia.org - this will give logged out users an error message when they try to complete the process. I'm suggesting we enable IP editing for the wiki - this will slightly increase our spam load, but is IMO better than the alternatives. Let me know if you have any concerns about this.--Eloquence 00:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that IPs should be able to edit most pages, but in this particular case I think it's fine for us to ask people to log in to complete the program registration process -- since we want an email way to get in touch with them! So let's turn on general IP editing, but add a custom "please sign in" message at the top of the edit page one gets when using the inputbox. Sj 23:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity

In the context it was mensioned "(including Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wiktionary, Wikispecies, Wikimedia Commons, and MediaWiki)." How about Wikiversity? I can see it has been mentioned later.--Email4mobile 16:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Including means that it's not an exhaustive list. It doesn't mention Wikiquote or Wikisource either. Cbrown1023 talk 00:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A question

I won't be able to attend the meeting. Can I send a presentation, even so? If the answer is "no", may it rest in peace.

But, if the answer is "yes", how will it be presented, there? Printed? on screen? Inside the Wikimania pages? Or...?

Should I write in Ptguese or in English?

thank you for an answer!

--Betty VH 12:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Betty, we are currently looking for speakers to come over to Gdańsk and present there. What kind of presentation would you like to bring over? 13:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Grouping submissions into one page

Currently the only way to find new "Call for Participation" submissions is by checking the recent changes page, which is clearly not optimal. Wouldn't it be easier if we could create a page to gather all the submissions into? SimsimTee 20:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Do you mean this: Wikimania 2010 submissions? if yes then there is a link to it in the "submissions" section in this article. cheers, Meeso 21:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant a community created/edited page, not an automated category one. SimsimTee 22:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Ah! Well if the purpose is to find submissions, regardless of whether new or old ones, then what's the point of having an editable page, since it would be only "listing" submissions?! thanks, Meeso 23:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• An editable page would be more informative and organized IMO. It may include metadata about each submission, e.g. submitter, date of submission, and maybe later status, whether approved or not, etc. To name a few benefits. Thanks! SimsimTee 14:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please use no less than 300 words to describe your proposal?

The submission template currently says "please use no less than 300 words to describe your proposal". At least I initially read that to mean "under 300 words" (less than), and the vast majority of submitters have indeed sent in 100-200 word submissions, but that actually means "at least" (more than) 300 words. Which is correct? Jpatokal 01:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Jpatokal. Well, i have no knowledge of the intentions of the organizers regarding this matter, but only based on logical inference i'd say they mean use a minimum of 300 words, meaning that it needs to be more than 299 words. But still i suppose if you feel that less than 300 words is enough for you to describe and communicate what you want to say, then go for it. This probably is just to indicate that the reviewers would want to know more than just a brief description of what you want to present. Good luck, Meeso 22:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No-videotape requests

I just received a request to submit a proposal by a presenter who doesn't like being videotaped. That seems ok to me -- as long as whatever materials are available are under a free license. I suggest the following change:

If you object to these requirements (for instance, if you would prefer not to be taped), please talk to a program committee member before submitting a proposal.

Sj 23:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather we did not edit the CfP once launched. Can you send me the details privately or forward to the mailing list?  « Saper // @talk »  23:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sj that we should accept those requests. We did so in the past and it's a legitimate request. And I also agree that we should stop changing the CfP every day ;), except that I would like to address Jpatokal's concern above, ie. the "no less than 300 words is a lot of text, and we should have a requirement between 200 and 400 words for example, ie. no less than 200 and no more than 400. I had a hard time getting to 250 words and some :P. Delphine 22:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Time to close?

We're well into May 21 now, time to close the CFP? Jpatokal 11:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

...and now it's two days after the notification of acceptance deadline, and still no word. Come on! Jpatokal 06:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Notifications for workshops and panels have been sent out, presentations coming soon--Yaroslav Blanter 10:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Which probably means that notifications have been sent out to those accepted. I understand not every proposal can be kept, and I am perfectly fine with that; but I certainly think it would have been POLITE to also notify people of when their proposition have been rejected. Normally, that's something decent to do to inform those that are rejected. Don't you think ? Anthere

As far as I know, notifications have been sent out to everybody for panels and workshops, both accepted and rejected. Do you mean you did not receive anything? I can check, we have a meeting in several hours.--Yaroslav Blanter 08:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your workshop proposal is marked in our table as "accepted, notification sent"--Yaroslav Blanter 08:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not received anything Yaroslav... Anthere

I have already discussed this with Jacek and Danica. Just have in mind it is accepted, and we will re-sent the details. I am not sure why you have not received the notification, but we will find some credible address, in your case it is not so difficult.--Yaroslav Blanter 11:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not just post "your table" in the wiki? Jpatokal 05:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, because it contains information we do not want to be posted in public. --Yaroslav Blanter 07:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to push the issue -- but can we get a more precise estimation of when presentation notifications will be sent? In my case, travel arrangements need to be made very soon. Thanks, West.andrew.g 17:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They will be made public today. If you give me the link to your presentation, I can tell you whether it is accepted. --Yaroslav Blanter 07:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

odp

I have a set of slides generated in open office as an .odp file, but was unable to load it for one of my proposals as that format is unacceptable. Does anyone know why that format can't be loaded here, or how to generate an acceptable format from open office? WereSpielChequers 06:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Exporting to pdf usually works fine. Nonetheless it would be better to allow .odp as well, I guess you'll have to file a bug on bugzilla to get that done. --Effeietsanders 22:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have opened bug 23829.  « Saper // @talk »  12:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK so .odp uses zip files and they are a security risk. Fair enough I'll generate a .pdf WereSpielChequers 16:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Results

Have been made available: Review results--Yaroslav Blanter 11:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)