Talk:Public speakers/Archives/2010

Page to be or not be on meta - a critical survey

having myself been an international speaker on wikimedia and its projects for several years, i have followed the discussions and disagreements here for some time now, until today without interfering or taking part in them. i now decided to bring forward some fundamental questions, hoping that the quest for answers to these may shed some new light on the tough decisions that we need to make together: is this a wanted page or no, if yes, then how is it to be used?

looking at the pages in the main namespace that link to this page, i must conclude this page may attract quite some attention. nevertheless there seems to be no consensus about its main purpose and usage, yet all the while the page strikes one as being a mix of personal promotion and wikimedia foundation matters. as such a general agreement is missing so far, a consensus which is indeed highly desirable on an outwardly directed page such as this, i ask you to consider the following.

on Meta:About Meta i read a general statement of the purpose of this website, it states:

Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki (often shortened to Meta-Wiki or simply Meta), a wiki for coordination of Wikimedia projects.

and this makes me wonder

1. what does this page have to do with the coordination of wikimedia projects?

next, on the same page Meta:About Meta there is a summary of the Current purposes and What Meta-Wiki is not. yet these bring me no further, since this page and its apparent purposes do not seem to fit nor be explicitly listed in either.

and this makes me wonder

2. does this clearly controversial page belong at all on this rather central wiki (both its content and all the links to it)?

there obviously being no incubator for pages such as these, i wonder

3. why not remove the page for now and first clearly define its purposes and usage on meta, prior to its publishing?

concerning this page, these are the questions which in my opinion need to be urgently and fundamentally addressed at this moment. a quick look at this page's history brings on a frown: meta's main namespace is no sandbox for quarrels on such topics. very best to all, oscar 18:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean this to be a personal swipe, but I'm having trouble taking seriously a proposed dialogue that deliberately omits standard capitalization of the English language. Stadsgeschiedenis is quite interesting and cool, but must the dialogue here also turn into Wikipedia Art? Denying the proper use of capitalization seems to be more of an effort to draw attention to one's self than any sort of aid in communication efficacy. -- Thekohser 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he wishes to personally promote this writing style...

I think everyone here understands the purpose of the page, and I'm happy that the list of speakers changes over time. Guido den Broeder 13:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser: I don't think it's at all useful to swipe at Oscar's writing style. Knock it off.

The questions Oscar asks are serious ones. I do see this page as potentially on-mission for Meta just like things like meetup reports (unless it was a better fit at the wikimediafoundation wiki)... I also see it as somewhat problematic at this point. If we can't come to an agreement about how best to organize this page, how to decide about what should be included and what should not be, and who, one that the vast majority of users are in consensus about... this page may need to go until that consensus can be reached, if ever. ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly prefer Meta not to have this page at all, should no consensus be reached about the ground rules. Wutsje 02:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I FEEL THAT KONSENSUS WAS REACHED, AND I AM KONTENT WITH HOW THE PAGE KURRENTLY STANDS. (I was trying a new "writing style" -- all CAPS, and replacing all hard-C sounds with the letter "K". What does everyone think? I think it muddies the discussion with needless self-drawing attention, so that's why I'll continue using standard English and punctuation.) -- Thekohser 16:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yaz, ze agreemand iz alreddy der. Alzo, pagez donnod go zjuzt becoz day may neat reehorganisun'. (Zorrie, cohd cold). Guido den Broeder 17:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Both of you knock it off. This sort of mockery is not conductive to rational discourse and is inappropriate at Meta, where english is not the native language of all participants. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lar, don't you realize that oscar deliberately omits capitalization from his writing? It's not a "language barrier" issue at all. It is an artistic "statement" of some sort, which seems to me that it calls for attention. We are giving it attention, but then you are silencing it as "mockery". Would you call this mockery?

It is clear to me that Public speakers was a moribund page when I first discovered it; I tried to improve the accuracy of its content, which caused quite a stir; and now, I would say that the page is quite better (compare) than when I first arrived; and it's now returning to a moribund state again. It's not like I've never improved a page around here. The only reason this particular page caused such a stir is that I dared to add myself -- an experienced public speaker on the subject of Wikipedia and wikis -- to it. Sum it up as "mockery" if you wish. -- Thekohser 16:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong at that. You created a stir because you removed well respected speakers and because your characterisation of yourself is to say the least controversial. Thanks, GerardM 16:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Gerard, any stir that was created (mainly by you, if I recall) followed my 2-week proposal of what I intended to do, followed by another 2-week period for vulnerable speakers to reply to my direct e-mail appeal for their participation in their listing, followed by my clear instruction to "revert" my actions if anyone objected. You created the "stir", Gerard, by reacting in an immature manner to a quite maturely-handled upgrade to this content page. Now, tell me exactly in which way my characterization of myself is "controversial" in any way. Controversy means there is a dispute as to the facts. In which way have I not factually characterized myself on this content page? -- Thekohser 15:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

GerardM: What you say isn't quite true as the initial actions were helpful and within bounds of the process as it then existed. Thekohser: While it is true that you started out well enough, your recent actions here have undone a considerable part of whatever good you did. Don't mock others, or cast aspersions on their writing style or choices. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Lar, time to let this rest, particularly since you are aware of the background that prompted our responses. Anyway, it is not possible for comments on the talk page to change the accuracy of any edits to the page. Guido den Broeder 13:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm absolutely willing to let it rest if there is no further mockery by you or TheKohser. But if there is, you may find that I don't just jawbone about it. I hope that's clear. Here's a takeaway for you both, you've at least in part alienated someone who was previously "on your side" about this matter. Why? More generally, it just adds to the reputation you have as a troublemaker, not someone that can edit collegially and constructively. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Which only shows once again that you cannot be trusted. You will change sides based on your emotions of the moment, typically from reading things that aren't there, rather than on the merits of the arguments. But that makes you an average Wikipedian, I guess, so we can hardly complain. Greg and I aren't like that. That does not make us troublemakers (and I really don't care about reputations that are so easily handed out), but people that stand for something. A rarety here, perhaps, but good speaker material. Can I edit collegially with others whose only purpose in this world is to annoy me (and worse)? No, I cannot. I see that as no fault of mine. Every single article edit I ever made on any of the projects has been constructive. Guido den Broeder 22:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the page title "Public speakers" suggests something official or at least a list of speakers that ran though some kind of review. Secondly, my experience from German Wikipedia is, that most journalists contact Wikimedia Deutschland (German WMF chapter) where they get (a) official information by Wikimedia Deutschland and (b) in contact with a local Wikimedian (folks at Wikimedia Deutschland know enough volunteers). This works quite well, journalists get competent and active community members. wmf:Press room suggests the same: "Find a Wikimedian" links to a list of Wikimedia Chapters. I think this is a better way of dealing with press inquiries than a list of people wishing for media attention (which is not representative for the average community member). One issue might be that Wikimedia Chapters tend to place journalists in contact with users they trust, and among those are not die-hard critics of Wikipedia. However I do not see an obligation for Chapters to pick critics as "average Wikimedians". If journalists specifically search for critics, they'll find them and they'll be able to contact them. --Church of emacs talk 13:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a page for press contacts. Further, the speakers listed here do not / are not expected to restrict themselves to commenting on only one chapter. Those speakers are indeed best listed locally, but not these. Guido den Broeder 13:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

For whom is it then? To whom might it have a use? --Church of emacs talk 11:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a list of public speakers who are available to give presentations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Think of conferences, media shows, and the like. Regards, Guido den Broeder 14:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so it is for some kind of people who seek after contact with Wikimedians. They should contact Wikimedia chapters if they want to be connected with Wikimedians. If they don't want that, they are free to contact individual users. But there is no necessity for this page, to do so, is there? --Church of emacs talk 21:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. The individual Wikimedia chapters play no role here. They are local, while these speakers are global (even while we don't all travel far). Guido den Broeder 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

you mean, since they are global, people listed here need a (validated?) connection to the wikimedia foundation then? oscar 23:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we've stabilized

Everything on this content page, and even the discussion page, seems to have settled down and stabilized. Only about 4 or 5 page views per day. So, I'm probably not going to be watching here much any more. That being said, I am sure someone with a hankering to annoy me is eventually going to come along and modify (or delete) my listing on the content page. When that happens, will someone be kind enough to contact me off-Meta, so that I'll know that my online reputation is once again being manipulated by others? Thanks loads. -- Thekohser 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

i'd appreciate if you would first attempt to answer my serious questions seriously in the section just above, before attempting any summarizing. thanks in advance, oscar 01:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You are asking your questions in the wrong place. If you want to restrict the purpose of Meta, you should initiate a central discussion. Further, the way you formulate your questions, the implied summary that is false, and the position of authority that you wish to assign to yourself, are rather insulting towards everyone who has already seriously taken part in the discussion here, a discussion that you totally ignore. Any reply would cause a game of escalation that none of us wants.

Taken literally, your request is, to say it kindly, weird. Surely Thekohser can decide by himself whether he is going to watch this page a lot. You cannot force him to appear here, no matter how much you'd want that. Guido den Broeder 12:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

the questions are simple really, and concern the page public speakers, they belong here, please stop beating around the bush.

as this concerns more people than those that have reacted so far, to facilitate others in untangling what we are in fact talking about, here they are once more (see section above for more elaborate explanations) :

1. what does this page have to do with the coordination of wikimedia projects?
2. does this clearly controversial page belong at all on this rather central wiki (both its content and all the links to it)?
3. why not remove the page for now and first clearly define its purposes and usage on meta, prior to its publishing?

we haven't stabilized at all until such matters are resolved. all the best, oscar 16:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Answers:

(1) Wikimedia projects are a part of the real world. Sometimes, real-word organizations and enterprises will wish to learn more about the Wikimedia projects, and they may have a depth of interest that would take them beyond merely the "official" Wikimedia Foundation mouthpieces. See, for example, that the California Commonwealth Club once hosted a discussion with not just Jimmy Wales, but also with Andrew Keen (who clearly lies outside the realm of "Wikipedia lovers"). If Wikimedia is to facilitate access to public speakers who may assist real-world entities to learn more, it could host such a list as this on each and every project, or (as would make more sense) centralize and coordinate that process in one place. Which is what we have done.

(2) This page is clearly not controversial in its own right. Certain people have elected to try to generate controversy over some rather mundane process procedures that were announced in advance and were fully encouraged to be rolled back if opposed.

(3) Removing the page would leave floundering any of the real-world entities seeking information now. That is a proposal that lacks sense.

Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to formally and seriously advise you, oscar. -- Thekohser 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you very much for answering, let us take some time to allow for the opinions of others to form and (hopefully) for their anwers to be added here as well. all the best, oscar 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

on questions

It's handy to have a global page of speakers. We can do much better than this, including a speakers mailing list and a speaking event calendar, but it is a start. Sj+ help translate 04:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

thx for you comments sj! in view of earlier non-consensus about this, do you perhaps have any (new) suggestions as to how meta should deal with who will be on it, especially if there are objections? can anyone just add her- or himself as a speaker or also other people, or should all these people be somehow approved, on meta or by chapters, or by the foundation? very best, oscar 23:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We could always just have an "official" list of those who can state they are speaking on behalf of the WMF and a volunteer amateur list which is open for all. Those seem like the only appropriate distinctions. Ottava Rima 17:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Second Ottava on that. Steven Walling (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a fine idea. An official list can live on the wmf wiki. To oscar's question, a short set of guidelines for official and other speakers would be useful, and we should strive to identify as many good speakers as possible, since there are still many more requests for wiki[pm]edia talks than there are presenters. Sj+ help translate 03:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

WMF speakers list

I propose setting up a draft list of speakers on the foundation wiki, with speakers who are known to be effective representatives of the foundation at conferences and events, with an open nomination process (anyone who has seen a great presentation can nominate it/ its presenter, anyone who has given one can upload their slidestack and put themselves forward). This page can become a general page about speakers, linking to the foundation list, individual chapter lists (which may be speakers about free culture or local wikimedia efforts, more than the wikimedia movement & projects as a whole), and an open list to which anyone can add themselves.

Guidelines for the former official list can be developed by the WMF. Guidelines for the latter are also appropriate; speakers should need to confirm that they are available/interested, for example. The Meta community can develop those guidelines (hopefully coming to an easier consensus with the above divisions of labor). Sj+ help translate 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a bunch of work for a transactional phenomenon that (as far as we know) has produced zero invitations to speak. Also, it sounds like 75.62.206.164's idea will de facto silence most speakers who might be critical of the Foundation, but that's probably rather the hidden intent of the proposal. -- Thekohser 20:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(That was me, while logged out.) I've used this list before to find someone who might be interested in speaking at an event. And a solid list of engaging critics would be handy - Jason Scott comes to mind, or any talented speaker with an abiding mistrust of institutions; I wish there were more. But trolling != socially useful criticism. Sj+ help translate 03:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Little feedback from personal experience

Since 2004, I have spoken dozen and dozen of times. In many different types of circonstances. In France and elsewhere. For schools, for public institutions, for private companies, for associations. I also refused many talks for all kind of reasons. Now, couple of comments

• how do people contact me ? How do they come to know I can talk at their event ? I am not talking of the time I was Chair, but of NOW.
  • most of them contact me because they already heard me in another circonstance. Others contact me directly through my speaking website. Other ask on Wikimedia France mailing lists. From time to time through OTRS. And yet others contact me through recommandations (of people who already asked me to speak). From my memory, NO ONE ever contacted me through this "public speaker" website. And to be fair, I do not think anyone would.
• what do I do when I can not speak somewhere ?
  • usually, I forward the request to Wikimedia France mailing list (if asking for a French speaker), or the Internal mailing list if asking for a non French. On the French list, more or less always the same people answer. The pool of speakers is actually quite limited. I asked a few times in our local village pump, but it usually does not get any answer. I actually realise that I do not *think* of this page. Why not ?

The main reason I guess... is that people will come to you because you are recommanded. They will hesitate to get a completely unknown speaker. They do not necessarily want a *big shot* (if they do, that's for a conference where they want to get sponsors on your name, or participants on your name). Most of the time, they will be happy to get someone who 1) know the project and 2) dares speaking in front of people. Whilst most of us can recommand a name of a wikipedian who know the topic, it is much harder to recommand someone we have never heard speaking. The person may be great on the project, but really disastrous as a speaker. Or he can be super good in front of teachers and librarians, but really not fit an audience of businessmen.

So, what really is missing on this page... is essentially a list of the places where the speakers have given a talk. It does need to be complicated. Title of the talk. Location and type of audience. If possible a link to the powerpoint, or to the audio, or the video of the speech. It is okay to have never talk if it never happened but you just would like to. But it is better to know that, and those of us who are experienced can offer tips and default presentations.

But my thinking is that

1. this page is not for the person looking for a speaker. It is for a wikipedian who wants to recommand someone as a speaker because he is aware of a need
2. the speakers listed on this page should say more about them. Past talks given (with links); preferred topics; people who can talk of their ability to give a talk (recommandation); personal passions.As such, it would really be useful.

Current situation where people try to "prove" their worth only in giving titles and countries is not super valuable. It is part of the equation, but only part of it. In many cases, people asking for speakers are not asking for those, they are trying to identify whether you will not faint in front of 300 people and whether your talk will be worth it.

What do you think ?

Anthere 00:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Florence, I agree with just about everything you say here. As an experienced public speaker on the subject of wikis in general and Wikipedia in particular, I thought it was important to give ample evidence of my speaking experience, including video and presentation deck examples. However, I had to spend a great amount of effort, just beating back intolerant snipes who didn't want to see this grid of information reflect that a critic could possibly know what he is talking about. This grew to be a very tiresome process, dealing with such immature antagonists. The page, thankfully, seems to have settled down now. I concur that if speakers have presented on national television (as I have) or have presented before an academic conference (as I have), then they should readily provide links to those resources. -- Thekohser 18:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)