Talk:Wikimania 2005 overview/Archive

Location

Super. I see the US gets the shaft as usual in the selection of locations... (-: This sounds great; and a suitable time into the future, too. +sj+ 17:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's probably my fault, but part of the concept is to get people together from different language projects, and that almost certainly pushes us towards Europe as the best choice of venue, because that's easiest in terms of getting people from en, de, fr, it, es, pt, pl, etc. This does mean that en is likely to be disproportionately represented by UK rather than US, but then again, if this is a big enough event, it is far enough in the future that I'm sure at least some people will do what it takes to travel so far. Jimbo Wales 21:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Meet-ups are (in general) biased in favor of older Wikipedians (who have the disposable income to go). Having it a continent away guarentees you find any of our younger American contributors there (granted, this is true no matter where we have it). Perhaps we should compromise and do it in the Azores? (That was a joke) Raul654 02:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dunno, they all have tradeoffs. A spot in the Americas would represent en, es, fr, and pt, as it'd be easier for Spanish and Portuguese speakers from Latin America to attend, as well as Quebecois, in addition to the English-speaking US and Canadian folk. A spot in Asia would better represent jp, zh, and the variety of other nascent Asian wikipedias. Are you sure a spot in Europe is that much more inclusive than the other options? --Delirium 02:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If it's in EU, it makes it easier to go from one country to another. Ausir 18:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Timing

The very first week in September?

How many days? Will it be a two-day weekend? A four-day extravaganza? A week of wikimania, to which people are invited for all or part of the time? three days of conference followed by an optional-but-encouraged three days of summer skiing?

I would favour at least four days, but this depends largely on the costs. --Elian 20:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure who thought the following made sense:

The proposed date for this is September, after August vacations but before students go back to universities. A poll may be held to see what dates would have the widest approval.

You may not be aware that a great many universities start before September. In the US, starting in August is not uncommon. Therefore, "after August vacations but before students go back to universities" is a time period spanning zero days for many university students. I know I personally go back circa August 16, so the most convenient time would be June or July. It's my guess that July or early August are the times the greatest number of people have free. --Delirium 19:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was Jimbo who said that, so I assumed it was true for the US. It's certainly true for England. Having it earlier (ie - August) is going to be in peak time for much of Europe, so far more expensive. Angela 19:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was only quoting Elian from when we talked about this in Linz. Pre-August is pushing it in terms of getting organized, August is not good for Europeans (and we will almost certainly be in Europe), and by late September everyone is in school. Even so, I think the date shoud be subject to a fair amount of discussion. The choice of the location and time are interrelated to some extent, because people from very far away will come in fewer numbers anyway. If we were having this in the U.S. (which I don't think we should), then August would be good because that is when many people in Europe take their holidays. Jimbo Wales 21:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

German universities usually start very late in September/October - if other countries start much earlier we could held it in August - July/June I consider too early because there will be much to prepare. I think it would help a lot if the people who want to come state their time restrictions on the content page. --Elian 20:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Essentially no US universities start later than the first week of September (Stanford is one of the few that start later). The traditional start time is the day after en:Labor Day (the first Monday in September), but a great many universities now start between one and two weeks before then. In any case, having it during September will cut out the majority of US academics and students; having it in late August will cut out a good number. Is it really not possible to do it in July? That would seem to be the only time that nearly all universities in both the US and Europe are out of session (most American universities are out of session all of June too, but I hear some European ones are not). --Delirium 22:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Have you also considered that ALL wikipedians were not students ? Should our date just coincidy with the moment STUDENTS are not working ? If I dare suggest something, it is true most students will be free, however, in case we wish to have professionals at the meeting, it is very likely they will not be available in july Anthere 01:33, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why that would be the case. Are professionals more busy in July than other times of the year? Note also that university schedules are not just related to students, but also professors. --Delirium 01:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, in France, in summer, professionals are on holidays... August is in particular real desertic... and... I was not thinking of professors here...more of journalists or professionals in publishing...Anthere 05:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm worried about the September thing too - better to have it in June/July/Aug if possible. We should be as inclusive as possible, and I'm sure a Sep date would eliminate it for many students and academics. Why is June/July so problematic? I also think four days is quite a long time for a first meeting. Perhaps have 2-3 days for formal stuff, then there can be birds of a feather groups and other things in coordination. Fuzheado 21:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely with the 'inclusive as possible' concept. Jimbo Wales 21:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If it's in Europe, June or September would be best. In July and August some places are packed and expensive and others are deserted and boring. As for four days - most people will have to travel relatively far. I know I don't like travelling far to be somewhere for a day or two. Zocky 18:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the meetup is going to be planned this far in advance, the relative level of business of the locale should not be an issue - we'll be ready to go long before we ever set foot in the city itself. :) -- Grunt 18:11, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Planning

Yo hablo español tendre alguna ayuda. No se recien me inicio en la traducción Mi email es cmaguinal_bc@unmsm.edu.pe

• Location.
• Translation facilities.
• Places to stay.
• Catering.
• Support crew.
• Registration.

Multiple meetings around the world...

...at the same time, connected by videoconferencing?

We could hold meetings in, say, Boston, Las Vegas, London, Geneva and have video streaming between each of them. It's not really the same as meeting all wikipedians in one place, but much more practical, especially for those short on money/time. ––Stw 21:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

pros

• shorter travels → cheaper
• more people can attend

cons

• needs technical infrastructure
• no replacement for "real" meetings

Comments?

I think the "no replacement for real meetings" point is quite compelling. It would be fun to wave at people through the television, but that's nothing like hanging out with people for several days having breakfast, lunch, dinner, beer, ice cream, etc. to really get to know someone. One thing I would support is that we on this side of the ocean need to maybe work harder to build a culture of face-to-face meetings locally, and try to have a big convention.

We had a meetup in Munich and 26 people showed up. We announced far in advance a meeting here in Tampa, a city of twice that population, and only 2 people signed up -- one was me. I'm not sure why that is. Jimbo Wales 21:29, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm a fan of videoconferencing too, but perhaps as something in addition to the face-to-face meetup. As Jimbo said, the main point would be to hang out and have in-person interaction. However, in the meantime, having an online Wikipeda video jamboree might be interesting. Fuzheado 23:53, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When it all comes down to it, videoconferencing is only marginally better than IRC (which many of us use daily)—perhaps less so once the initial novelty has worn off and everyone's tired of crowding in front of a camera. There's just no replacement for actually meeting people, arguing with them face to face, getting drunk in a hotel bar during the wee hours of the morning, and generally promoting community involvement. Austin Hair 21:05, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

I like "real" meetings rather than videocenferences but a multi-meeting is worthy to consider. How about (almost) syncronized meetings somewhere in Europe and Asia (i.e. Amsterdam and Beijing)? If fully syncronized videocenferencing is not available during the meeting, brief sessions on video as parts of the entire meeting will promote community involvement. --Aphaia 01:31, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Have you considered BKK, easy with Visa's cheap places to stay, many possible cheap locations. Also good connections with the rest of the world and from many countries there are cheap tickets available. July/august is lowseason in Thailand. Waerth 16:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, in-person meetings are fun but expensive. Lots of work can get done over email, and lots of it does. It's not a question of whether in-person meetings are better, but whether they're so much better that they're worth the money. Judging by the turnout in Tampa, it seems many people don't think they are. I would've gone if I lived in Tampa, but since I don't, it wasn't worth spending $400-$600 to attend. International meetings are even more expensive: intercontinental travel will come out to a total of around $1000 or more. That alone I imagine will make it so that if the meeting is in Europe, only a handful of people from the Americas and Asia will come; if it's in the Americas, only a handful of people from Europe and Asia will; and if it's in Asia, only a handful of people from the Americas and Europe will come. Most of us simply don't have a spare $1000 in cash sitting around to use on a volunteer project, especially when we can contribute perfectly well without spending the $1000. --Delirium 01:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think having multiple meetings is good. We could have two meetings in Europe (for example, one in Paris and one in Cluj-Napoca, Romania (Cluj has got to host this! ;-) And then one in Shanghai/Tokyo, one in Sydney maybe, etc. It would be great to have many meetings because then more people would come. I don't really feel that many "everyday" Wikimedians (people who aren't part of Wikimedia Foundation or aren't very very active in the running of the projects) will fly half way around the world for this conference...it's better to have it where it's a train ride away from them or a short plane trip. Ronline 09:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) | Cluj-Napoca 2005. Wikimedia, the Romanian way |

I'm not sure why the Tampa meet-up failed, either. I think it stemmed from people choosing not to go, because the "I have other obligations" thing doesn't really fly when the date was set weeks in advance. 131.247.240.221 20:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Canadian suggestion?

I'm not familiar enough with the logistics relating to any Canadian cities enough to put one forth, but if someone is, it might make for a good location. Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal have good air service, good public transport, and as far as North American locations go, travelling to Canada may be less daunting for non-Americans than travelling to the US would be (security and visas and whatnot). --Delirium 02:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The issue of being on the wrong side of the Atlantic from the majority of would-be attendees (i.e. Europeans) presents itself once again. A place such as Toronto, however, might be a good choice as it's probably closer to Europe than most other likely destinations in North America. -- Grunt 02:08, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)

Where did you get the information that the majority of would-be attendees are Europeans? AFAIK, Americans make up a pretty large proportion of Wikipedians, possibly even an outright majority. --Delirium 05:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See the preferred locations section in the main page; would-be attendees from Europe outnumber would-be attendees from the Americas more than two to one. -- Grunt 22:45, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

If (part of) the idea is that people from different language projects get together (as Jimbo stated above), it isn't relevant that Americans might be the majority on Wikipedia, it's relevant where we can get the most different languages together. Fruggo 15:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Location, location, location

It's quickly become apparent that on the whole, most people are either unwilling or unable to venture far beyond the borders of their respective states/superstates. Given this fact and despite enthusiastic proposals of Alexandria, Beijing, and even Baghdad, practical considerations effectively mandate that the meet be held in the United States, Canada, or Europe; no matter what the ultimate decision, participants on one side of the Pond or the other will be left holding the short end of the stick. That can't be helped.

Also, I think I'm safe in saying that asking attendees and speakers to choose between simultaneous NA/EU events is out of the question—coordinating one successful event is difficult enough without dividing our efforts (and personnel). Neither can we split the difference by holding it in Bermuda and still expect people to come, so we just have to bite the bullet and pick a continent. But which?

Nobody hurt me, but it seems to me that Europe is the obvious, even preordained choice, for the reasons already discussed and more. For my money, I favor Central/Eastern Europe: it's cheap, it's accessible, I think it's good for our image, and I've always wanted to go there. Ljubljana seems like a good choice, as do Warsaw and Krakow, and perhaps we should give some thought to other cities in the region. Prague is as pricey as Western Europe, but Bratislava is less so; Riga and Bucharest are unconventional choices, and what about Istanbul?

Or we could cave in to convention, and hold the thing in Amsterdam or Vienna. I don't have any strong feelings either way—what does everyone else think? Austin Hair 03:33, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

The event, it seems, will indisputably be held in Europe - current attendance counter shows a more than 2:1 bias in favour of Europe over other locations (i.e. the USA). As soon as that's established for good we can start looking into the details. I'll point out that Western Europe would (theoretically) be easier to access for the large North American group of people to access than points farther east, and this would draw a larger crowd of them - which is good.

Heck, it might even be possible to present a case to one of the major airlines around here and see if we can get a relatively cheap en masse flight to and from Europe, whether the convention be held on either side of the Atlantic. Thoughts? -- Grunt 02:07, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)

While culturally/ideally I'd favor somewhere in central/eastern Europe, practically speaking it's much more expensive to get to from the US. Typical flights from the US to London are ~$600 roundtrip, while Ljubljana is ~$1100 roundtrip. Places like Dublin split the difference with ~$800 tickets. But unless the Foundation is planning to provide some sort of travel assistance to North Americans and Asians to attend, I'm afraid an "international" conference held in Europe would really just be a European conference with a handful of token non-European attendees. In which case, you might as well call it the "Wikimedia Europe meetup 2005" and advertise accurately. Europe is a particularly unfortunate location for our South American contributors, as it's really really far away and expensive to get to from that continent. --Delirium 05:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, a return trip New York JFK - Brussels - Berlin - Ljubljana by Lufthansa and easyJet is round about 650 euro. I'm sure flying directly to Berlin or London Stansted (from where easyJet flies at ~5 euro) is possible as well, in which case the price should drop. Flying an American airline such as American Airlines trans-Atlantic is, however, much more expensive. —213.143.80.81 10:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. If tickets are bouught well in advance (as they can be for a scheduled event), roundtrip London-Ljubljana costs less than $60. Zocky 16:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, it seems possible, but it would still be very inconvenient, as London Stansted has no US flights, so it would require changing airports, which adds time, expense, and confusion. I can't seem to find a cheap Heathrow-Ljubljana flight... --Delirium 23:35, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On a less argumentative note =], this sort of thing illustrates I think that whatever we pick, we should scour the web and airlines and whatnot to try to find the best rates from various places, and put them on a page somewhere as suggestions. Especially since us USians tend to not know where to look for good European airfares (and likely vice versa). Accomodation would be nice to sketch out too. --Delirium 02:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can always fly to Berlin and then to Ljubljana by easyJet (for 10 euro return). Alternatively, you can fly to London Gatwick (which serves many trans-Atlantic flights) and then take Adria Airways, but this is considerably more expensive – you do get a better service though. I've flown return Ljubljana-Gatwick with Adria for 75 euro, however, so it IS possible to get a very good fare. With the competition from easyJet, flights to London are comparatively cheap with Adria (which is not a low cost carrier). Of course it's perfectly possible to get prices of $4500 or more, as with any destination where there are no direct trans-Atlantic flights, but for the extra ~100 euro in the flight, it's certain that you'd spend a lot more than that in London or Amsterdam on living expenses (read: food that, at least in London, is scarcely edible anyway) in the four days. —213.143.80.81 12:20, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No Switzerland?

I'm quite surprised that Switzerland has not been proposed as a location. A multilingual country and in the center of Europe. Fuzheado 16:18, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Propose it, then. ;) -- Grunt 22:19, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

I did so. -- 195.186.183.141 18:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

looks like the proposals on the german page were pretty ignored.

See? This is PRECISELY why I wrote my comment here.

I would have exspected a longer selection round after Oct, 10th. But nevermind, Wikipedia is not a democracy.

It isn't?

Anybody knows a good page (or article or book) about wiki democracy issues?

And of course, the timeline is running. But for 2006, I´ll ignore the german page.

I presume you meant 2005? Ropers 13:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I hope we find a comfortable and not expensive location. Rabauz

North America

As one of the contributors who won't be able to make it to Europe, I want to make it clear that I'm not complaining, and it does make sense to have it there. :-) I also want to ask, though, if the board (or whoever decides this....Jimbo alone?) will consider guaranteeing that a second Wikimedia meetup (say, 2006) will occur on this side of the Atlantic? I think many of us would feel more at ease if that prospect lay in the future. Otherwise, I think it's easy for us to look at all the comments and assume that what we're being told is that Europe is the only logical choice, and presumably all major Wikimedia meetings from now on will be occuring in that part of the world. This is just a thought, which I hope some will consider.

And Jimbo, I think part of the trouble with the U.S. having Wikimeets is that we're a big spread-out country and we have a bad public transportation system (I'm referring to your comment about Tampa and Munich above). But I think if the right locations are chosen with care, and we're given enough advance notice, the U.S. can put together a decent sized wikimeet -- right now, for example, a Seattle meet is being planned at en. and we've got 4 attendees essentially 100% committed to attending with only 5 weeks notice (and the meetup has only been under discussion for about 5 hours). I think we might be able to gather a group of 8-10....time will tell. But certainly it helps indicate that Tampa may have been a fluke.

As for me, I'll support a wiki meetup in 2005 in Europe as well as I can as an almost certain non-attendee, and hope for Toronto 2006 (Seattle 2006 or Vancouver, B.C. 2006 is too much to dream of....although it might help attract some contributors from East Asia -- not to lobby too hard, of course). Best wishes, those of you who will be there -- have a wonderful time! -- Jwrosenzweig 00:17, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I cant promise anything for 2006 as a board member, because it is unlikely to be decided before the end of my mandate, so I cant speak up for the next board members, but in all cases, I really hope that big meetings take place, not only in Europe, but in America or in Asia quite soon. Locations will depend a lot of who can attend and who is willing to organise. I have no doubt these will raise interest :-) Anthere

Hmm.. I like the idea of being able to go to two wikimeets about a year apart.. Perhaps we could organise this into an annual event and hold nomination rounds like this one shortly after one wikimeet ends ;) -- Grunt 03:15, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

the next meetups should be definitely somewhere either in the US or Asia. But I also think that american local groups will need this time to form and organize themselves - something the europeans have done for quite a while (Munich wikipedians celebrate their first anniversary meeting in October, for example). For now, we can only try to make attending the meetup in Europe for people abroad as easy as possible - by choosing a place with cheap air fares and good plane connections. Personally, I'm quite sad that you can't make it to Europe, I would have liked to meet you. --Elian 17:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That sounds good. I personally would like to see it in Korea, not just because I live here but also because the Korean Wikipedia is still dreadfully small considering their population. Part of that is because they have a lot of other sites on the net that pertain to obtaining knowledge - a lot of question and answer forums with a few million questions archived, so I would like to see Wikipedia become one of the well-known sources here along with the local companies (which are quite good). It might also help to show them that the internet need not be so controlled - the internet itself here isn't controlled but people need a number to register on any site and only Koreans have those. It might be nice to show them that pure freedom does not equal chaos, by any stretch of the imagination. 211.58.237.50 00:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Mithridates from the Ido Wikipedia)

PSA

ATTENCIONE, ATTENCIONE:

This is a Ropers Public Service Announcement:

Readers are advised that if they even think they could go and take an outdated version of this (or indeed any) article, edit it and save the result (thereby making a straight revert impossible and forcing manual diffing) — as was recently done (see history) — again, if they even think of doing that, then I'm going to hunt them down and shoot them from the highest tree where the water is deepest.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ropers 18:20, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry for that erroneous edit. I was trying to find out who added the Prague section to the article. After a while I decided to add some information, but I forgot that I am still looking at an old version. I definitely should have noticed the warning on the top of the page, but I spotted the "This page is 42 kilobytes long" notice and I assumed (wrongly, of course) that this is only a "long-text" warning (there seems to be a non-working \n that was probably designed to prevent this kind of mistake) and ignored the message. I should not try to edit after a long day, I think.

Once again, I am really sorry for that, I hope I will never do the same mistake again. If I would, I promise I will stand still so that you would have an easy aim.

-- ashamed Mormegil 19:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In response to the above and en:User_talk:Ropers#meta:Wikipedia_meetup_2005_misedit:

Apology gratefully accepted.
The glove doesn't fit the submersible tree so I must acquit.
Now let's MoveOn.org. (Cheesy, I know. My bad. ;-)

Ropers 21:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Selection system

I would like to know if the chosen city will be decided by a points system - or will it just be by the number of votes. If it is any of these, I am wondering if the results will be made publicly available, so we know which city came second, third, etc, rather than just the winner. Ronline 03:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Translation in Romanian: Aş vrea să ştiu dacă oraşul ales pentru conferinţă va fi decis printr-un sistem de punctaj sau numai bazat pe numărul voturilor. Oricum este, vreau să ştiu dacă rezultatele se vor face publice, ca să ştim care oraş candidat a fost pe locul 2, 3, ş.a.m.d., nu numai câştigătorul.

Part of the board meeting at 22:00 UTC today is determing how this will work. -- Grunt 03:05, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)

Translation in Romanian: Parte din agenda pentru şedinţa Wikimedia va determina cum va fi selecţionat oraşul pentru meetup 2005.

More than a meetup

Is there any objection to renaming these pages Wikimedia Convention 2005 instead of Wikimedia meetup 2005? Angela 21:13, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anthere appears to have created subpages starting with Wikimania: (see e.g. Template:Meetup2005). I personally don't care, but we'll need Anthere to comment :) -- Grunt 23:55, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a lack of consensus on the name, so Jimbo's suggestion of Wikimania is being used temporarily for the page titles pending consensus on the name, or a better suggestion. I think this one should move to be consistent with the rest of them though. Just Wikimania or Wikimania:Main Page to meet the pseudo-namespace style of the rest of them? Angela 03:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Wikimania:Main Page to fit in until we actually decide on a name. -- Grunt 19:29, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

So its going to be like, "Wikimania: The free conference anyone can attend?" :)