Talk:Wikimedia Summit 2022

Remote participation

Is the application also for the Remote participation necessary. From my point of view the possibility to attend online gives the chance that more people can participate in the Wikimedia Summit and through that also people who are not a official representatives but interested in the topics could participate online. Please think about opening the Remote Event participation at the Wikimedia Summit to all people interested in that. From my point of view the view of every person is interesting and for that no official position is needed to tell something that can be useful for the discussion.--Hogü-456 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, Hogü-456. We are indeed considering streaming parts of the summit program publicly, e.g. some plenary sessions or talks. But for many of the working sessions and facilitated conversations, we want to stick to the fair distribution of seats per affiliate. We'll share more information about the program in the course of the design process. --Eva Martin (WMDE) (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

A event where only selected people are allowed to participate is something that I dont like. I had the hope that this will no longer happen after the now more known possibilities of remote participation. After this vision will be not true in that case I will look at the program of the Wikimedia Summit when it is published and then maybe wath some live streams. --Hogü-456 (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to also emphasize it is very challenging for the affiliates to make the decision on who to send in person when we don't really understand the nature of what the "remote" participation looks like. Clarity on this sooner than later would be appreciated, given we have only two weeks to designate the person being sent. - Fuzheado (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

My understanding from the Telegram chat with @Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) is that regardless of online or in person, each affiliate is still limited to the basic one attendee (with more for those with an executive director style position). Exact quote: "Only one person can attend the Summit, indepedently if remotely or on-site." (Telegram message in SWAN public chat)

It would help tremendously if this was put into an FAQ. There is confusion when the Summit was announced as "hybrid" and it would "make every effort to create an inclusive, productive experience for both online and offline participants." It is not unreasonable for folks to think that perhaps this meant that ONE delegate could be in person, and more than one from the affiliate could participate online/remote as part of the "inclusive" goal. If that's not the case, then it should be stated clearly. Thanks. Fuzheado (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Point of information - this is not just a theoretical confusion. I have been in one videoconference and several chats where people thought that the greater community could participate remotely beyond the one delegate. Therefore I'm bringing this up because of lived experience. Thanks. Fuzheado (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Eva Martin (WMDE) it looks like the announcement on the page has made this clearer. I still think a basic FAQ would be nice to have given the unique aspects of this conference versus ones in the past. - Fuzheado (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Deadline?

Is there a reason "application deadline is now April 24" as announced in the mailing list email is not reflected on this wiki page? - Fuzheado (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your question @Fuzheado. Please note that the deadlines for application and registration are listed under "eligibility criteria" our this meta page. The extention of the application deadline has been announced on April 7. Eva Martin (WMDE) (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. In general there had been a disconnect (or at least a delay) between what was announced on the mailing list and what info was published on meta, and it wasn't clear if it was an oversight or whether there was a reason for this discrepancy. It would help to keep these consistent in the future, as it was hard to point people in chat spaces (Telegram, WhatsApp) to definitive information in one place. Thanks. - Fuzheado (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Word counts for answers?

I have a question about the word counts for the answers on the application form. There are indications of 100-150 word limits for the answers, depending on the question. Was this always there or was this added? Also, it would have been nice to note these word counts on this wiki page, so that folks prepping their answers would know this. Unfortunately, we at WREN extensively answered these and are now stuck with trying to rewrite them to be short. Full answers here: Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network/Wikimedia_Summit_2022 - Fuzheado (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to us, we should indeed have indicated the word limits on this page to help applicants prepare their answers. However, the word limits has been in place from the opening of the application process and was implied in our mention of a "short application process" in our annoucement and on this wiki page. Eva Martin (WMDE) (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Yes, a good optimization for the future would be to put the word counts on the wiki for full planning purposes. - Fuzheado (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Published updated information on remote participation?

Hi all, not to be too much of a nudge and apologies if this is already available, but I could not find the info: it would be useful to put this information from the all-affiliates mailing list into the FAQ here, or some page on meta.

From @Nicole Ebber (WMDE) email:

We are extending online participation

Based on the feedback we received, we decided to extend online participation to allow for more inclusion and equity.

• Some sessions will be streamed publicly to ensure a certain level of transparency and flow of information.
• Workshops will be open for registered participants from eligible affiliates and other eligible attendees (WMF, committees, etc., details tbc).
• Each eligible affiliate will be allocated a total of 3 seats for participation for both on-site and online participation. This includes the affiliate’s representatives and Executive Directors. That means:
  • If an affiliate doesn’t have in-person representation at all, 3 online slots for participation will be provided.
  • If an affiliate has 1 in-person representative attending, the affiliate gets 2 additional online slots for participation.
  • If an affiliate has 2 in-person representatives (the Executive Director), the affiliate gets 1 additional online slot.

Fuzheado (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Fuzheado. I've now updated our "application and registration information" wiki-page. Eva Martin (WMDE) (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Questions about the participants list

Like some others, I'm sure, I was disappointed to see that our organization is one of a small number of chapters not invited to the in-person event this year. In fact, it looks like none of the US chapters or affiliates can attend, and there will be only two representatives there from all of the North American groups.

From what I can tell, three elements were presented as part of the selection process: on-site space, the quality of applications, and avoiding "a heavy skew towards Western Europe and North America". I'm hoping the organizers can provide some additional context.

Regarding on-site space: was there no venue available that could accommodate just 8 more people so that all of the chapters could attend (or, ideally, more than that, so that all of the user groups could attend)? Was it more important to have extra representation from the most well-established and well-funded organizations (those with an ED) than to have representation from all of the groups?

Regarding application answers: to the extent these answers were a factor, could you (here or offline) provide some feedback? Given the nature of this event, it seems ideal for everyone to understand how the organizers/reviewers view on-site vs. online participation, and what kinds of answers or past/present/future engagement were considered to be more/less relevant to on-site participation.

Regarding avoiding a NA or EU skew: Looking at all of the geography-based organizations, it looks like Europe has roughly as much representation as all of Asia, South America, North America, and Australia combined. Other than WMCH, which did not apply to attend, there is only one Western European chapter that doesn't have two people invited. If we broaden the scope to include Northern and Southern Europe, too, there are only two chapters not invited. Since it's an event held in Europe, if cost to the Foundation were the priority I would understand it being primarily European, but that wasn't presented as one of the considerations.

Thanks for any additional context you can provide. (I am on the board of WMNYC, but not writing on behalf of the chapter). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand the feeling but I'd like to partly question the supposed need for "representation". This is supposed to be a working meeting, not a deliberative council. I would not only allow but even force EDs to attend, because their wages are a major investment of Wikimedia donors' money and it's particularly important to provide training and accountability opportunities for their positions. Nemo 18:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that EDs should in nearly all cases be the default representative for chapters that have EDs. The question (one of them) isn't whether EDs should go but whether there should be extra attendance from chapters which have an ED if it means other chapters cannot send anyone.

supposed need for "representation" - Anyone who has participated in hybrid online/in-person events/classes/meetings knows how much easier it is to participate and have a voice if you're "in the room." My post here is a request for more information as to why participation was so limited to begin with, why having some chapters send two people was more important than letting everyone send one, and the reasoning behind the application decisions, which don't seem to align with the stated considerations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The Wikimedia NYC Board shares the concerns expressed by Rhododendrites, and offers its full support for the statement above. The Board looks forward to any additional information that can be provided. - On behalf of Wikimedia NYC, Megs (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Rhododendrites,

Thanks for reaching out and sharing your questions, and I beg your pardon from my side for letting you wait longer than usual. I’ll try to answer your questions where possible.

The focus for reviewing all applications was the quality of answers given, guiding the reviewers by the question what (added) value the in-person presence of the affiliate brings to the hybrid edition of the Wikimedia Summit. In the meantime, we have published all answers on Meta. We won’t provide feedback or publish reviewers’ opinions on specific answers.

As we knew that being guided by such a question might give advantage to already privileged affiliates that had more opportunities over the last years to engage on Movement Strategy, we included the question for some context on what held them back – as we believe there can be good reasons for it.

Independently of the type of affiliate, we have handled all applications equally, be it a chapter or a user group. Each affiliate is unique, so we did not want to differentiate here.

The aforementioned paragraphs apply generally to the process. In the specific case of the two US-American chapters, we have been notified that the Affiliations Committee has reached out to both chapter boards and communicated further context relevant to our decision. I hope that helps, cheers, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 20:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, CKibelka (WMF), and thanks for this response. While I was hoping you could speak to the other parts of my comment above, too (again, excluding a handful of affiliates from having a person in the room seems entirely avoidable), it sounds like our application answers were simply not good enough. The combination of information available prior to filling out the application, the answers others provided, and the decision not to provide feedback still kind of leaves us in the dark as to what was expected. Would it be possible to elaborate on what forms of engagement with strategy were considered sufficiently valid/valuable?

We will keep an eye out for a message from AffCom (I checked with the rest of the board, and we have not seen a message). As an aside, FYI it looks like commas have been stripped out of some application responses when copied to Meta. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

From my point of view this example is one reason why I think events at one location with a limited number of participants that exclude through more requests than available capacity some from participation on side are not good. I support remote events with local meetups and hope that that will be the standard in the future.--Hogü-456 (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this new system favors larger chapters and puts smaller and less established chapters in an unequal position and that’s why I support the previous procedure. Smaller chapter would benefit from meeting with people to make personal connections and seeing examples from larger chapters. This is the reason why I support the previous procedure where all chapters were by default eligible for one in person per chapter (or user group) instead of inviting multiple persons from selected chapters. I am the President of Wikimedia Suomi (Finland). --Teromakotero (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Teromakotero; I severely regret that several small affiliates were disallowed physical access for at least one single participant, although there are no budget limitations for hotel and travel. And I agree that virtual participation makes the learning aspect from larger affiliates almost impossible or inexistant. Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

As an online rep attending the summit for WikiJournal User group, I also agree. With the current structure, having an Executive Director guarantees you an in-person spot (on top of another staff). This is inconsistent with the movement strategy's recommendation on "ensure equity in decision-making" by giving a larger slice of the pie to chapters and affiliates that are already well-established and likely well-funded. Covering travel cost for these large chapters do not create the same kind of impact as providing it to small chapters. Since the participant list is already set, I would recommend that the in-person attendee list for next year's Summit should allocate more slots to smaller chapters and user groups as a corrective measure to this year's imbalance. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, I do find the final refusal (without possibility for appeal) for physical participation, only based on a short answer of 3 simple questions (and without prior notice that acceptance of participation would depend on the subjective interpretation of those short answers) is not an honest criterium to decide on the physical participation. I have actively participated to the Summit since 2017, including amending articles, Talk pages on Meta, and other platforms; it is the first time our chapter is refused physical access... Access to the conference should be better organised next time... Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Online Platform

The Wikimedia Summit is a meetup of functionairies and to involve also usual volunteers I think it would be great to offer a possibilty to discuss during the Weekend. At the Wikimedia Hackathon there Workadventure was used for that. Please think about offering a Workadventuremap for the Weekend that everyone who wants to can access to have discussion related to Movement strategy.--Hogü-456 (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@CKibelka (WMF) what is the current plan about this years Wikimedia summit. What kind of online plattform will you use and is there a possibility to attend at online conversations also as a non-affiliate. I think the possibility to talk to people outside of workshops is important. The conversations with other people are at such an conference an important part. How will you make sure that there are possibilites to get in conversation with the on-site participants as a online participant. I have seen a video at media.ccc.de about a device to connect online and offline. [1] Maybe such a device or some Laptops that are located at tables and can be used to talk to online participants are a option to enable networking with online participants. I usually do not use my camera when talking online to other people and in that case a audio chat like mumble is enough. This is cheaper as using another online plattform like Workadventure. Hogü-456 (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in the Wikimedia Summit, Hogü-456. The event is a gathering of Wikimedia Affiliates and the Wikimedia Foundation as well as some of their committees. To ensure that these participants will be able to work together online and onsite is a high priority for us as hosts of the event and is already the most challenging task. There won't be additional ways for non-affiliated community members to participate live. We will release video recordings afterwards and there will also be comprehensive documentation and reporting made available publicly. Kind regards, --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nicole Ebber (WMDE) what is the name of the online platform you are using. I do not like such closed events and maybe I will have another view to it in the future. I see that it is not possible to talk to too many people at the same time and maybe this can be a reason that is more important for me in the future and a good explanation to limit participation. I wish you success at the Wikimedia Summit and hope that the results are good and related to community interests. Although there are many different interests. The advantage of an open event is the diversity in the views that is not so big if there are mostly paid people who are working at chapters at the Wikimedia Summit. For next year I think it could be maybe possible to try to host a online event at the same time for community members. Hogü-456 (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Budget

@CKibelka (WMF): The "Documentation, Reports, Reviews" section of the report includes a "Budget" item, but this is currently not linked to anything. Is this information still being prepared, or is it available elsewhere? It would be good to have an idea of the overall cost of the event. Best, Andreas JN466 13:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, Andreas. WMDE is going to publish a report incl. budget around the end of November. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

How well did the hybrid format work this time?

I'd also be interested in participants' feedback on how well the hybrid format worked for this event. My impression is that it worked rather better than at the recent Wikimania. If so, what were the main differences that made the hybrid format more successful this time round? I'd like to include some comments on this in the next Signpost issue. Best, Andreas JN466 13:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Excellent question, Andreas! We also have the impression that it worked quite well, but need data to actually prove that. We have just closed the participant feedback survey and are working on the evaluation and report. We aim to publish all this by the end of November. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

For me, I felt that the format worked quite poorly. I attended online and wasn't able to engage with in-person attendees. I asked a technical question in chat on day 1 near the end of day (but still within the published timeline). Nobody answered it. I stopped attending after losing interest from my day 1 experience. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Summit 2023

Hi, do we know yet where and when the Wikimedia Summit 2023 will take place? Thanks in advance --Loizbec (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Loizbec, no decision has been made yet concerning the time and location of the next Summit. However, we suggested in our lessons learned, that the next Summit should return to the first half of the year and happen in March / April 2024. Eva Martin (WMDE) (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! --Loizbec (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)