Wikimedia Conference 2015/Feedback evaluation

Wikimedia Conference 2015 from above

Results of the feedback surveyEdit

tl;dr: you can find the #wmcon survey evaluation (PDF) (1,9 MB) on Wikimedia Commons.


  • Online feedback survey via Qualtrics
  • Questionnnaire on Wikimedia Commons
  • Data collection:
    • May 17th – May 27th, 2015 (after closing of Wikimedia Conference 2015)
    • Conference participants: 167
    • Participants invited to the survey (via email): 167 / Two reminder emails
    • Completed questionnaires: n=112 (67% of conference participants vs. 2014 survey: 55% of participants)


Background of participantsEdit

  • Regarding most demographics and background characteristics (age, gender, staff vs. volunteers, years of involvement) this year’s conference participants differed not so much from last year’s. Due to the new accreditation rules, there was a higher proportion of User Groups (12%). Additionally, there were less first time participants than last year (2015: 32%, 2014: 49%).

Content / programEdit

  • A broad majority of the respondents judged the conference as an opportunity to exchange ideas with others (100% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’), as providing useful information for them and their organization (100%) and as being suitable for their background (98%). A bit less applying: improving the understanding of grants, fundraising and finances (85%), reaching a shared understanding of the movement’s strategy (76%) and future (69%). 70% of the respondents stated that the conference led to clearly defined next steps and documented outcomes.
  • Overall, the satisfaction with different program facets was similarly high like in the 2014. Especially the conference facilitation (96%, ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’), the communication of the Program and Engagement Coordinator (92%) and the overall flow of the conference (93%) received very good ratings. Compared to 2014, some aspects were evaluated slightly less positive: communication of the program team before the conference (Mean rating 2015 vs. 2014: 3.23 vs. 3.51), the sessions formats (Mean: 3.07 vs. 3.21) and the overall scope and selection of the topics (Mean: 3.05 vs. 3.21). Still, participants missed to some extent a clear call to action/ definition of next steps (2015: 62%; 2014: 57%).
  • Open comments on content or program have been very diverse. Several critical comments referred to more differentiation of sessions for new versus more experienced participants, the need for clearly defined tracks and more effective and focused sessions.


  • In terms of networking, 50% of the respondents reported making up to ten new working contacts, 38% reported 11-20 new working contacts.
  • Meeting all the Wikimedia people at the conference mainly helped to gain knowledge (97%, ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’), share knowledge (97%), make new friends (98%) and to achieve a better understanding of each others views (95%). Compared to 2014, even more respondents judged the conference as helpful to reduce tensions and misunderstandings with other participants (2015: 85% vs. 2014: 79%).
  • At least 85% felt supported to join or start an initiative. Most of the initiatives mentioned focused on regional or cross-country collaborations.

Organizational aspectsEdit

  • The ratings for the organizational aspects of the conference were even more positive than in 2014. Especially the support by organizers during the conference (98% ‘excellent’ or ‘good’), the conference venue (98%) and support (98%) and communication (95%) of the organizers before the conference were highlighted here.
  • Compared to 2014, some improvements appeared in the field of the overall atmosphere (Mean rating 2015 vs. 2014: 3.72 vs. 3.55), accommodation (Mean: 3.69 vs. 3.30) and regarding the conference catering (Mean: 3.42 vs. 3.10).
  • In the open comments, positive remarks clearly dominated. Some critical remarks referred to the hotel accommodation, the concept and food of the Saturday party and the space available at the conference venue.

Overall EvaluationEdit

  • From the organizational profile the affiliates filled out prior to the conference we learned that participating organizations mainly expected connecting & networking and the sharing of ideas / information as main conference benefits, which were also stated as main benefits after the conference (connecting & networking: 71% / sharing of ideas/ information: 41%).
  • On the one hand, learning about specific issues was less prominent at the conference than expected before (prior: 63% / post: 30%). On the other hand, updates on movement issues, mutual inspiration/ motivation, understanding the movement a bit better and actually working on specific issues played bigger roles as main benefits of the conference (compared to the expectations before).
  • In general, 58% of the respondents stated that their expectations regarding the conference were entirely met or even even exceeded (25%). Compared to last year, with 17% some more participants stated that their expectations were not entirely met (2014: 9%).
  • Overall the conference received the same high rating like in 2014: 57% ‘excellent’, 40% ‘good’ (2014: 54% and 43%)

Wishes for future Wikimedia conferencesEdit

(open comments only)

  • Many comments were very encouraging and focused on keeping the same high standard for future Wikimedia conferences. However, some comments showed that there’s still some potential for strengthening possibilities for peer-to-peer exchange and working together, differentiation of tracks with regard to needs of different target groups and an improved preparation before the conference – both, on programming and attendance side.

Detailed survey evaluationEdit

  • You can find the detailed survey evaluation as a pdf file (1,9 MB) on Wikimedia Commons.