Talk:Programme Committee
Volunteer
I am willing to volunteer to evaluate the program submissions as a member of the team. I was a volunteer on the program committee for the 2014 Wikimania. Please contact me. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- As of 28 February 2015, Orsolya Virág Gyenes suggested she and I join the Program Committee but I have not been told that I am a member. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- As of 7 March 2015, I have not been told I am on the Program committee nor am I listed on the members of committee web list but I am getting generic emails to review the submission of the program. Please advice if I am now a member of the program committee. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned that this is still marked as incomplete. Rich Farmbrough (talk)
- This has been resolved - thank you! --Varnent (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Incomplete submission
Can you please explain the criteria for an "Incomplete submission"? This submission has been marked as incomplete but all the information requested are provided, the sessions are all completed and the text respects the world count. is there anything missing? thank you! --iopensa (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- question already answered. thanks Varnent. --iopensa (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Submission retitled - but bias remains
"(cur | prev) 05:22, 1 March 2015 Rosiestep (Talk | contribs) m . . (21,485 bytes) (0) . . (Rosiestep moved page Submissions/How to Pick Up More Women to Submissions/How to improve the coverage of women in Wikipedia: Clarify scope)"
The page was renamed due to complaints about the juvenile sexist title "How to pick up more women". I think at least one of the organizers has major bias against white women (see Victualler's talk page) and that both are utterly tone-deaf to the issue entirely. I can't see any benefit to the project from having these two present at Wikimania.
I am asking the Programme Committee to consider (a) the disingenuity of the organizers who decided to hide the problem by renaming their own proposal to avoid the understandable controversy their former title engendered and (b) if this proposal is even necessary due to other less racist and sexist proposals available on similar topics. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. --Varnent (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
6 of 13
I made two submission, both were rejected. Sad for me, but this is the way all this goes. And it is really not the main problem, I can live with this. The main problem is, that for example at "GLAM & Outreach" only 6 of 13 of you gave their points. Less than the half! And a lot of you are not new, they are alwys everwhere and know, what they have to do. 6 of 13. This is a shame and respectless to the all people who made their submissions. For the most of us, even when english is not our mother language, this is not the easiest thing in the world! 6 of 13 (a big thank to the 6 who really made their job!) is not giving the points for the submissions as diverse as possible. At the end, the same persons as every year make the same decisions as every year. Nothing will change, Wikimania will become more and more for burocrats and WMF officials. There were a time, the authors were Wikipedia. Now there's not so much for us left. We are an anex, the apendix of the "movement". And every year we have to learn this again. "Fuck the Comunity" seems to be the motto all over the projects. We deserve to be ignored ans excludes at least with some respect. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Submission review
My collaborator, Diego Bonilla, and I are super bummed that our proposal (4018) didn't get accepted in the Legal & Free Culture track. We scored a 6.8 - - e.g. a weak accept and only .02 shy of accept. Both of us have been very eager to connect our work on the California Open Ed Resources Council with the Wikipedia community. I know you'll probably get a lot of messages like this, but is there any way to re-evaluate our proposal? perhaps with some additional review and feedback we can surmount the .02 hurdle and make the links between our work and the Wikipedia community stronger and clearer. Thanks. --Profhanley (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think the scale is intended to show a likely decision. My one proposal is 7.8 and has likewise been rejected, the other one is 8.875 and might not make it either :( --Pgallert (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)