WikiConference UK 2011/Talk Submissions

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This year, Wikimedia UK will be hosting WikiConference UK 2011 along with our Annual General Meeting in Bristol on Saturday, 16th April 2011. We're planning on having two parallel sessions during the conference: one on content and one on strategy. The deadline for talk proposals is 2 April 2011.

Content talks: These can be on anything related to content on any Wikimedia project. Examples include wikiprojects, technical work, outreach or entrenched problems on the Wikimedia Projects such as disputes, vandalism...

Strategy talks: These should focus on potential or current Wikimedia UK activities, or other free content activities within the UK.

To submit a talk, simply use the template below to specify the title of your talk, your name, how long your talk will be and a short blurb as to what it is about. Whilst your here comment on other peoples suggestions as to whether you think it is a good idea. You’ll be contacted in the coming weeks if your talk is selected.

If you have any questions, please post them on the talk page, and/or contact User:Mike Peel.

Template[edit | edit source]

Please use the template code below

| Talk title  = 
| Username    = 
| Length      = 
| Description = 

Talks[edit | edit source]

Moving on from UK GLAM events to long term collaborations, projects and partnerships.[edit | edit source]

  • Presenter Name: Fae
  • Talk Length: 15 minutes
  • Talk Description: The good news is that in the UK our experience is growing at an exponential rate for how to run successful GLAM events (edit-a-thons, behind the scenes tours and backlogs/article improvement challenges). However this raises the questions:
  1. "What happens next?"; how do we maintain interest for contributors with a wider variety of experience and how should we manage our long term relationships with GLAM institutions?
  2. "How does WMUK adapt?"; exponential growth always leads to change, if WMUK is to support a growth spurt in GLAM relationships and interest from newcomers expecting chapter support as a GLAM champion, what are the demands on our organization likely to be over the next 12 months?

Comments[edit | edit source]

Wikipedia Ambassadors UK : Building a program[edit | edit source]

  • Presenter Name: Sadads
  • Talk Length: 25 minutes
  • Slides:File:Wikimedia_UK_AGM_Ambassadors_Sadads.pdf
  • Talk Description: Discussing the Ambassador program in the United States briefly, and describing how Wikimedia UK members can help build a Wikipedia Ambassador Program in the UK and the current recruitment drive for Wikipedia teaching assignments and Wikipedia Ambassadors for the fall. Also exploring ideas about how Wikimedia UK members can do outreach with Academics in general.

Comments[edit | edit source]

I'd like to see the Ambassador Program succeed in this country too. It's great that we have Alex available to talk about it, and it would be valuable to discuss it with geographically diverse Wikimedians. MartinPoulter 12:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Excellent and inspiring talk. Jezhotwells 16:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Talking with Authority[edit | edit source]

  • Presenter Name: Victuallers
  • Talk Length: 15 minutes
  • Talk Description: Wikimedia has had its 10th birthday - in UK law a child takes responsibility at 10. The joke that you can't believe it has to ignore the 411m. users. The Wikimedia projects are starting to talk with authority. Of course university research doesnt require our help but many opinions on university research and cultural institutions like libraries, galleries and political parties are initially shaped by Wikimedia's projects. Wikipedia is not just "talking with authority" in as much as it is believed, but Wikimedia needs to also talk with authorities. The authorities behind institutions, in education, the environment and culture, now have enthusiastic members who believe that their authority needs to adapt - as Wikipedia is not going to just go away. We are involved with UK (and global) education. How are we going to cope with this responsibility? ... with the rush when these authorities realise that they want help? and how will we supply it until then? This talk will briefly cover Wikimedia's experience of collaborating with the British and Derby Museum (and the novel technology we are using to help the transition), but it will also try and explore the challenge of the many opportunities that are available.

Comments[edit | edit source]

Given the number of comments, suggest this one be left out. I could offer "The History of the World in 100 articles" from last November's GLAM if more appealing Victuallers 09:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't commented on this previously, but appreciate learning more about experiences of working with institutions such as museums and universities to help expand and raise the content of the encyclopaedia. Jezhotwells 22:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

QR Codes or Why It's illegal to not use Wikipedia[edit | edit source]

  • Presenter Name: Victuallers
  • Talk Length: 15 minutes
  • Talk Description: (This was a talk given at the Wiki Academy in Bristol in March). The talk covers the problem of how to not only get information from Museums into the public domain (e.g. Wikipedia), but how we can get out information into institutions. An experiment using second generation bar codes at Derby Museum has shown that this is possible. The opportunities of technologies like QR codes means that we can supply accessible information directly to smart phone users. It also reveals an opportunity for Wikipedia to demonstrate that it is not only the World's largest but in some cases the best information source available.

As you may have heard we are demonstrating a new type of QR codes developed last week and demo'ed at Derby on the 9th. Obviously I will include material from Terence Eden and I's findings.

Comments[edit | edit source]

Having seen this talk in Bristol, I can vouch that Roger is an excellent speaker and gets a very positive response from the audience. This talk certainly needs a wider audience. MartinPoulter 11:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Agreed, this is an excellent presentation. Jezhotwells 16:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Content and coverage; where are we 10 years into the project?[edit | edit source]

  • Presenter Name: Johnbod
  • Talk Length: er, as long as you like up to 30-45 mins, & discussion could go on indefinitely
  • Talk Description: Thoughts on strengths & especially weaknesses in our content, and on how we can address them. Trends in content editing.
Prose version now here.

Comments[edit | edit source]

Maybe in advance of this session or at the start, solicit audience opinions about what separates the strong areas from the worse areas? Would be interesting to see the different perspectives. I have my own preconceptions, which may well be refuted when I see this talk, but I won't use this page as a forum. MartinPoulter

Yes, I see this as a topic nearly everyone will have an opinion on, & would hope to have as much time for discussion as possible. The talk itself could be as short as 10 mins, though 15 might be better. Johnbod 15:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wiki in the lecture room[edit | edit source]

  • Presenter Name: Harrypotter
  • Talk Length: 20mins
  • Talk Description: Following from the excellent progress of UK GLAM events this talk will look at the use of Wikiversity in the delivery of the SPIR608 Political Simulations and Gaming course at the University of Wesminster. Previously, Academia has shied away from using Wikiversity in the UK, but this initiative is opening up other possibilities . . . but will they gain enough momentum to overcome the problems wikiversity has expereinced in recent years? This is put in the context of the broadening interest in Open Educational Resources that is gathering momentum

Comments[edit | edit source]

How we can make Wikiversity more appealing and how we can involve academics are both topics that need an airing, so I'm keen to hear about this. Maybe schedule this talk next to Alex's (above)? MartinPoulter 20:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles[edit | edit source]

  • Presenter Name: Jezhotwells
  • Talk Length: 15 minutes
  • Talk Description: As the English Wikipedia has evolved, systems of assessing articles have been developed. Wikipedia:Good articles is a list of articles which are well written, broad, referenced, neutral and accurate. Assessments are undertaken by volunteer editors, who mostly have experience of bringing articles up to GA status. How does all of this work? Is it a useful process for improving the project? What are the problems?

Comments[edit | edit source]

Glad to see you presenting, Jez. I expect there will be some attendees who support Wiki UK without knowing a great deal about the quality process within Wikipedia. Maybe this talk could be scheduled early on as it would be useful orientation for them, as well as a chance for more experienced editors to share their feelings about the process. MartinPoulter 20:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know more about this Victuallers 21:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Psychology on Wikipedia: the Good, Bad and Ugly[edit | edit source]

  • Presenter Name: MartinPoulter
  • Talk Length: 20 minutes
  • Talk Description: This talk is about the quality of psychology content on English Wikipedia and the lessons learned from some attempts to improve it. Psychology is about human beings; how they think, feel and interact. It's a subject whose teachers and researchers include a relatively large proportion of women. Unsurprisingly, it's not one of the subjects that Wikipedia does well. The vast scientific, experimental literature on psychology has counterparts in commercially lucrative pop-psychology and fringey para-psychology. It pains me to see some of the misconceptions spread about psychology through its 5000 enwiki articles. In this talk, I will make you feel that pain.

Comments[edit | edit source]

NB: My asking for 20 mins doesn't mean I think my topic is 33% more interesting or complex than Jez's, Roger's or the others. Rather, I think the others have been a bit modest and their talks especially including audience discussion, deserve more time than they're asking for. MartinPoulter 20:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point Martin, I am not sure if there are to be separate but simultaneous sessions or what. But 20 minutes would be good to allow sufficient time for audience interaction. Jezhotwells 22:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)