Wikimedia Summit 2022/Event-report/Description of outcome and participant evaluation

Wikimedia Summit 2022

Program

Registration & Participants

Location

Venue

Logistics

Contact

Team
FAQ

Documentation, Reports, Reviews

Overview

Outcome and evaluation

Lessons learned

Financial Report

In this section, we look at some of the desired outcomes defined by the Summit program team prior to the event and assess our success based on the results of the participant evaluation survey. On a general note, we see the satisfaction with session formats and the agreed benefits of the Summit is a bit lower for remote participants than for on-site participants.

Welcome, Onboard, & Include Newcomers to Movement Strategy

Newcomers are welcomed, onboarded and find their agency

Day One was designed to function both as information sharing and onboarding. The overall rating of the conference is equally good for newcomers as it is for all participants. Newcomers felt welcomed as participants on the same level as all other participants (85% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ vs. 86% of all participants) and equally perceived the Summit as an opportunity to contribute one’s perspective (80% vs. 79%).

However, Newcomers were less satisfied with onboarding and offers for help than all participants (58% ‘very satisfied’ or ‘somewhat satisfied’ vs. 78%) and support during the conference was rated lower by newcomer participants (68% vs. 85%). Indeed, newcomer participants found the Summit a bit less suitable for one’s background and experience as all of the participants (75% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ vs. 86%).

This data invites us to pay more attention to the onboarding of newcomers in future Summits and to explore initiatives such as a mentoring or peer-matching program between newcomers and more experienced Summit participants.

A greater diversity of voices, ideas, cultures, realities are incorporated into Movement governance and structural reform, Movement Strategy implementation, and partnerships.

Summit participants came from 48 different nations and represented over 130 affiliates. This diversity of the audience led to constructive conversations around governance and fundings on Day Two, where participants brought in their unique perspectives on these global issues. However, we noted that remote participants were less satisfied with the composition of the audience (67% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ vs. 87% of on-site participants) and the diversity of voices, ideas, cultures (65% vs. 81%). This may be explained by the fact that many online participants first applied for on-site participation and unfortunately saw their request being denied.

Participants indicated in the evaluation that the Summit strengthened their motivation to contribute to the Movement Strategy (79% for newcomers vs. 73% for all participants). Most of them also agree with the fact that the Summit increased their cooperation within the movement concerning implementation (32% ‘agree strongly’ and 47% ‘agree’).

The followings are a few examples of cooperation enabled by the Summit:
- The Capacity Exchange grew and found a fiscal home during the Summit.
- The self-organized regional meet-ups on Friday evening helped Wikimedia Europe define their next steps.
- The Summit served as a major opportunity for the MCDC to reach out to the affiliates and connect with the Movement.

Build Partnerships & Coordination for Movement Strategy Implementation

Mapping of who is doing what / where

Day One of the Summit, which was rated most positively by participants, was used to collect valuable information on ongoing implementation activities. We counted over 160 activities entered into our Baserow database by the participants. The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on how to develop Baserow and use it to its full potential for the Movement.

Participants leave with mutual support, ideas, clarity for strategic plans/planning that aligns with Movement Strategy.

In the assessment on this objective, we note a relatively big divide between the feedback provided by the online and on-site participants. Online participation was less helpful in getting input or support for one’s initiative (45% vs. 80%) or in joining in or providing feedback into an initiative (53% vs. 73%). To some degree, online participation made affiliates feel less being part of a movement (70% vs. 87%). Also, the Summit is clearly less useful for online participants to make new friends (42% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ vs. 91% of on-site participants).

Ensure Equity in Decision-Making

Participants engage with governance, structural, and resource-distribution models and practices.

In Day Two different models and practices were introduced and discussed in-depth in breakout sessions. A detailed report on what has been discussed can be found in the event documentation.