The anonymous survey among the conference participants was conducted from November 22 to December 10, 2015.
35 answers. 8 different codes.
With 17 assignments it is clear that meeting other people was the most positive useful aspect. Especially the diversity of the conference was highlighted several times.
That leads to the second strongest useful aspect (10 assignments): the shared experiences of different language versions and their special needs (e.g. right to left writing).
The connection between the different Wikimedia projects and their collaboration was mentioned 4 times.
Twice it was expressed that the conference will lead to future collaborations.
Twice the working on a mission statement was expressed as most useful aspect.
Twice to express requests and needs to WMF was stated.
Twice the sharing of GLAM projects was mentioned.
And one time set up of the presentations with a following Q&A to get deeper information.
26 answers. 8 different codes.
The answers are very diverse. 8 times people didn't see anything useless or gave a joke answer (e.g. the weather).
4 times it was expressed that a general discussion was suppressed by discussions on special problems.
3 times the fringe program and social events were mentioned (but at the same time recognizing that other participants find them very useful).
Twice the amount of time that was used to work on the mission statement was critized as beeing useless.
Twice organizational aspects, i.e. the breakout room and facilitation were expressed as being useless.
The unclear future of Wikisource and the outcome of the conference was mentioned one time. As well as a to rushed discussion on the general needs of Wikisource.
Once the more technical presentations were expressed to be useless, due to lack of previous knowledge.
32 answers. 10 different codes.
15 times a better planning was suggested. Especially the long session on Saturday and the too short handed publication of the program were critized.
There were several suggestions how the program would improve besides better planning: Concrete success stories on Wikisource, more tracks, inviting an OCR-specialist, more online discussion prior the conference.
Also improved logistics of the conference was suggested 5 times, especially the wish for more coffee-breaks was expressed.
4 times answers suggested a more proactive participation by the conference participants would help to improve the program.
Once a general more positive attitude was suggested.
On the other hand 5 times the code "everything is fine/ nothing to improve" was asigned.
26 answers. 6 codes.
12 times the answer suggested that due to the already dense program everything was fine and there's nothing to add.
4 times it is suggested to implement some statistics in presentations.
(Introduction to) Technical aspects such as useful tools were missed 5 times.
3 times the wish for more about Wikidata was expressed. Once the wish for a best practice model was declared. Once a discussion on how to attract new editors in Wikisource was missed.
Overall scope and selection of the conference topics
edit
Number of conference participants and composition of the audience
edit
Friday: quality of contributions
edit
Saturday/Sunday: quality of outcome
edit
Saturday/Sunday: quality of the facilitation/moderation
edit
... was suitable for my background and experience.
edit
| Strongly disagree
|
|
|
0
|
0.0 %
|
... contributed to reaching a shared understanding of the future of Wikisource.
edit
| Strongly disagree
|
|
|
0
|
0.0 %
|
... gave me the opportunity to exchange ideas with others on Wikisource issues.
edit
| Strongly disagree
|
|
|
0
|
0.0 %
|
... led to clearly defined next steps and documented outcomes.
edit
| Strongly disagree
|
|
|
0
|
0.0 %
|
JUFA hotel (accomodation)
edit
JUFA venue (conference rooms)
edit
Communication with the conference team before the conference
edit
26 answers. 8 codes.
11 answers suggested a improvement in the program planning process such as an earlier release of the final program or an edit-a-thon or a hackathon for Wikisource and a wider range of different Wikisource community members, language wise.
9 times the organization was suggested to improve, especially with more coffeebreaks, a different time of the year (more daylight equals more proper working hours), and a better internet connection.
| no / 100 % |
90–99 % |
80–89 % |
70–79 % |
60–69 % |
50–59 % |
40–49 % |
30–39 % |
20–29 % |
10–19 % |
0–9 %
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
8 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0
|
Did you get a scholarship (travel funding) from the conference organizers to attend?
edit
What was your scholarship experience?
edit
| I am happy with it
|
|
|
17
|
94,4%
|
What can be improved about scholarship process?
edit
12 answers. 3 codes.
Overall answers suggested that scholarship holders were pleased with the scholarship process. There were three suggestions
- the French microfinancing program should provide more information on follow up procedure.
- and 2 suggestions regarding a better scholarship process due to a better time management.
Have you met anybody at the conference that you are going to collaborate with?
edit
