The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-04-29. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• Since there's nothing about racial segregation in South Africa (apartheid) in this report, I've removed it from the title and added "racial segregation" in its place, which evidently refers to racial segregation in the United States. Apartheid as a concept is specific to South Africa. While I'm sure many here think it's cool and PoMo to use words outside their original context, I am sorry to say that this is entirely incorrect, as it is an obvious anachronism. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Viriditas, I'd just like to publicly dissociate myself from that. I tried taking my name off the byline, but it got put back. I've change the heading to something more anodyne. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• If you or any FC contributor feels strongly enough about a disagreement that they want to remove their byline, please let me or User:Go Phightins! know before publicaton and we will try to address the problem. Gamaliel (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Seems like the forecast should be clear, with a 100% chance of metallic hail :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• Not enough Dusty this week. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• Should Mr. Big in the first entry actually link to the Sex and the City character?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• The filter should tag unsourced BLP additions by IPs so that editors can review them for accuracy in a tagged-queue. Problem solved. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well , that is a sourced addition, but it sounds like a good idea. Of course BLP violations don't just happen to articles in Category:Living people, but we can take that as a good approximation. We then need to simply decide what constitutes an addition (or should it be any edit?) and what constitutes "unsourced". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC).
    
    • @Viriditas: I set up a test filter: the log is here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC).
      
  • It was clearly sourced, but a source like that from an IP address should be treated with at least some skepticism. Assume good faith, but also verify. Gamaliel (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"it goes to the heart of the fact that David’s not an IT expert, so things like Wikipedia aren't his strong point"

Is this not a problem for everyone on the planet? I've been here a while, and I find it as difficult to write on the Wiki as ever, technically, but now with added heaps of bureaucracy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Although our article isn't clear, the TRS‑80 Model 4D was for sale until 1990, possibly as late as 1994. Rmhermen (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Apparently, there were a bunch of successors to the original TRS-80: List of TRS-80 and Tandy-branded computers. I recall using a Model4 (or something that looked very much like the picture of it in that list article) in the early 90s. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Why is this article trying to monetize photos from participants. Gives me a horrible feeling, the community/participants are not a factory plant in what every employee needs to work a minimum number of hours. The goal of Wiki Loves Monuments is to get all monuments with a good picture on Wikipedia. The first time a contest as such is organised the low hanging fruits are done first, but in this article it is forgotten to mention that getting the low hanging fruits is not the core goal of Wiki Loves Monuments. The goal of Wiki Loves Monuments is to get a photo of every monument. The more monuments get a picture, it becomes much harder to ge a picture of the other monuments. Please, if you want to write a story about a subject, do not only write about too easy thoughts without thinking it through. This article is failing in describing the actual situation and misses totally what Wiki Loves Monuments is about. Romaine (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Romaine: This article is a simple summary of the WMF's evaluation. I would take up your concerns with them! In their defense, however, I would note that donors' funds are being used to pay for these uploads. While the cause is noble (and one I personally laud), the WMF needs to consider how much of an impact their funds are having in order to avoid waste. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Measurables are in the air. Surely we should be concerned with the costs of the programs that our readers' money is funding, no? That is what the analysis is all about. ResMar 05:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all of you. I think cost analysis is relevant to justify donor money. However the above summary is too much focused on money. There are figures in the WMF report that point to the effectiveness of WLM in improving Wikipedia that could have been included, such as that only 13% of images are used in any Wiki project and that only 0.03% became featured. Together with the 0.3% editor retention it shows that WLM is still wasting energy by focusing on quantity rather than quality and usefulness. --ELEKHH^T 09:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

But perhaps there is more to it than that.

• The images are available for all time, for everyone. The cost of a commercial photograph starts at several hundred dollars.
• There is awareness raising value from the events. For example if someone makes their flikr repository CCBYSA-4 there is a huge hidden gain.
• Though we like "active editors" since they do "most of the work", there is no guarantee that this will remain the case. A million editors who make one good edit a month would be fantastic.
• There are millions of minor monuments that should be recorded and aren't. For example the other side of the marker on the right here.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC).

If the article is simple a summary of WMF's evaluation, I think both fail in describing it correctly. Wiki Loves monuments is organised to have a full coverage of the worlds cultural heritage, not just of the most popular or easy monuments. It is a nice benefit that we broke the record of the world's largest photography competition, but that is not the core goal. The core goal is to have the world's heritage covered in pictures on Wikipedia, which means a cumulative grow in number of photos with each contest. The comparison of the budget compared to the number of uploads is also strange, like there is a strong relationship between them. The number of uploads depends on so many parameters that are outside the control of an organising team, and so many depends on just having luck. Yes, luck, that is an underestimated parameter with any contest and with many other things on Wikipedia as well. The only thing an organising team can do, is doing their best they can.

"I would note that donors' funds are being used to pay for these uploads" -> This is not true. None of the uploads is paid. The donors' funds are being used to organise a large photography in what thousands of volunteers participate with taking and uploading photos to help Wikipedia improve. But as you are playing the "donors"-ball, ask this question: do the donors want only the most popular monuments to be covered on Wikipedia, or all cultural heritage monuments? – I speak with many many people, including donors, and none of them expect us to cover only the most popular monuments. Everyone expects that Wikipedia has them all.

It is fine to evaluate a contest in comparison, but such should be done in comparison with other ways of getting the exact same results. The current set-up is too much focussed on the wrong goal. The goal is not spending less money. The goal is getting the best possible results for the money spend, to get the same results.

Also the report, and this article, totally exclude other side effects that Wiki Loves Monuments has. For example that the contest has resulted in a image donation of 480.000+ images of monuments.

"Together with the 0.3% editor retention it shows that WLM is still wasting energy by focusing on quantity rather than quality and usefulness." -> Sorry, this is nonsense. Like the organising teams have any choice in what kind of photos participants upload. And there is no focus on quantity. And there is no focus on editor retention. That WMF sets itself this goal, fine, but this is not the goal of Wiki Loves Monuments. Wiki Loves Monuments has as goal to have a better coverage of the world's heritage. If you want to compare Wiki Loves Monuments with what you would like, fine, but that is not the goal of Wiki Loves Monuments and comparing with other people's goals makes no sense. Romaine (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Am I the only person that finds it bizarre that the Wikipedia Store, which sells many items presumably mostly bought by editors, was launched without any large notification on the actual wiki? Just an unofficial mention in the Signpost? Sometimes it feels like Wikimedia is off on its own planet, with whatever 1000 people apparently fly around the world each year to tiny Italian villages to discuss things WM is launching that year, and is vaguely surprised each time they are reminded about the several dozen thousand people that create their content every day. --PresN 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In fairness to the WMF, where is the best place to notify the entire community without pinging thousands of talk pages? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The mailing list, which did indeed run notification, to the very tightest core of Wikimedian power users. You would be wrong in that assumption, that it sells to editors—it seems to me to be a most very literal gift shop, or pitched as such. Without seeing their traffic stats (perhaps I should?) I cannot say whether or not that is the right approach, but that is the approach. Also incongruous at least to me: in a time where we have long since moved away from Wikipedia-centrism, why "Wikipedia Store" and not "Wikimedia Store"? I think it has to do with name-brand recognition, which reinforces my notion that the gift shop is mostly literally that, for passerby. ResMar 05:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would have gone with the global notification tool that puts a line on the top of people's watchlists, which is the general wiki-wide way to do it. Also: "The mailing list, which did indeed run notification, to the very tightest core of Wikimedian power users" -> "with whatever 1000 people apparently fly around the world each year to tiny Italian villages". If it's not aimed at editors, then whatever. --PresN 17:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• With regard to the comparative time to open a Wikipedia article in VE, for editing, versus the wikitext editor, VE is still significantly slower at opening a large article (specifically, Barack Obama), based on testing by ten Wikipedia editors. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read the first paper yet, but I think two factors might explain some of it. Perhaps editors feel that it is easier, more manageable, and less intimidating to tackle a smaller-scale subject, such as the SS Minnow, as opposed to an article covering an extremely broad topic like the entire US Navy. Also, perhaps editors mistakenly assume that these broad topics are already well covered by the encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Your first factor is by far the most important. This problem has been discussed many times on WP, perhaps most extensively in this huge thread at the FAC talk page in 2011, and this same answer comes up again and again. Covering a very broad topic comprehensively is orders of magnitude more difficult than covering a small one. In writing articles on ancient Egypt, I've covered a couple of small topics and a couple of fairly broad ones. There is a major difference in difficulty between the two, even though I'm drawing my information from a fairly small and insular field of scholarship dealing with a single ancient culture. The amount of work that would be involved in thoroughly researching a universal topic like mythology, house, or brain boggles the mind. A. Parrot (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'd agree; even in well-developed but niche fields the same result plays out- video games has 1100 GAs, FAs, and FLs, but can't get basic articles about the history of the subject to an acceptable quality despite extensive appeals. It's 1/100th of the work to write a good article about your local lake than about the sea. --PresN 04:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• I was going to say, A. Parrot, this study brings to mind the much-maligned TCO study from 2011. Perhaps he shouldn't have been so demonized for it. And yes, PresN, the authors of this study completely miss how much more difficult it is to write a top-level article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It's one of those things we contributors have passively known for a long time, quite honestly I'm always a little amused when research rediscovers the fact. And TCO's report indeed deserved better. ResMar 06:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

TCO's study was spot-on, and I think people recognized that to an extent at the time, but a lot of people took issue with his... tone, and word choice. FAC has some people with egos, and several people were already annoyed at him at the time for long-winded rambles without him labeling editors with words they found pejorative. --PresN 17:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• @The ed17: I've only skimmed User:TCO's study so far, but it seems spot on. I'd love to hear more about the objections, specifically any of substance. I assume there was a lot of knee-jerk objections to the idea that people's preferred topics were "unimportant", relatively speaking? Gamaliel (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Gamaliel: The initial discussion was here, though references to it pop up for months afterwards in the archives. Basically, TCO had already angered quite a few people with diatribes against the way the FAC process was run that people interpreted as attacks against them, and they reall, really didn't like the bit in the middle where he split the FAC nominators into 4 groups (via a graph) labelled "Champions", "Battleships", "Dabblers", and "Star Collectors", based on how many FAs they had crossed with the average monthly page views of those FACs. Given how many FAC regulars write FAs on "niche" topics... And yeah, TCO was pretty clear that he felt that those people were wasting their time and should be focusing more on high-pageview topics. --PresN 17:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I must say I had a lot of sympathy for those complaints, even though I got labeled a "champion" in that study. Slapping those labels on people based on the FA nominations from a small stretch of time was pretty unfair. User:Ealdgyth got labelled a "star collector", but what's she done since then? William the Conqueror, Norman conquest of England, and Middle Ages! The push for more coverage of core topics may have motivated her—you'd have to ask her—but maybe she just felt finally prepared to tackle those colossal topics. I know that my desire and preparation to write on the topic are pretty much the only things that govern when I write what I write. And there is something to be said for the coverage of obscure topics; they may have only obscure sources that are hidden away in inaccessible libraries, and if one Wikipedian lays hand on those sources and writes an article based on them, the information becomes accessible worldwide at a stroke. Finally, I don't remember TCO offering very specific ideas for how to address the problem, and he got embroiled in an even bigger wikipolitical blowup at the FA project in early 2012, so it was easy to write him off as a disruptive noisemaker rather than somebody offering constructive solutions. I'm not saying he was wrong, just that he could have gone about making his points better than he did. A. Parrot (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The labels were pretty unfairly applied- I got Battleship, because I had a video game FA with a high pageview count dragging me up, but I've also written one that gets ~1500/month, and GAs that get single-digits per day. The takeaway that we incentivize small, niche articles over large, difficult articles was and is true, but the editor analysis wasn't very helpful. --PresN 18:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't say that TCO's "study" (I say that in quotes as the data was not a problem, and actually interesting, but the labeling of people with pejorative labels made it pretty clear that the goal of the study was to get people's goat) had much to do with my spate of editing "large scale" topics - it was much more a combination of me having time for wikipedia and being involved in the wikicup where there was a significant multiplier for articles that had lots of interwiki links. I've not managed it again because my time for wikipedia has been much more limited. And, to be honest, the aftermath of sockpuppetry and hell I took for bringing Middle Ages up to a higher standard isn't exactly a motivator for doing such a topic again. (It's there in the archives of the talk page... ). I've always thought, along with Iridescent, that obscure topics are where Wikipedia shines - as topics such as Urse d'Abetot, William of Wrotham, or Roger Norreis are often the best coverage of the topic available outside of some obscure specialist publications. It's easy to find information on United States in lots of places - but Monroe Edwards? That's a different story. I suspect most of the people reading our "high level" articles are not actually reading them but just looking for a quick fact or two. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought, but I didn't want to stalk about your motivations when I wasn't sure. You're probably right about how most high-traffic articles are used, but I'd argue there are some articles on subjects that are broad and attract people—but it's not easy to find good information about them because the sources that analyze them in depth are specialized and scholarly. Nearly everything in my chosen topic area of ancient Egyptian religion, with a few possible exceptions like ancient Egyptian burial customs, fits that description. Take ancient Egyptian deities#Characteristics. People may know several fragments of Egyptian myths, but they don't know that the gods are more like symbols than like actual characters, that Egyptian myths are more like metaphors than like legends, or that Egyptian gods are immortal because they die over and over. My huge public library only contains one or two books that discuss those kinds of things in reasonable depth. Lots of ancient religions are like that. There must be lots of other subjects out there that I'm less familiar with that are both popular and difficult to get good information on. A. Parrot (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

So, Comedy and Science Fiction topics are underdeveloped, while Politics and Birds are High-quality ... and this is a problem? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the self-interest (gobble) angle, I agree. There's lots of great articles on the US Navy already, like the US Navy's. I see the Wiki being far, far more important for less covered topic, where there are few places this information can be collected and presented, for free. Is it a problem that the US Navy article could be better, or super-fantastic that the article on the Ferranti Sirius exists at all? I think the later, and that people are missing the forest for the trees. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly—it's the long tail nature of Wikipedia that brought me here in the first place, and that kept me coming back for years before I started contributing seriously. And it's not like the "popular" articles don't get any love—they get knocked out at a slow pace, but people do get to them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

And pop culture will generally always be easier to write good articles for, given generally easy to find sources and a higher number of potential contributors interested in them, so I'm never that worried (downside: pop culture attracts more trolls, vandals, and bad edits.) I've always disliked the "eww we have articles on X show but not subject Y" because it's really trying to make information into "highbrow" or "lowbrow" and devalue the work of contributors. We should always be encouraging quality edits, whether you only care about Sponge Bob or whether you love obscure dinosaur taxonomy. The readers who are looking for that information are going to appreciate the effort either way. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there could be a lot of value in finding ways to help editors tackle the larger topics. It took me 5 years to write Texas Revolution - much easier to write articles on the individual battles and people involved. I agree with Maury Markowitz, though, that part of the appeal of Wikipedia is that it contains information on topics that is not found anywhere else online. We're bringing light to topics that might be underrepresented, and that is powerful. We need to find a good balance between those competing principles - it's great that the studies are pointing out the imbalance, but we need suggestions on ways to improve the first part, rather than decrease the second. Karanacs (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

One of those cricket FAs in the topic mentioned is Donald Bradman. That isn't so very unpopular - it typically gets 500-1000 views a day, which ain't bad for an article about a sportsman who retired 50 years ago. --Dweller (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That is right and, given that cricket is the world's second most popular sport after football, it hardly belongs in a column headed "unpopular". I think the authors of the survey need to apply some real world thinking about the typical WP editor. This person is not a professional and so cannot be regimented into developing articles which they believe to be important. Instead, he uses his gifted amateurism to develop those articles in which he is interested. His involvement in a project is not based on any desire to promote the project, or to work in some organised fashion within it, but rather on the project as a forum in which to share views with and, sometimes, assist other editors with a mutual interest. The articles about the 1948 Australian cricket team, mentioned above, were a collaborative effort which I would not expect to see repeated often if at all. Obviously, we would all like to see quality and, yes, there are far too many stubs and starts but, given the volume of articles already started and the volume of potential articles in what is after all an encyclopaedia, what can you realistically expect? Jack | ^{talk page} 10:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone, and apologies for being late to the party! In case you don't know, I'm the first author on the paper about popularity/quality. Thank you all for a very interesting discussion, I have jotted down notes from it once already, and will re-read it and write down more notes. The links to previous discussions along these lines are also very helpful, although I haven't yet had the time to read all of them (some of them are quite large). Let me comment on a few specific things, before I go dish out actual thanks to everyone. I'll be adding this talk page to my watchlist in case there are follow-up questions, and I welcome questions or comments on my talk page as well, of course, and I can be emailed if you want to reach me off-wiki.

Gamaliel brings up an important point with regards to why these general subjects don't have FAs (size of the topic), and Karanacs' work on Texas Revolution is a good example (massive kudos for that effort!) We think along the same lines in the paper, although perhaps not at clearly. Figuring out why something occurs was outside the scope of this paper (it's analytical, we try to describe what the world looks like, so to speak), but as I continue my research I am interested in building tools to support contributors who are interested in working on these types of articles, and then those types of issues are of course very important.

Maury Markowitz and Curly Turkey mentioned the long tail, and Jack mentioned contributors choosing from self-interest. The latter is part of our motivation for studying this and something we point to several times in the paper, we wanted to know more about how that type of work selection affects systems like Wikipedia. When it comes to the long tail, it's typically not a "problem" in the popularity context. In all four languages we studied the majority of articles are stub/start quality and they do not get a lot of views, so there is no issue there. It's also clear that because Wikipedia's contributors are volunteers, they're free to leave, and therefore a central decision process on what to work on us unlikely to happen (we discuss this in the paper). Yet, I'm thinking that it would be great if we could figure out a way to serve high-quality content to a larger portion of Wikipedia's audience, which as Karanacs pointed out doesn't mean I'd want to decrease other parts.

Lastly, a technical detail: cricket is, as Dweller and Jack point out, not an unpopular topic. In our paper we were interested in understanding what topics are in the two extremes: highly-popular non-FAs, and FAs that aren't particularly popular. In the latter group, the relative risk of encountering an article from WikiProject Cricket is very high, which is why that project made our list. In other words, we didn't try to define the entirety of topics as popular/not-popular, we instead looked at specific subsets of articles to understand more about them.

Thanks again for the comments, everyone, and please do ask if you have questions! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think one of the single best ways to get more people interested in the topics with bigger scope is to provide a better way for editors to find willing collaborators. Texas Revolution would still be a miserable shell if I hadn't been specifically invited by another editor to help with the article - after the History Channel approached the WMF to see if there was any chance the article could be featured. (The deadline and external motivation was also helpful.) Collaborations may the larger articles soooo much easier to write. As it stands, the only way to find them is to either know that someone is interested in a topic and approach them directly, post on a Wikiproject (largely defunct) or article talk page, or randomly run across kindred spirits (as has happened to me too). Karanacs (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've worked on some FAs that were extremely popular, and some that were quite obscure. For me, working on the obscure ones has been a far more enjoyable process. It's not because the popular articles are intimidating (although the idea of bringing United States to FA, for example, does seem overwhelming) but because they attract more editors' attention, which forces me to collaborate. Sometimes, the collaboration is productive and enjoyable -- such as when Wehwalt and I worked on James A. Garfield recently. But when the other editors are POV-pushers, edit-warriors, and talk-page-filibusterers, the process quickly becomes unpleasant. Take a look at Talk:Thomas Jefferson, for example. A nightmare. That article should have been promoted to FA years ago. There are plenty of reliable sources and plenty of interested editors. But in a volunteer project, there's only so much aggravation an editor is willing to put up with before walking away. That, I think, is one of the biggest impediment to getting vital articles to FA or GA. I'm not sure what the solution is. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

We have no real, binding means of resolving content disputes. An RfC may hold for a while, but a new one can be opened up, so the arguments never stop. And even when a few editors make a concerted effort to improve an article, their improvements may not stick because of continued interference (see Ealdgyth's comments above about the disputes at Talk:Middle Ages). Wikipedians generally adhere to the principles that no one owns anything and that articles can always be improved. As a result, Wikipedia provides no way to stop the barrage of complaints. Of course no article is perfect, but what too many Wikipedians won't admit is that once an article's been improved to a certain level, efforts to change the article are more likely to be detrimental (by pushing ill-informed or biased ideas, or simply by aggravating the editors who actually understand the subject) than they are to be helpful. Most of the time I've been lucky enough to escape this phenomenon, but I've seen it happen over and over to other people. A. Parrot (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for great comments! Based on the previous threads, I figured that collaboration would be a key part of working on some of these broader topic articles, and learning about your experiences (particularly with some links to discussions so I can go check them out for myself) is very helpful. I'll definitely be keeping this in mind as I continue my research in this area. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

See also this discussion on Twitter with another one of the paper's authors. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Personally, I think the writers of the first paper should take a look at Featured Topics; concentrated, long-term contributions in what are frequently very specialist areas. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, very interesting, thanks for pointing that out to me! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-29/Technology report

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-29/Traffic report

From having been involved (tangentially) with events held in Manila, it's a difficult venue for conferences. The security concerns (including around terrorist attacks specifically targeting events with an international profile) are non-trivial, and it can be expensive and difficult to get to as flight options from many parts of the world are pretty limited. The above article glosses over the fact that this town is in the Lake Como district, which has well-established tourism infrastructure, albeit not the kind of large hotels and public transit capacity which is desirable for something like this - I suspect that the organisers don't realise the complexity of what they've signed up to deliver. Nick-D (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Without large hotels and public transit capacity I don't understand what you mean by "well-established tourism infrastructure". ResMar 05:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A whole bunch of towns close together with tourism as one of their main (the main?) industries. The page for the bid lists lots of small hotels, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well...small-scale tourism, sure: who doesn't want to visit a small hamlet in the countryside. But something on this scale? The second hardest part of this bid, after the installation of the WiFi, will be the amount of trekking that will have to be done to get people to and from overnight accommodations. The room occupancy numbers presented in the bid are....worrying optimistic. Though I do not know the culture I am skeptical that all of those mentioned apartment owners, for instance, will not charge many times the usual rate—on apartments they sublet on a monthly basis in the first place! ResMar 06:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe at this point that Nick-D is blowing Manila's purported "difficulty" with conferences out of proportion, and it seems that his tangential knowledge of organizing events in Manila has the unintended effect of painting Manila as being completely unsuitable for conferences. If it was that difficult to hold conferences here, then we wouldn't have conferences here to begin with, including this year's APEC Summit. We actually have the infrastructure—fine, it's not perfect, but it's certainly better than having nothing.

We had discussed how to handle security in and around the venues: this included coordination with the Philippine National Police, local city governments, the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority and other pertinent offices. During deliberations among members of the Wikimedia Philippines Board of Trustees on whether or not to support the bid, the issue of terrorism and post-election violence came up—first of all, I highly doubt Wikimania is of a high-enough profile that it would attract foreign terrorists let alone local ones, and second of all, the issue of post-election violence is highly unlikely given the relatively peaceful conduct of the last two elections, of which one was presidential.

In addition, as we have proven in our bid documents, flying into Manila is competitive from most parts of the world—the only "difficult" place for flights is by and large only South America. It is certainly easier for people to come here than it is for people to go to Esino Lario—we also brought this up at multiple points in the bidding process. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

My point isn't that Manila can't feasibly handle something like this (it can), but that it isn't the obviously-better option which the article is arguing. Apologies if my above comment is too strong. I don't think that the Lake Como area counts as a "hamlet" to be honest. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the article was taking a pro-Manila stance. Tony (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Esino Lario, Varenna and Lake Como are definitely not places of "small scale tourism". Esino alone has a historical capacity for several thousands people. I'd rather say Washington is a small-scale tourism area. :) --Nemo 19:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Separate point: on safety, there's been Wikimania in Egypt and Israel. Is Manila really much more dangerous in comparison? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think by far the least safe place with a Wikimania so far has been Washington, D.C.[1][2], and while Manila's crime rates are even higher (though lower than Mexico City), I think there are other points to consider, like the overall situation with law and order in the country, whether tourism is considered an important industry specially protected by authorities (like in Egypt), whether the crime is mainly between criminals (like in Washington) or spills over to the general population, whether the country has experience securing mass events (or security in general), etc. In all previous Wikimanias all of these metrics were satisfactory, but in both Mexico City and Manila they could be problems. Still, I don't want to judge without having been there myself, and I am hoping to come to Wikimania in Mexico. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have read the proposal of Manila (at least I have read it) and the bid reported several risks that I consider real "blocking" risks. A "may be" is like to say "no", a "potential sponsor" is like to say "no sponsor". Looking at the self evaluation [3] the same team says that there are no suitable accomodations around the venue, that there is to organize a transportation, that there are several potential delays (weather or changes in the political scenario) and the network capacity is not mentioned. Sorry but I consider more risky the bid of Manila that the bid of Esino Lario. Also for the transportation there are several kilometers to do each days cause the distance of the PICC from the accomodation probably with a real bad weather and in a potential dangerous zone. I suggest to read the bid of Manila (again if you have not read it). Anything else is a pure speculation. Regards --Ilario (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ilario, I don't know if your comments were made to make Esino Lario look good at our expense (and as it was pointed out, the article doesn't defend having Wikimania 2016 in Manila to begin with), but I really think you're seriously exaggerating some points of our self evaluation. To address your concerns one by one:

1. We mentioned that there were no dormitories around the venue, and that is NOT akin to having no accommodation at all. We in fact gave a list of nearby hotels, and hotel prices are lower in Manila than in many other major cities, balancing out the lack of dorms.
2. We offered to organize transportation to put attendees at ease so that they don't have to navigate Manila's public transportation system, which can be very bewildering for first-time visitors to the city. If they want to try it though, they're certainly free to do that.
3. You mention potential delays. We have mentioned in other parts of that same self-evaluation and elsewhere that we intend to find solutions to addressing them. Did you read the risk management section below our self-evaluation? We came up with a number of ways to address those concerns.
4. We were in initial talks with Smart Communications at the time to potentially sponsor the conference's Internet connection. The PICC, however, was unable to provide us information on their network, but we can mention that they suggested getting a telco to provide Internet connectivity because the center's internal network wouldn't be able to handle the load of some 2,000 devices (presuming 1,000 Wikimaniacs with two devices each) connecting all at the same time. That being said, PLDT (Smart's parent) is capable of providing very fast Internet—they did so at the 2012 Asian Development Bank governors' meeting, with average download speeds of 84.05 Mbps.

Now, I won't dispute the fact that Esino Lario won the bid, but I will continue defending the Manila bid if I have to because as far as I'm concerned, Wikimania is possible here, and from what I see here it's your comments that are pure speculation, not our self-evaluation. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

May I point out the following quote from the article: Members of the jury indicated in an email to the Signpost that Esino Lario had scored 116 to the Philippines' 109, out of a possible 140. While numbers can't tell you everything, it does indicate that it was a close contest. That said, as I'm quoted saying in the article, I thought making it into a purely Manilla vs. Esino Lario issue was never the right approach. CT Cooper · talk 21:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Also a silly point that things like "delays" can really happen anywhere, and the honesty of the self assessment can't really be held against them on such grounds. I still have bad memories of a trip to Halifax, Canada, that was plagued with chaos for example which couldn't have been predicted. Orderinchaos 22:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• To take up Christopher Cooper's point, a number of people are wondering why it came down to an A versus B struggle in the end. The jury did have other procedural options, surely. Tony (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• I like Esino because I could attend without having to resort to any kind of grant. We attended Wikimania 2014 in London. "We" includes my two sons, my wife and me. We paid our all expenses. We did not requiere any external financial support. We are a Spanish middle-class family. That means that we are in the first quintile of World's population in income terms -i.e. 80% of the people in this World deserve help more than we do. So we wouldn't have attended if it had implied taking somebody else's money. Even if we were entitled to it: the average fellow in Sri Lanka, Honduras, Rwanda, or the Solomon Islands needs that money more than we do and I find obscene to take any of that money away from them in order to get to a volunteer activity.
  So when Wikimania takes place away from home, in Mexico or Hong Kong or Manila, we don't even take attending into consideration. On the other hand, those people who would need to be financed to attend an event in London, Esino (or Frankfurt, if you like it) would also required to be financed to go to Manila. The Global South is not a small place where you can walk from La Paz to Bujumbura in a couple of minutes. For most people in Bujumbura, an event in Brussels is easier to attend than one in La Paz. So placing events somewhere in the Global South doesn't make them any easier to attend. In fact, as many people from the Global North would require grant money to go and that amount would be substracted from the total ammount of grants, Global Southerners would end up even worse.
  Esino is a small place. My guess is that many people will go by car, which is unsual for other Wikimanias. I don't think it's a perfect place but they have 13 months to improve things. The small size of the place helps to improve local commitment. I also think that getting volunteers from other countries will be easier there. They have a hard work to do, but it's feasible. B25es (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

For yourself, that's fine. But what about giving some other parts of the world a turn? Europe/North America get a turn almost every time. Meanwhile here in Australia, the only one we've been able to attend without some sort of external financial support is Hong Kong - and even that is a 7-10 hour flight from major Australian centres. This is despite more than pulling our weight in terms of participation and achievement in Wikimedia terms. The issue is pertinent as this year, *no* scholarships were awarded to Australia, which makes it nearly certain we'll be entirely unrepresented at what is supposed to be a global event. By cycling it around different regions, it balances the load across a number of different communities - sure, less will attend from Spain, but more will attend from countries in the (relatively) nearby area. Orderinchaos 11:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sad to know that no grants went to Australia. You're right on that point. My idea is that almost nobody from Western and Central Europe should need a grant to go to Esino, so all that money should be spent on people that need the help. Giving money to me or to anybody in the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Belgium, to go to Esino (I'm comparatively far away and it's only a 15-hour drive) shouldn't be done. Holding Wikimania in Manila would mean that almost anybody willing to attend would need financial support. And I think that financial support is for something else. B25es (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that "almost anybody willing to attend would need financial support" to attend a Manila Wikimania. When we planned the bid, we actually foresaw a good number of Wikimaniacs from East and Southeast Asia—people who for the most part don't get to go to Wikimania to begin with because of the stiff competition for scholarships—attending Wikimania here without needing significant financial support from the Wikimedia Foundation. If anything, we can't discount those people, and I'm doubtful that Manila is as difficult to get into as you suggest it is.

In addition, just to make it clear, one of the motivations as to why we launched the bid in the first place was because we know that if Esino Lario would win the bid, it would very difficult for Wikimaniacs from this part of the world to secure visas to attend. We've had Wikipedians denied visas by the Italian Embassy in Manila, and the visa rejection rate of the Italian Embassy here is, anecdotally, the highest of all of them (the French Embassy is second). You risk shutting out people from large parts of the world because Italy won't give them visas, and at this point I remain unconvinced by the ability of the Esino Lario team to actually secure visas for those who need them but live in countries where the visa rejection rate for Italian visas is high. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you read m:Wikimania 2016 bids/Esino Lario/Visa? It has references. Why did you not post your concerns on the talk page? Do you have official statistics supporting your claims? --Nemo 19:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Nemo, this was a concern we raised during the open question period, so yes, we asked and Iolanda answered the question from one of our core team members when it was raised. However, if you ask me, I find it inadequate that the only solution that I've seen to an Italian visa being denied is to simply go to the Swiss embassy and ask there instead. (If you've been denied a visa by one Schengen member state, as far as we know that appears in the SIS or other database for all other Schengen member states to see, and it gives them more reason to deny your application.)

That being said, while I don't have official numbers to back up my claims, Filipinos who travel regularly do talk about where we should get Schengen visas. In our case, the easier ones are the German, Dutch and Czech embassies; the harder are the Italian and French. If you think I'm pulling this out of thin air, I'm not. Now, I trust you guys can do better than what you already have, so please allay my fears here. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've been to four Wikimanias, including London where I was commuting in from my home over an hour away and Haifa where my accommodation was a coach journey away. My personal preference is for more compact events where venue, meals, accommodation and so forth are all in easy walking distance, but no venue is perfect, and as Haifa proved, you can have a successful event where coaches have to be laid on to get some people to their accommodation. As for getting editors from the Global South, Italy is in the European Union, so visas are going to be an issue. ϢereSpielChequers 07:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have been privileged to attend 3 WikiManias: They all required a "commute"
  • Hiafa - coach
  • Washington - 20-30 minute walk
  • London - 30 minute walk

I don't see local transport being more of a problem here, than anywhere else. Accessibility issues need to be addressed as part of the conference organisation.

It is disturbing to see that there are no scholarships going to AUS this year. I'm not sure if there's a perception that first worlders can easily afford these trips, a lot of active Wikimedians are on very small (or zero) incomes, and attending a Wikimania, even without a flight, is an expensive business.

What is really great to see here is IMAGINATION. Setting Wikimania in a big city is inevitably expensive, noisy, smelly and tiring. There are many other venues which might not tick the box for the jet-setters amongst us, but are totally suitable for the purposes of meeting, talking and collaborating. Let us make sure this is one of them.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC).

• Yes, having Wikimania in big city can be "expensive, noisy, smelly and tiring." Please know that there are people who find that kind of city environment much more stimulating than a beautiful countryside. - kosboot (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, most Wikimanias have been in big cities. 2016 is likely to be in a minority in that respect. ϢereSpielChequers 16:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think it is a likely misreading of the email to suggest that the grant being sought is from PEG, it would seem that the orgnaisers are looking for a grant form elsewhere. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC).
  
  • I've clarified this in the text, using info from a different email chain. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That was my original reading of the e-mail I received, but I was then explicitly told that this interpretation was incorrect by Young – a response which myself and a Signpost editor interpreted to mean that WMF funding might still be a possibility. In normal circumstances, I would have gone back and asked for clarification, but Young had declined to engage on the issue further for the moment, which was less than ideal. However, I'm still happy that one concern raised appears to have been resolved. CT Cooper · talk 22:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• Would also be interesting to know whether those commenting on the budget read m:Wikimania/Comparative#Budget, m:Wikimania 2016 bids/Esino Lario/Financial plan and the past track of those handling fundraising. Let's remember that we have an experienced grant manager here who is working for free to save WMF from another loss of half a million dollars and already secured several grants. --Nemo 19:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A patently absurd choice for a tech conference but a lovely vacation spot, I'm sure. I expect this to be an enormous, ummm, clusterhug. Just hope the mainstream media doesn't notice how many donated funds are being poured into this fiasco. Carrite (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Wikimania is not a tech conference in my opinion. The tech conference is Hackathon and this year it will be held in Lyon, I give you the link because you don't miss it [4]. About the remaining part Esino Lario at moment assures more mainstream media than Manila can do. If your problem is the mainstream media I suggest you to look better in the network capacity of both places, I tried to understand the network capacity of Manila, but the bid does not report any data. Regards --Ilario (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, it's strange to see that the article reports an old/invalid information (it's not the first time) and an old evaluation about the networking. I do not know the expert networker but if he evaluates the proposal of networking on the basis of the documents of the bid, he is evaluating something that is not old but really outdated. It's the second time that Signpost reports or uses invalid information, please update you. I suggest to ask to the organizer the updated information. In addition is the comment about the debt of Telecom a technical comment? Is like to say that the bid of Manila is risky because the conference hall PICC has been built by Ferdinand Marcos who realized an external debt of Philippine of $28.3 billion in 1986!!! --Ilario (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I was going off what Tony described to me as the network diagram. I am blind and there for can't see the diagram, and therefore was relying on Tony to give me the description, and failed to realize that there was new data to go from. Davidwilliam97 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly is this "updated" information? If it's not made accessible, take what you get. We go off the latest information available. I note there's no link in your post, Illario, so still it's a mystery.

Dave, my description of the diagram to you was in great detail and done with great care, as you know. That is not relevant to Ilario's complaint that, magicially, we were meant to know they there was a privately held update. If this "updated" information really exists, the fact remains that the bid was what was accepted at the time. I note the jury's statement that they had "expertise". Did they properly scrutinise the internet specs? Tony (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think Ilario's point is that we should have gotten it from the organizers, but when we send questions to the WMF on these topics, we can only do so much if they don't give us any updated information. Bottom line: if there's actually updated information, it should be sent to us when we ask about it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The jury and the WMF were both sent detailed questions by the Signpost. If there were significant updates to the onwiki bid, they had the opportunity to inform us then. They did not. Tony (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have emailed Ilario with a request for updated diagrams and text discussing the changes in the network topology.

Davidwilliam97 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ilario has responded to my email, and I am working on opening a dialog with the organisers to obtain more information about network planning.

Davidwilliam97 (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you read m:Wikimania 2016 bids/Esino Lario/Location#Accessibility? --Nemo 19:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you really need me to point out the obvious, glaring quote? "Not all venues are fully accessible." Alison, who is quoted in the text, read that as well. Yes, other people can help, but that's not a substitute for a fully accessible conference experience. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how your comment related to my comment or the content of the section I linked. --Nemo 19:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The answer is yes, and perhaps you should read what you've linked to? The quote is from that section in the third bullet point. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, yes I did - that was why I had such major concerns about it! The page might as well have said "if you're disabled, you're not welcome". Orderinchaos 22:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Being disabled myself puts this issue very close to my heart. If there is a public conference I really shouldn't have to get a disability car to drive me to certain places. Unfortunately the disabled have able-bodied people thinking that getting extreme help such as being driven in special cars is a good accommodation, but it really isn't because it makes the disabled person feel like they are inconveniencing others by making some driver deploy the disability car. What I would rather have is a completely accessible venue where any disabled person is able to get independently around with out crazy accommodations such as a disability car. For example for a blind person a good accommodation would be to have people able to do a first walk around the venue, and after that allow for the blind person to move about independently. Having these extreme accommodations really doesn't give the disabled community a good public image, and makes able-bodied people think less of the disabled. Davidwilliam97 (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• With regards to accessibility, I concur with Alison Wheeler whose negative opinion regarding accessibility was mentioned in the Signpost article. The notion that the WMF would host an international conference at a location that is distinctly incapable of even bare minimum standards of venue accessibility is grossly insulting and discriminatory to those with movement disabilities. Quoting the above linked section of the bid, "Not all venues are fully accessible". A requirement for any bid should be that all venues are accessible. Yet, at selection criteria the only mention that we see regarding disability is that the venue should be "welcoming" (and this is buried under "personal safety"). Concerns regarding movement disabilities have been relegated to a very subordinate consideration. Alison is right. Full access to venues must be an absolute requirement. Failure to be able to provide accessible venues absolutely must exclude any bid. Those thinking this location is acceptable should run this test; Would they find it deeply objectionable to place a sign saying "No Gays Allowed" outside the 4 rooms of this location that are not accessible? If so, they should be equally appalled at the idea of placing a similar sign outside those rooms that says "No Wheelchairs Allowed". Let's be frank...this is precisely what this selection jury is doing. It isn't enough to just provide transportation. I note with serious disappointment that meta:Wikimania Handbook contains absolutely no mention of accessibility concerns. They certainly seem to think that coffee is important enough to be mentioned in the checklist, but any mention of accessibility is beneath consideration. The attitude displayed is to say the least, disgusting. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Those reading here may be interested in a post I made on Meta at Meta:Talk:Wikimania_2016_bids#Accessibility. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds just as absurd as the choice of Sochi for the 2014 Winter Olympics.--Catlemur (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sochi "worked" (cough, ahem) only because they threw $50 billion at it. Figuring 75,000 people (that's how many the olympic village could hold, which is a conservative number as not everyone stayed there) in Sochi for the Olympics, and the ratio of event attendees to population of Sochi is 0.22 per. For Esino Lario, at a max attendance of 1000 (which again is conservative, based on the max the bid organizers state) the ratio is 1.32 per. I.e., Esino Lario's burden for hosting this conference is _six times_ that of Sochi. I see only disaster. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Having once coordinated an event of similar logistical complexity, let me make a few practical suggestions:

• Success needs to be measured in part by whether everyone present has ensured that all attendees have had a useful and happy event. Pitching in to make the event productive and enjoyable for people with limited mobility, disabilities, or specific needs in regards to diet and accommodation is a part of the process. Supporting attendees like the disabled person posting above with what they need should be considered a serious contribution to the movement, just as valuable as creating content or doing organizational work.
• Ms. Young will need full-time people on hand at some point in the organizing process to help with the sheer number of tasks and requests that occur simultaneously, in real time. Plan on the possibility that something may come up making it impossible for volunteers to fill this role, and that Ms. Young will need to bring in extra organizers to ensure that everything happens in a timely fashion.
• Give Ms. Young the option to cancel the event altogether, with no hard feelings regarding the expense/inconvenience, if at some point in the process, in her judgement she finds the situation is not workable.
• This event may or not be successful from a technical perspective; but from a social perspective, as a teambuilding exercise, it could be quite promising. It will provide a much-needed reality check to those who think that community cohesion can be attained simply by means of data, web design, and online text.
• Bringing large numbers of strange males into direct personal contact with local women is one way to test for how civilized your organization is, and how well it disciplines itself. Barbarian hordes, or welcome guests? This will be a defining moment for how the organization presents itself to the world. A critical measure of success is whether Wikipedians turn out to be considerate guests who are welcome to return. --Djembayz (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to provide my networking knowledge to make the technical side of the event a success.

Davidwilliam97 (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The final attendance of Wikimania 2014 was 1520. I understand there are peaks and valleys in the attendance profile, and not all 1520 were present at any one time. That said, the idea that the accommodations profile for this location can handle Wikimania is so rosy in its expectations as to be absurd. Fully half of the bed requirements are expected to be filled by individual, private apartment owners? You would have better luck herding feral cats. Further, the rosy expectation that all hotel rooms will be available for the event is equally absurd. Unless the WMF contracts every room in this rosy picture, and agrees to be held to pay for those rooms in the event they are not used (for whatever reason) this lofty notion that 100% of rooms in or "nearby" (40 minutes? Nearby? 80 minutes worth of commute to the conference every day? You serious?) are going to be available is laughable. Even if all of the beds are reserved for Wikimania, it is still quite possible this event will exceed that bed requirement, since the last European Wikimania DID exceed it. The hard part about this is there is no fixing it. There's no other rooms that might be available, no uncounted nearby hotels or anything to fill in gaps. If the numbers get large, the conference is doomed. And that's just the accommodations front. There are other serious shortcomings to this site that have apparently been completely overlooked or at least grossly understated by the jury. I wonder what, if any, qualifications the jury has in conference management. Utterly stunned, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Several thoughts here (in my personal capacity, not Signpost). First, the one organizing the private accommodations is from Esino Lario and has extensive connections with the people there. Second, that's kind of the point. The bed numbers will forcibly limit the number of attendees. Organizing the commutes is going to be a real fun time for someone. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• From what I've been able to discern from the bid, there is no one organizing the commutes. Attendees will rely on public transport or car to get to the conference venues. Apparently there is a serious dearth of parking, so car transport seems at best highly problematic. At a bare, bare minimum there needs to be dedicated free shuttles from accommodations in "nearby" (again, 40 minutes isn't nearby) to conference venues. There is no mention of any plans to do this in the bid.
• If a suitable bid is not available among the bids submitted, the jury should re-open the bidding process rather than accept a location with such serious limitations as this one. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This was one of my concerns also. 2011 Haifa solved the problem of further away accommodations by putting on a bus, but doing that here would result in extremely inconvenient commutes and shuttle runs as the bus whittles around local streets dropping people off - had this experience myself a few times coming back late from tours in Australian cities where every 2-3 people are staying at a different hotel. And public transport is fine for those who are used to it in their home country (I practically think in it and can adjust to anything with a few hours' exposure), but I know many people who would have difficulty with this, especially in a foreign language in an unfamiliar environment. Wikimania events tend to go late, and public transport doesn't - also people may be intoxicated at the end of them. I'd hate to think what sort of liability insurance the event will need to take out to cover these sorts of eventualities across hundreds of people. Orderinchaos 20:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Orderinchaos: A more likely possibility in my mind is that the events won't be able to go late. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Final review and approval of the Wikimania Jury decision is done by me, in my role as Chief of Finance and Administration of the Wikimedia Foundation, with support from Ellie Young. The Board does not currently have a role in approving the location of Wikimania.GByrd (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• @GByrd (WMF): Let us all hope that you seek counsel of independent experts in the field of conference management prior to making a final decision. Let us all hope you choose not to discriminate against those people with mobility limitations. See Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-29/Wikimania#Accessibility above. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• I received the information that the Board would make a final decision on the location of Wikimania from the Signpost. I don't know where the Signpost has received this information from, though I have to say, clear communication from the WMF has been lacking at times. Nevertheless, I'm glad clarification has now been provided - I'll stick by my statement in the article, but replace "Board" with "vetting process by the WMF". CT Cooper · talk 21:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

After reading this Signpost article, I asked our friends at Wikimedia Hong Kong about the "still-unresolved questions of financial probity". (I have not been involved with WMHK myself since late 2013.) I was told that the final accounts of Wikimania 2013 had not been made public for legal reasons. This is because some invoicing of Wikimania 2013 expenses had spilled over into FY 2014-15, and according to company law in Hong Kong it is malpractice to publish any statements of accounts before they have been externally audited. Hence sadly WMHK is not allowed to publish the final accounts of Wikimania 2013 until the 2015 audit cycle is over. The WMF is fully aware of the situation, but for reasons above they may not publish the draft financial statements either. Deryck C. 15:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Deryck, thank you for this update. We look forward to perusing the full and final accounts as soon as possible after the end of the 2015 audit cycle. Tony (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)