Wikimania 2016 score and review notification for submission 76
Dear Michele Lavazza,
The fact that my submission was rejected on the basis of the two reviews quoted below is frankly surprising, and does not bode well for the objectivity -- or even subjectivity -- of the review process. Indeed, it is impossible to tell whether either reviewer actually read the abstract that I submitted. How am I to know if the submission is really "pompous, wordy and opaque" or if that reviewer was simply having a bad day? Unfortunately the first reviewer did not offer any concrete details that could have refuted those comments.
Therefor I will make the following remarks.
This abstract summarises a 23 page paper that has undergone a very strenuous -- and meticulous -- peer review process. On that basis I would suggest "humility" rather rather than "pomposity" as a description. It is within the word limit, and asks concrete questions, gives concrete examples, and cites concrete sources. "The point" is exposited throughout, and clearly sumarised in the final paragraph.
- «The primary question the talk aims to address is the following: Could we create a viable business doing what a normal university does, but using peer production and a cooperative structure as the basis?»
Reviewer 1: 6 (Rather interesting) - 6
Reviewer 2: 3 (Bad) - A very pompous, wordy and opaque abstract that fails to get down to the point. If the talk follows this style, it will be of limited interest and value.
Puoi controllare? Talk:Excursions/Itinerary to the Belvedere of Agueglio in the evening --Nemo 09:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Link for live streaming for this morning's Gym Palace events?
Hi @MLWatts: I won't be able to make the opening session this morning but would like to watch. On the Programme page, it says "Live streaming of events held in the Gym Palace." Where do i find the link for that please? Thanks! JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)