Mentioning names and making comments close to criticising those who got
scholarship repeatedly is distasteful
and I have to agree with Dariusz that such comment is unfair to these
people. However, people are allowed to show their grievances if they
considered themselves unjustly treated. When the same persons are selected
for scholarship every year, this leave others whose application gets
rejected every year with the impression that their works does not matter
and this is not healthy for our movement.
I do think we need a better approach to addressing what others considered a
problem.
Regards,
Isaac.
*Disclaimer: **I have been declined a scholarship to Wikimania once and I
haven't apply for Wikimania scholarship since 2016. *
On May 30, 2018 5:20 PM, "Dariusz Jemielniak" <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote:
Hi,
Just like Mykola, I attended Wikimania on different budgets. I believe I
received a scholarship once, I was also denied once at least.
The problem expressed in this topic, the way I see it, is that some people
may be picked from year to year basing on the same reasons (good proposal,
region, etc.). The concern expressed by some is that while every year these
merits may be true, the system leads to reinforcing the same cabal.
Except, it is my understanding that having previously attended Wikimania
on a scholarship is an explicit criterion for lowering one's chances to get
another one.
What is being postulated appears to be already reflected in the system.
The system, btw, is very far from perfect and I think it is safe to assume
that everyone agrees on that. Another issue, however, is whether we can
prepare a better system while not spending significantly more
money/volunteer time.
I'd suggest looking for concrete solutions and ideas rather than
criticizing the outcomes.
Discussing particular people, and if they got sponsored repeatedly, does
not sound fair to me - it is guilting them into believing that the fact
they were nominated to come is something wrong.
Regarding shortlists - they surely are imperfect for various reasons, but
common for such programs, including e.g. Fulbright (a shortlisted grantee
may learn a/he is or is not going as late as two months prior to departure
to the US).
Best,
DJ "pundit"
PS for clarity - I'm coming to Wikimania on the Board's budget.
On Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:51 Mykola Kozlenko <mycola-k(a)ukr.net> wrote:
Hi,
As a disclaimer: I have been in multiple roles, including receiving a WMF
scholarship (2014, 2017 and 2018), being denied a WMF scholarship,
attending Wikimania at my own expense and reviewing Wikimania scholarship
applications for a chapter.
From this experience I do not agree with the 'law of diminishing returns'
or draconian measures. However, there are several trends:
1) First Wikimania is usually extremely motivating for almost everyone.
Yet it is hard for a first-time Wikimania attendee to clearly explain the
value of Wikimania for them before attending it. On one hand, these people
are very likely to become more involved, start new projects, share new
ideas etc. On the other hand, their scholarship applications will be most
likely somewhat vague on their plans for Wikimania, and we have to take
that into account.
2) Second and following Wikimanias are indeed less likely to bring that
much additional motivation. However, there is huge added value as these
attendees already know what to expect from and what to look for at
Wikimania and in some ways make Wikimania itself more valuable. This
includes sharing at Wikimania: participating at round tables, making
presentations or posters etc. This also includes learning from Wikimania:
asking the questions their community wants to ask, meeting the people who
work on the topics they are interested in etc. This is not a diminishing
return, but this requires to think of the added value you can bring to
Wikimania.
3) For veteran Wikimedians attending a lot of times, Wikimania is also a
place to meet people with whom they work online and share experience both
ways. For example, we know people want to meet stewards to learn more about
their work, and stewards want to meet users to get some insight on their
role. This might be a sufficient motivation to attend at own expense if
costs are not too prohibitive, but if this is the case (I don't think we
have stewards in Sub-Saharan Africa for example) some of them will probably
need scholarships. They will bring added value by their experience and role
even if they might have attended in previous years.
I don't think there is a simple solution but this definitely deserves a
discussion either here or during the conference.
Best regards,
Mykola (NickK)
--- Оригінальне повідомлення ---
Від кого: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
Дата: 30 травня 2018, 10:38:09
cs, 30/05/2018 10:16:
Is there any other way of investigating these
issues /without/
mentioning the names of the scholarship awardees?
Well, in theory we've been publishing the names of people who got a
scholarship for a few years now, so it should be possible to make a
complete list of repeat recipients in N years and then talk just about
the number rather than names.
I agree that repeat scholarships are a bad way to spend donor money, for
the law of diminishing returns. We can disagree on how big the problem
is, but we have sufficient evidence that it exists. In the past I've
proposed and implemented severe penalties, but I'll clearly admit that I
failed to effectively reform the review process.
I personally agree with more draconian solutions which would set very
clear expectations. A total ban on a scholarship for those who got one
the previous year is a possibility. It would be as fair as re-election
limits in democratic competitions.
Federico
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing
listWikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l