Greetings,
I want to agree with Gnangara that the OP has no intention to attack the
user who was cited as an example. Saying User:XYZ received a scholarship
consecutively is not an attack but a statement of fact (if their claim was
actually correct). To be honest, interpreting OP's concern as an attack,
jealousy etc. is far close to assuming good faith. However, I don't think
I'll be interested in a discussion that focus on "Why was User:XYZ
awarded a scholarship and not me?" but would be interested in a discussion
that focus on how to improve the selection process".
Regards,
Isaac (
*who has never received a scholarship or apply for one this year)*
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:
Fair comment, and actionable suggestions.
P
*From:* Wikimania-l [mailto:wikimania-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On
Behalf Of *Kerry Raymond
*Sent:* Monday, 22 May 2017 4:57 AM
*To:* 'Wikimania general list (open subscription)'
*Subject:* Re: [Wikimania-l] Granting Scholarship to same persons every
year
This observation has been made by a few people (some of them involved in
the scholarship decision-making process) is that past recipients often
continue to out-perform others in terms of the criteria in subsequent
years. What hasn’t been commented on is why this is so?
If we believe that an attendee to Wikimania benefits in terms of learning
new skills, hearing new ideas, making new contacts, then we should hardly
be surprised if an attendee is then in a position to “grow” as a Wikimedian
and hence be more able to “out-compete” others who didn’t have the benefit
of attending. (And If we don’t believe that attendees benefit or grow from
Wikimania attendance, then we should stop running Wikimania). Also the
scholarship recipient has an expectation to share with their community what
they have learned, even that process of sharing adds to their list of
activities that they can use as evidence as subsequent scholarship
applications.
Aside. If you have read the book Freakonomics or followed their blog, you
will be aware
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics
of their study of how professional footballers tend to have their
birthdays clustered in a few months of the year and how this phenomenon has
its roots in spotting football talent in very young players and then
training them. Because junior sport is usually based around age limits with
a specific cut-off day, the children who just exceed the age limit by a
month or two will usually be less physically developed than those who
exceed the age limit by 10 or 11 months. Thus, the older children in the
cohort are more likely to be selected for the team and receive coaching.
Next year (still with a relative age developmental advantage AND with one
year of extra coaching) these older children in the cohort are again appear
the most able and again selected for the team (giving them yet another year
of coaching benefit over those not selected). This cycle repeats throughout
their childhood ensuring the older ones within the “age year” are
disproportionate represented in both junior sport and then into college and
professional sport, giving rise to the observed clustering of birthdays in
professional footballers.
This is exactly the same phenomenon as we are seeing with Wikimania
scholarships.
How can the playing field of Wikimania scholarships be made a little
fairer? I don’t think the answer lies in deducting some points from those
who have had a scholarship before. I think the solution lies in having two
streams of scholarships, one for the first timers who compete among
themselves on criteria that assesses their **potential** to “grow”
through the Wikimania experience and a second set of scholarships for those
who are applying to come for a second/third/… time with criteria more
appropriate to that group, how much did they “grow” and how much did they
“share” relative to the number of Wikimania opportunities they have had
(note one might also want to include attendance at Wikimedia Conference and
other similar movement events in this regard)?
Note in both streams it is still possible to include factors like the
Global North/South issue, minority groups, etc in the criteria as
consistent with the movement’s strategic goals. The key difference is
whether you are assessing only potential for growth from attending for the
first-timers as opposed to observed growth from past attending and likely
potential for further growth from additional attendance for the repeaters.
If that approach is taken, then the only question that remains is the
relative number of scholarships (or amount of funds) available in each of
the two streams. Obviously there’s a range of possibilities, but I would be
tempted to operate on a simple pro-rata principle at least in the first
year of operation. After the weeding out of the ineligible or people who
show poorly against the criteria (however many phases there are to do
that), look at the size of the two remaining groups and go pro-rata. That
is, if after the preliminary cull(s), there are 200 potential first-timers
and 100 potential repeaters, then allocated twice as many scholarship (or
twice as much funding) to the first-time group as to the repeater group. If
that does not seem to produce a good mix of attendees, then tweak it
whichever way seems appropriate the next year.
My key point is to stop comparing a basket of mixed apples and oranges
and start comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. That
should give you mix of the best apples and the best oranges.
Kerry
_______________________________________________
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