Hi, Osmar Valdebenito, No offense was intended :-(. For prominent communities that may be true, but could you check list of users who got scholarship from Malayalam community. Amir Ladsgroup, 1) As you can see there is nothing confidential or personal in Gerards reply. He just gave a summary of "known" practices. 2) Users are not asking for trophies. They also want to participate Wikimania and share and get the experience. 3) Wikimedia projects are community processes. I simply don't understand how granting scholarship to same persons again and again for five or six years help that process. I also dont understand that communication and sharing of multiple viewpoints, ideas and practices is possible in the above scenario. 4) Yes; If clicking tick marks in translatewiki on some 500 string in 5 minutes before applying for scholarship (as reviewing the translation) is a prominent contribution. In the beginning every body treated equal, we have multiple participants (with understandable reasons) for Wikimania. It started to shrink later and now people plainly believe granting scholarship is an act of favoritism. I also want to prove I am wrong. Regards, Praveen. P User:Praveenp PS: Mail striped because mailman held my previous reply claiming " Message body is too big:" On Friday 31 July 2015 05:03 AM, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:

Hi, Please don't derail the actual topic of the thread. I really didnt assume such an interpretation from quoting his words. Whenever I asked about the issue to anybody, I generally got such a reply, which I want to avoid here. If it is need to start a new thread, I will do that. :-) But please tell me why some people regularly get scholarships atleast since 2008, active (in Wikimedia projects / outreach programms) users never get a chance to share their experience and problems at Wikimania. Regards, Praveen. P On Friday 31 July 2015 12:40 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote:

Praveen, I was chair of the Scholarship Committee for this year. It's unfortunate that you didn't get a scholarship, however there were many high quality applications and sometimes the difference between success and failure is very small, and I feel genuinely bad for any Wikimedian with a good application that didn't make it, but it's very competitive. We do take into account previous scholarship awards, and focus on making sure new people get a chance. But consistently good applications and excellent work can warrant repeat scholarship awards despite this. In some cases where people have been granted Scholarships previously but have been unable to attend the conference due to visa issues we have considered that when receiving their applications for the current year. I won't comment on any individual's scholarship, but "regular Wikimedians" certainly make up the bulk of the scholars. Edit count is not the only factor, but it still is a significant (and clearly verifiable) factor when looking at someone's application. However, we looked for organisers too. Some of our community are better facilitators and community builders than they are editors, and running events, training and building partnerships are things that were marked favourably. Moreover, two identical applicants can make wildly differing applications. We look for those that comprehensively demonstrate their contributions and qualify their statements. Please apply again next year. You have just as much opportunity as anyone else. Hope this helps. Best Stuart Prior User:Battleofalma On 31 July 2015 at 09:16, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote:

And that is EXACTLY what Stuart explained. I understood, unless you didn't! > On Friday 31 July 2015 04:01 PM, Stuart Prior wrote: > > Praveen, > > I was chair of the Scholarship Committee for this year. > > It's unfortunate that you didn't get a scholarship, however there were > many high quality applications and sometimes the difference between success > and failure is very small, and I feel genuinely bad for any Wikimedian with > a good application that didn't make it, but it's very competitive. > > We do take into account previous scholarship awards, and focus on making > sure new people get a chance. But consistently good applications and > excellent work can warrant repeat scholarship awards despite this. > > In some cases where people have been granted Scholarships previously but > have been unable to attend the conference due to visa issues we have > considered that when receiving their applications for the current year. > > I won't comment on any individual's scholarship, but "regular Wikimedians" > certainly make up the bulk of the scholars. Edit count is not the only > factor, but it still is a significant (and clearly verifiable) factor when > looking at someone's application. > > However, we looked for organisers too. Some of our community are better > facilitators and community builders than they are editors, and running > events, training and building partnerships are things that were marked > favourably. > > Moreover, two identical applicants can make wildly differing applications. > We look for those that comprehensively demonstrate their contributions and > qualify their statements. > > Please apply again next year. You have just as much opportunity as anyone > else. > > Hope this helps. > > Best > > Stuart Prior > User:Battleofalma > > On 31 July 2015 at 09:16, Dariusz Jemielniak &lt;darekj(a)alk.edu.pl > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','darekj@alk.edu.pl');>> wrote: > >> Hi Praveen, >> >> I've been a steward, as well as the chair of the FDC for three years, so >> you may assume I've been somewhat active in Wikimedia movement. I did not >> receive a global scholarship neither (although I did eventually go, as I >> got elected to the Board of Trustees). >> >> I think it is clearly an assumption of bad faith to say that there is a >> bias in scholarship committee. The criteria are explicit, and obviously >> with limited resources a large number of excellent candidates, even with >> accepted presentations, will not make it. >> >> I would suggest you focus on Wikimedia activity, prepare a great >> presentation for the next year as well as a compelling application, and try >> again. >> >> Best, >> >> DJ "pundit" >> 31 lip 2015 10:07 "praveenp" &lt;me.praveen(a)gmail.com >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','me.praveen@gmail.com');>> napisał(a): >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Please don't derail the actual topic of the thread. I really didnt >>> assume such an interpretation from quoting his words. Whenever I asked >>> about the issue to anybody, I generally got such a reply, which I want to >>> avoid here. >>> >>> If it is need to start a new thread, I will do that. :-) >>> >>> But please tell me why some people regularly get scholarships atleast >>> since 2008, active (in Wikimedia projects / outreach programms) users never >>> get a chance to share their experience and problems at Wikimania. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Praveen. P >>> >>> >>> On Friday 31 July 2015 12:40 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: >>> >>> Praveen, >>> >>> Whether there was anything personal or confidential in Gerard's private >>> emails to you is for him to say not for you to decide. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Jonathan >>> >>> >>> On 31 Jul 2015, at 05:59, praveenp &lt;me.praveen(a)gmail.com >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','me.praveen@gmail.com');>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Osmar Valdebenito, >>> No offense was intended :-(. For prominent communities that may be true, >>> but could you check list of users who got scholarship from Malayalam >>> community. >>> >>> >>> Amir Ladsgroup, >>> >>> 1) As you can see there is nothing confidential or personal in Gerards >>> reply. He just gave a summary of "known" practices. >>> 2) Users are not asking for trophies. They also want to participate >>> Wikimania and share and get the experience. >>> 3) Wikimedia projects are community processes. I simply don't understand >>> how granting scholarship to same persons again and again for five or six >>> years help that process. I also dont understand that communication and >>> sharing of multiple viewpoints, ideas and practices is possible in the >>> above scenario. >>> 4) Yes; If clicking tick marks in translatewiki on some 500 string in 5 >>> minutes before applying for scholarship (as reviewing the translation) is a >>> prominent contribution. >>> >>> In the beginning every body treated equal, we have multiple participants >>> (with understandable reasons) for Wikimania. It started to shrink later and >>> now people plainly believe granting scholarship is an act of favoritism. I >>> also want to prove I am wrong. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Praveen. P >>> User:Praveenp >>> >>> PS: Mail striped because mailman held my previous reply claiming " >>> Message body is too big:" >>> >>> On Friday 31 July 2015 05:03 AM, Amir Ladsgroup wrote: >>> >>> There are several issues I want to comment: >>> 1-First of all. Do you have permission from Gerard to publish your >>> conversation? Maybe there is something confidential in it, Did you care to >>> check? >>> 2- Scholarship is not award or trophy, bear that in mind. >>> 3- People are expected to come here and learn, communicate, etc. that's >>> why a same person gets scholarship, >>> 4- No one's wife got scholarship because of being wife of someone. They >>> probably are prominent contributors too. >>> 5- Check my first question and answer that. (Emphasizing) >>> >>> Best >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:05 AM Osmar Valdebenito < >>> b1mbo.wikipedia(a)gmail.com >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','b1mbo.wikipedia@gmail.com');>> wrote: >>> >>>> Sorry, but when I read "No regular Wikimedian get any scholarship", I >>>> stopped reading. >>>> It is not only a lie, but also very unfair to all the extremely great >>>> Wikimedians that attended and made great contributions in Wikimania, and >>>> also the volunteers that have helped now and in the past reviewing and >>>> evaluated thousand of applications in the Scholarship Committee. >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org');> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimania-l mailing listWikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org');>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org');> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimania-l mailing list >> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org');> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing listWikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org');>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l > -- +Rexford <http://google.com/+Nkansahrexford> | khophi.co <http://khophi.co/about>

Nicholas, Yes it's a fair point. I can't speak for previous committees, but I know this year we did take it into account when reviewing applications. But in any community there will be a few consistently excellent people that make a good case to justify support year on year. As the scholarship committee rotates members, and I made sure to avoid having members mark those they had more personal connections with, I hope we were as objective as we could be. I could go on, but I'll leave it there. However I'd just like to reiterate that the scholarship process does not exclude "regular Wikimedians" in the slightest, quite the opposite. Best Stuart Prior User:Battleofalma On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Nicholas Bashour < nicholasbashour(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hello, Leave the fairness of the scholarship process aside. Regardless of its fairness, the process is generating ill-will because of lack of transparency and poor communication. The problem might be growing to something beyond what volunteers can manage and perhaps paid staff support from the communications department of the WMF would be a worthwhile investment to protect community reputation considering the seriousness of this, the problem's persistence, and the fact that a little more communication would go a long way to resolving the negativity. Thanks Praveen for voicing concerns. They are worth addressing and what you are saying is what a significant and large demographic also has been believing for years. I first heard this in 2012. It is good that this year for the first time the list of scholarship recipients was published and shared openly. Regardless of whether the scholarship award process is fair and adequate, it is definitely true that the rumor is circulating among many countries, especially in the Global South, that some people are getting scholarships repeatedly. Here are some of the complaints which I have repeatedly heard, and which are critical to address for the sake of community health: 1. People who get scholarships somehow become better candidates for getting more scholarships, when ideally, new people from a region should attend Wikimania every time 2. In the Global South especially, people who get scholarships actively or unconsciously suppress the development of their local Wikimedia community so that they retain a leadership role and remain the most eligible people to receive scholarships, grants, attention from Wikimedia community leaders, and other privileges. 3. There is a tremendous amount of ignorance and lack of cultural insensitivity about the value of scholarships among WMF staff and Wikimedia community members from richer countries. At this year's Wikimania, we stayed in a city where ~75% of residents make USD 160 a month, ( http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/07/24/world/social-issues-world/mexic…) and stayed in a hotel where the nightly charge per room was $320 or two month's income by local standards. The amount of money thrown around during Wikimania is shocking to many Wikipedians and this issue is never discussed, so far as I know. 4. Just in general and beyond scholarships - there needs to be more discussion about how money is viewed differently in different places. This applies to grants, staffing, community engagement, and many other things. If complaints are not pouring in about this, it is only because people are not comfortable speaking up. Diversity creates a lot of concerns and we are a very diverse community. yours, On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Nicholas Bashour &lt;nicholasbashour(a)gmail.com > I believe that what Praveen may be saying is that he thinks the value > that a repeat scholarship recipient can gain from coming back to wikimania > numerous times is outweighed by the value that someone who has never been > to wikimania but has nevertheless been a very involved wikimedian can gain > from attending. Therefore, given that there are limited resources, > scholarships should always go to the people who can gain the most from > receiving them, which Praveen may be arguing will always be someone who has > never been to wikimania versus someone who has. He's saying that despite > having many repeat scholarship recipients, there has not been any added > value on wiki to justify that, and therefore new recipients should be > actively prioritized over repeat ones. That's not to say whether or not > that's actually the case or that this was the point he was trying to > convey, but rather what I understood his argument to be. > > Best, > > Nicholas > > Sent from my iPhone > > Am 31.07.2015 um 07:39 schrieb Nkansah Rexford &lt;nkansahrexford(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: > > I just want to know why some users were able to achieve scholarship again >> and again while regular Wikimedians being excluded. >> > > And that is EXACTLY what Stuart explained. I understood, unless you didn't! > > >> >> > >> >> >> On Friday 31 July 2015 04:01 PM, Stuart Prior wrote: >> >> Praveen, >> >> I was chair of the Scholarship Committee for this year. >> >> It's unfortunate that you didn't get a scholarship, however there were >> many high quality applications and sometimes the difference between success >> and failure is very small, and I feel genuinely bad for any Wikimedian with >> a good application that didn't make it, but it's very competitive. >> >> We do take into account previous scholarship awards, and focus on making >> sure new people get a chance. But consistently good applications and >> excellent work can warrant repeat scholarship awards despite this. >> >> In some cases where people have been granted Scholarships previously but >> have been unable to attend the conference due to visa issues we have >> considered that when receiving their applications for the current year. >> >> I won't comment on any individual's scholarship, but "regular >> Wikimedians" certainly make up the bulk of the scholars. Edit count is not >> the only factor, but it still is a significant (and clearly verifiable) >> factor when looking at someone's application. >> >> However, we looked for organisers too. Some of our community are better >> facilitators and community builders than they are editors, and running >> events, training and building partnerships are things that were marked >> favourably. >> >> Moreover, two identical applicants can make wildly differing >> applications. We look for those that comprehensively demonstrate their >> contributions and qualify their statements. >> >> Please apply again next year. You have just as much opportunity as anyone >> else. >> >> Hope this helps. >> >> Best >> >> Stuart Prior >> User:Battleofalma >> >> On 31 July 2015 at 09:16, Dariusz Jemielniak &lt;darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>> >>> Hi Praveen, >>> >>> I've been a steward, as well as the chair of the FDC for three years, so >>> you may assume I've been somewhat active in Wikimedia movement. I did not >>> receive a global scholarship neither (although I did eventually go, as I >>> got elected to the Board of Trustees). >>> >>> I think it is clearly an assumption of bad faith to say that there is a >>> bias in scholarship committee. The criteria are explicit, and obviously >>> with limited resources a large number of excellent candidates, even with >>> accepted presentations, will not make it. >>> >>> I would suggest you focus on Wikimedia activity, prepare a great >>> presentation for the next year as well as a compelling application, and try >>> again. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> DJ "pundit" >>> 31 lip 2015 10:07 "praveenp" &lt;me.praveen(a)gmail.com&gt; napisał(a): >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Please don't derail the actual topic of the thread. I really didnt >>>> assume such an interpretation from quoting his words. Whenever I asked >>>> about the issue to anybody, I generally got such a reply, which I want to >>>> avoid here. >>>> >>>> If it is need to start a new thread, I will do that. :-) >>>> >>>> But please tell me why some people regularly get scholarships atleast >>>> since 2008, active (in Wikimedia projects / outreach programms) users never >>>> get a chance to share their experience and problems at Wikimania. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Praveen. P >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday 31 July 2015 12:40 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: >>>> >>>> Praveen, >>>> >>>> Whether there was anything personal or confidential in Gerard's private >>>> emails to you is for him to say not for you to decide. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>> >>>> >>>> On 31 Jul 2015, at 05:59, praveenp &lt;me.praveen(a)gmail.com>>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Osmar Valdebenito, >>>> No offense was intended :-(. For prominent communities that may be >>>> true, but could you check list of users who got scholarship from Malayalam >>>> community. >>>> >>>> >>>> Amir Ladsgroup, >>>> >>>> 1) As you can see there is nothing confidential or personal in Gerards >>>> reply. He just gave a summary of "known" practices. >>>> 2) Users are not asking for trophies. They also want to participate >>>> Wikimania and share and get the experience. >>>> 3) Wikimedia projects are community processes. I simply don't >>>> understand how granting scholarship to same persons again and again for >>>> five or six years help that process. I also dont understand that >>>> communication and sharing of multiple viewpoints, ideas and practices is >>>> possible in the above scenario. >>>> 4) Yes; If clicking tick marks in translatewiki on some 500 string in 5 >>>> minutes before applying for scholarship (as reviewing the translation) is a >>>> prominent contribution. >>>> >>>> In the beginning every body treated equal, we have multiple >>>> participants (with understandable reasons) for Wikimania. It started to >>>> shrink later and now people plainly believe granting scholarship is an act >>>> of favoritism. I also want to prove I am wrong. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Praveen. P >>>> User:Praveenp >>>> >>>> PS: Mail striped because mailman held my previous reply claiming " >>>> Message body is too big:" >>>> >>>> On Friday 31 July 2015 05:03 AM, Amir Ladsgroup wrote: >>>> >>>> There are several issues I want to comment: >>>> 1-First of all. Do you have permission from Gerard to publish your >>>> conversation? Maybe there is something confidential in it, Did you care to >>>> check? >>>> 2- Scholarship is not award or trophy, bear that in mind. >>>> 3- People are expected to come here and learn, communicate, etc. that's >>>> why a same person gets scholarship, >>>> 4- No one's wife got scholarship because of being wife of someone. They >>>> probably are prominent contributors too. >>>> 5- Check my first question and answer that. (Emphasizing) >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:05 AM Osmar Valdebenito < >>>> b1mbo.wikipedia(a)gmail.com>>>> >>>>> Sorry, but when I read "No regular Wikimedian get any scholarship", I >>>>> stopped reading. >>>>> It is not only a lie, but also very unfair to all the extremely great >>>>> Wikimedians that attended and made great contributions in Wikimania, and >>>>> also the volunteers that have helped now and in the past reviewing and >>>>> evaluated thousand of applications in the Scholarship Committee. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimania-l mailing listWikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >> >> >> > > -- > +Rexford <http://google.com/+Nkansahrexford> | khophi.co > <http://khophi.co/about> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane(a)bluerasberry.com

I agree. Some stats on the Meta pages per year would be helpful, as well as a list of grantees and their reports (for those who didn't make a report, maybe we have other data available on them, like submissions & presentations, or something like that) On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:51 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

+1, particularly on the call for statistics. Thanks, Mike

I think you put your finger on a key point here. We have a large community of “totally deserving people” but mostly get little/no recognition of their contribution. Most organisations that rely on volunteers have a range of ways to recognising their efforts. In the world of WMF, other editors can give you a “thanks” or a barnstar/Wikilove but WMF itself does not seem to do much to recognise volunteers. So when “totally deserving” people apply for a Wikimania scholarship, of course people are going to see this as a chance to be recognised by WMF for their contributions. As most of the “totally deserving” will be unsuccessful in gaining a Wikimania scholarship, of course they are going to feel it as “demotivating”, “unfair” and “likely to reduce their contributions” as the surveying suggests. Sure there’s disappointment at not going to Wikimania, but I suspect the bigger issue is that the apparent lack of recognition of their contribution that comes as part and parcel of it. And a standard rejection letter that says “We appreciate your contribution, but alas there aren’t enough scholarships” fall a little short on the “recognition” front! Perhaps if the WMF looked at ways of recognising the “totally deserving” volunteers in other ways, then the Wikimania scholarships would not become as big an issue. One example might be cheaper scholarships to attend a national event (which also avoids visa issues) or funding towards hosting a local event within their community at which their contribution can be recognised among their peers. Announcing an award to them in their local media might be something people might value. Others might like a trophy for their mantelpiece suitably inscribed. I am sure others can think of more ideas and I note that we may need different ideas for different communities as what people value is different. For example, although the merchandise giveaway is well-intended, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways/Nominations has anyone considered if short-sleeved thin T-shirts are something everyone in the world sees as a recognition? What about the countries were the arms are kept covered for modesty or sun exposure? What about the countries where T-shirts are seen as a “low status clothes”? I also note that a return to partial scholarships would mean more people were recognised wrt to Wikimania. The comment that the administration of partial scholarships was too much work for WMF staff sends an unpleasant signal about how WMF values its staff time relative to the time spent by “totally deserving” volunteers. In summary, I think WMF has a problem with its “totally deserving” volunteers feeling unappreciated which is much larger than Wikimania. Given the cost and effort of running annual Wikimanias for a relatively small number of people, perhaps they should be less frequent with other kinds of events and forms of recognition using the equivalent cost and effort in between in order to spread the “wikilove” a bit more widely? Kerry From: wikimania-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimania-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Osmar Valdebenito Sent: Friday, 31 July 2015 11:24 PM To: Wikimania general list (open subscription) &lt;wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Fwd: Wikimania Scholarship The problem is myths and rumours will arise always in a process that is not (and should not) be objective. We can't just give some It is a subjective process where you evaluate so many people, with different backgrounds and different contributions. What is more important? Founding a chapter or making 100,000 edits on English Wikipedia? 5,000 edits on a smaller Wikipedia or 10,000 images on Wikimedia Commons? How do we make also possible to bring people outside our movement or with very few edits, but that are great promoting free knowledge? And how do we ensure gender balance? Do we prioritize new attendents than can bring new ideas to our movement or do we support experienced members that have a proven record of great presentations and activities? When you have a very limited number of scholarships and a lot of great applicants, every time you make a decision to give a scholarship to someone, you are taking it from someone else. And usually, that other person totally deserve it. So, even though the committees have tried to have a balance of all these factors, someone will complain and consider it not fair. General numbers will help to reduce these rumours, but they will always come up again.

I also agree with the points Kerry brings in. (As I have no experience with South America, Africa or Asia, I can only speak of my experiences in Europe.) I do not think national conferences are the solution to this. For large countries it can help. Also national conferences are certainly needed. But in Europe we have many relatively small countries, and most countries have their own language. Seeing the large number of participants at Wikimania 2014 in London, there is a huge need in Europe for interaction between the various language communities, which otherwise are not really connected much, even while they live relatively close to each other. Therefore I would suggest that there will come a continental conference in Europe (if there is no Wikimania in Europe). Romaine 2015-08-02 6:03 GMT+02:00 Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

On 31 July 2015 at 13:51, WereSpielChequers &lt;werespielchequers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: FWIW, I have applied four times: 2012 - successful 2013 - unsuccessful 2014 - successful 2015 - unsuccessful I ran a workshop in 2012 and gave a talk on each of the three days in 2014, as well as assisting at several of the pre-conference weekend events. My talk proposal was accepted in 2015, but without a scholarship, I could not attend. I can't recall whether or not my 2013 pitch to speak was accepted. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

On 31 July 2015 at 10:19, Nicholas Michael Bashour < nicholasbashour(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I agree with this. The last year that partial scholarships were supported (Hong Kong Wikimania), the partial scholarship was the reason I could attend (I was making a presentation there). In other years, when Wikimania was in a location to which I could book airfare at less than half the cost of the flight to Hong Kong, I didn't apply for any form of scholarship. I do think the majority of the scholarship dollars should be full scholarships; however, I do think that partial scholarships had a significant impact in the past, and could do so again in the future. Risker/Anne

Lodewijk - I think you are carrying the conversation in an inappropriate direction by trying to logically examine the merit of the points. Instead of trying to prove or disprove the rumors, I would instead propose to examine whether this kind of discussion really exists in significant amounts, and if so, what basis does it have. Criticisms more often have their basis in people being unable to get the information they request. If I were to identify a problem, it would be in transparency and communication about the scholarship process, and not that I find the problem with the process itself. Osmar - I was not criticizing the decision to host the conference in Mexico. I just said that the conference operated on a budget which was modest by international standards but great by local standards. This is typical for international conferences in the developing world. I try to be sensitive but if I did something which irks you then message me privately so that I can learn and change my behavior. Also, I do think rumors can be lessened if there is more transparency in the scholarship process. This year we listed scholarship recipients, which is an improvement, and maybe next year the list can be developed further in some way. I stand by my claim of rumors that Wikimedia community leaders in the global south are at greater risk for being accused of corruption than elsewhere. I am not aware of persistent accusations directed at anyone, but the idea arises and I feel like the concerns should be voiced and addressed. The cause of the communication problem is the economic difference - what is a small amount of money in a wealthier country can worth more locally in some places, and more money creates more tension. It is expected in the Wikipedia movement that most people be comfortable with funding levels of wealthier countries, but more sensitivity on how money is perceived in local places would be useful. I also advocate that a much greater slice of available funding should go to economies where the money goes further. There are people, young students in the developing world especially, who have correctly recognized that the monetary value of a Wikimania scholarship is more than some people in their social circles spend in a year. I am mostly dropping out of this talk. I only wanted to defend Praveen's claim. When people voice a concern then that concern should be accepted and examined, and problems with submitting the claim could be handled separately. He is voicing a popular persistent concern and the community should take notice. Thanks everyone for your attention. yours, On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Lodewijk &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org&gt; wrote: -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane(a)bluerasberry.com

On behalf of the two of us here at WMF who work on the Scholarship Program (Ellie and Sati), we’d like to offer the following response to the various points raised in this thread: (1) To the point around repeat scholarship recipients: Given the concerns about scholarships being awarded to the same people year over year, for the 2015 Scholarship Program we included a two new questions in the application[1]. From these new questions, the Scholarship Committee could understand how an applicant's previous attendance had changed or improved their Wikimedia contribution, and how attending this year would do so again. To Stuart's previous point, the intention was to set the bar was higher for those who had attended Wikimania before on a WMF scholarship, but without setting an automatic or blanket penalty. As a data point, of the 2015 Scholarship recipients ~26% received a scholarship in 2014 from WMF[2]. Unfortunately, we don't have data readily available to do a year-over-year comparison for past Wikimainias. (2) and (3) To the point around enriching home communities / countries and selection criteria:"Enrichment" was a big focus on the revised 2015 Scholarship application and selection criteria. In previous years, the application questions and selection criteria focused on an applicant's: contribution to the Wikimedia movement, contribution to other free knowledge/software movements, and interest in Wikimaina. Based on feedback from previous scholarship applicants, recipients, the Scholarship Committee, Wikimania organizers, and WMF staff, these questions and criteria were changed to focus on: relevant experience within the Wikimedia movement [3] as well as "Enrichment". From the Scholarships page[4], "Enrichment" means: "The ability to share experiences and information with a wider community indicates that the applicant, if awarded a scholarship, would be able to bring those experiences or lessons learned at Wikimania back home, thereby enriching their home wiki community or home country. Applicants are encouraged to write about or provide examples demonstrating this ability; a few examples could be on-wiki reports, personal blog posts, or talks/presentations given about what they learned from an event, conference, or discussion. To this end, as in 2014 we have required all scholarship recipients to create an on-wiki report[5]. The summarized outcomes from 2014 can be found here[5]. Once all 2015 scholarship reports have been submitted, another analysis and summary of outcomes will be posted here[2]. [1] Question added into the 2015 application: Have you previously attended Wikimania on a WMF scholarship? YES/NO Note: there is already a separate question on "Have you attended Wikimania before? If so, in what year or years?" If YES, please use the space below to tell us about something great that happened as a result of attending Wikimania previously? What are your goals for attending Wikimania again? [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars/2015_Outcomes <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars/2015_Outcomes> [3] https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships#Relevant_experience <https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships#Relevant_experience> [4] https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships#Enrichment <https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships#Enrichment> [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars/Proposed_2015… <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars/Proposed_2015_Process#Outcomes_reported_by_2014_Scholars> (4) To the point of why we do not offer partial scholarships anymore, the overhead processing to adminster this was high. We also noted that there were regular occurrances of people then declining the offer and partial scholarsips going unused was also high. If anyone would like to reach out to either one of us offlist to followup with questions, we can be contacted at: eyoung(a)wikimedia.org shouston(a)wikimedia.org Thanks, Ellie Young and Sati Houston Wikimedia Foundation Community Engagement

On 31 July 2015 at 13:16, Lane Rasberry &lt;lane(a)bluerasberry.com&gt; wrote: So we put a lot of money from wealthier economies into a less-wealthy economy? Surely that's a good thing? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Praveen, With respect, in the email chain with Gerard (which arguably was unfair to publish without his permission) you have singled out other Wikimedians that have received scholarships to compare their contributions with your own. This reads like a concern with your application rather than the system itself, though I may be wrong. In answer to your question, I confirm there is no bias towards applicants who have received scholarships previously. In fact this year it was a factor that counted against them. However, as I said before, some applicants may have demonstrated that attending Wikimania helped improve the conference itself via accepted submissions or volunteering, or that attending Wikimania helped them with a project. And while I can't comment on any particular case, repeat scholarships are going to be the result of demonstrating the above well enough to warrant another scholarship, not anything else. My understanding (and my hope) is that next year the scholarships will be even more focused on participation and contribution to the event itself. So we can further the idea that a scholarship should be about what you can bring, what you will achieve, and not just be about what you have done, to make the conference have even more tangible outcomes. Best Stuart Prior User:Battleofalma On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:21 PM, praveenp &lt;me.praveen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 31 July 2015 at 09:02, praveenp &lt;me.praveen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: When you asked the scholarship committee(s) for feedback on your application(s), what were you told? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Praveen, Of course I follow what you are saying. I also agree that now is the time to have this conversation after Wikimania is ended and before the next Wikimania scholarships process begins. For the feedback from scholars, see this link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Past_Wikimanias Here are 15 reports by earlybirds on their Wikimania productivity: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimania/Scholarships/Reports/2015 I just reread what Gerard wrote here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2015-July/006921.html I agree with everything he wrote and I do think there is a huge bias in the scholarships committee towards people who can present well and who can "sell" themselves as productive Wikimanians in English. The sticky question of what makes a "productive Wikimanian" is quite an interesting one and it would be worthwhile to put some time into it. Anything you come up with on the nationality bias would benefit the entire non-US community, not just the Malayalam community. If one compares the Dutch community to other European communities regarding number of speakers, number of articles in their language-pedia and so on, I think the number of Dutch "productive Wikimanians" has been very high from year to year. That said, it is also true that for many Dutch people under the age of 60, they can read and write English quite fluently. This makes it quite easy for them to present and sell their ideas in English. Jane On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:59 AM, praveenp &lt;me.praveen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: