Well, I've not seen the beginning of this thread or what prompted this
comment that David sent along... but whoever is implying that any of
the Wikimania jurors has ever voted against a location because it was
inconvenient to themselves -- or voted for a location simply because
it was convenient to themselves -- is both misinformed and rather
confused. If anything, past complaints [from various people located in
various countries] have been that members of the jury didn't do enough
to produce a convenient location for participants*. Regardless,
location has not been the deciding factor the last few years [it has
been one of many factors], nor do I think it should be in the future**
-- though a lively debate can assuredly be held on that point if you
get ten Wikimaniacs in a room.***
And no, you're not going to find a definitive description of what
Wikimania is for on meta or anywhere else, because beyond a basic
agreement that it's a community conference for people interested or
involved in Wikimedia Foundation activities, there isn't one. That
question is still very much under debate, and is certainly a suitable
topic for Wikimania-L.
phoebe ****
* Jimbo's pretty popular, but he hasn't yet been able to secure our
own private [[dreamliner]] to transport conference attendees around
the globe. Drat!
** personally, I really don't care where the next conference is after
buenos aires as long as it meets the requisite needs for conferencing
and it is possible to buy an air ticket there. Though I have always
wanted to go by boat. Wikimania ahoy!
*** barring a handy room being available, I suggest wikimania-l.
**** who lives close to the eastern U.S. only in that way that people
in Melbourne live close to Perth, thank you very much.
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 11:53 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Orderinchaos78 <orderinchaos78(a)gmail.com>
Date: 2008/8/24
Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Wikimediaau-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 17
To: wikimediaau-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
I tend to agree with the views that have been expressed. The question
is what is Wikimania meant to be, and it seems that an exclusive
rather than inclusive mindset has pervaded the jury's considerations.
How are we meant to increase awareness of our activities if they
insist on keeping it where we are already popular? This would be like
a Government launching an election then campaigning only in its own
safe seats and inviting only its own supporters to hear their campaign
- a bit pointless really. It seems to almost go against the core aims
of the Wikimedia Foundation. The front page of the organisation's site
states plainly: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can
freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.".
Also, that it is "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and
distribution of free, multilingual content".
Essentially the argument boils down to "We won't vote for a location
because it's inconvenient to ourselves." That's really quite unfair on
the great bulk of free content supporters who are not on the jury.
It's also unfair to cities which make good faith bids, engage with
authorities and venues only to find they can realistically never win
because the jury is taking factors other than merit into
consideration.
There was even talk of offering us special scholarships as
compensation, but even that would not be fair as only the particular
individuals selected to go would get to share with a predominantly
remote group, and even assuming that a formal reporting process was
anticipated, it would do little or nothing for the furtherance of the
Foundation's aims in Australia, South East Asia, New Zealand or other
regions.
The question then is what is Wikimania intended to be? That question
can't even be answered by accessing its page on either meta or en.
Brianna said:
Well good to know for sure now that "accessibility" means
"accessibility for Europeans". Why not be explicit? Really, just tell
people that 2010 is for Europeans. I think everyone would appreciate
knowing where they stand.
Gnangarra said:
I find such a position disappointing
Knowing that such an issue exists is beneficial in that WM-au as priority
should be working on addressing the bias within the Foundation, along with
realising that any bid must have some component/sponsorship to reduce the
travel expenses.
There is nothing we can do about the travel time except to ensure that what
ever the host location that direct flights/or one stop flights are readily
available from both Europe and North America(pacific coast at least).
Michelle said:
I have to agree as well. Australia might not be accessible for Europeans,
but its a lot more accessible to people from Oceania, Asia (especially SE
Asia), and its borderline for South Africans too.
I think that "more accessible to the majority" is really just code
for"more
accessible to people who live in Western Europe and/or the Eastern United
States", a group that coincidentally was very well represented on the
selection jury. Which is a bit of a let-down and a kick in the teeth for
everyone that has worked so hard on this.
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at>
gmail.com *