<div dir="ltr">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: "<i>Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.". </i>Also, that it is <i>"dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content".</i><br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Brianna said:<span dir="ltr"></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Well good to know for sure now that "accessibility" means<br>
"accessibility for Europeans". Why not be explicit? Really, just tell<br>
people that 2010 is for Europeans. I think everyone would appreciate<br>
knowing where they stand.<br></blockquote><div><br>Gnangarra said: <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I find such a position disappointing<br>
<br>
Knowing that such an issue exists is beneficial in that WM-au as priority<br>
should be working on addressing the bias within the Foundation, along with<br>
realising that any bid must have some component/sponsorship to reduce the<br>
travel expenses.<br>
<br>
There is nothing we can do about the travel time except to ensure that what<br>
ever the host location that direct flights/or one stop flights are readily<br>
available from both Europe and North America(pacific coast at least).<br></blockquote><div><br>Michelle said:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I have to agree as well. Australia might not be accessible for Europeans,<br>
but its a lot more accessible to people from Oceania, Asia (especially SE<br>
Asia), and its borderline for South Africans too.<br>
<br>
I think that "more accessible to the majority" is really just code for"more<br>
accessible to people who live in Western Europe and/or the Eastern United<br>
States", a group that coincidentally was very well represented on the<br>
selection jury. Which is a bit of a let-down and a kick in the teeth for<br>
everyone that has worked so hard on this.<br>
</blockquote></div></div>