On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Olushola Olaniyan <
olaniyanshola15(a)gmail.com> wrote:
However, if you used "Total Number of Scholarships awarded against the
number of African selected" you will noticed that we only have 3%. Though,
we may not have the voice to push through our points, but the fact remains
the selection is just unfair to the world second largest continent.
http://www.africapedia.com/-SIZE-OF-AFRICA-COMPARED-TO-OTHER-CONTINENTS.
Why is the size of the continent a relevant factor to decide scholarships
by? I think your rhetoric can be a very double-edged sword. For example,
wouldn't a far more relevant metric for *Wikimedia* scholarships be "size
of active editor community"? According to *that* metric, Africans would be
*over-represented* compared to their share of global edits, and English and
German editors under-represented. That doesn't sound like a good result
either, does it?
Though, you mentioned that "Geography regions are "not" the emphasis of
the
program'. In my opinion, this is the missing link
in the organisation of
the event year in year out.
I would like you to substantiate this opinion. Why is a geographical focus
"the missing link"? Why is it more important than other considerations?
(Have you read the selection crtieria?[1])
No wonder, some continents are fast developing while
others are
struggling. I
You are implying that not being awarded more Wikimania scholarships is the
reason Wikimedia communities in Africa are struggling. I think that is
*obviously* false. I think everyone on this list is quite aware of the
many challenges, historical, colonial, economic, linguistic, and political,
that are shaping the difficult environmental conditions for free knowledge
in Africa. Infrastructure, educational levels and the languages of
instruction, availability of secondary sources, poverty, oral culture,
etc., -- are *all* far more influential on the development (and struggle)
of African Wikimedia communities than the number of people who get to
attend Wikimania.
I would like to see a more forthright attitude in discussing these
challenges. It is understandable that folks are frustrated that they did
not get a scholarship this time -- and as Rexford pointed out, this is a
perennial conversation around this time of year -- but let us not throw
around irrelevant metrics like the size of the continent instead of
substantively discussing the actual selection criteria. If you disagree
with the criteria[1], by all means express it directly, and explain why a
particular criterion is inappropriate, or too exclusionary, or would yield
low value for money, or whatever.
But complaining on the basis of non-facts (such as the baseless expectation
that every country on earth *must* be represented at Wikimania, which some
complaints relied on) would not get this conversation (and potential
change!) anywhere. In general, arguments of the form "the process is
broken, and my proof is that I did not get a scholarship" are not a good
basis for discussion.
I think the Scholarships Committee, and the Wikimania coordinator at WMF,
would be genuinely interested in a respectful and substantive conversation
on how to improve the selection.
A.
[1]
https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships#Selection_criteria
--
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org