> On 20 May 2017, at 07:36, Adrian Raddatz <ajraddatz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is no manipulation. The idea that someone could have befriended all of their reviewers every year for a decade is quite silly. I'm sorry that you didn't get a scholarship this year, but at this point there is not a useful conversation being had here.
>
> If you think there is a problem, volunteer for the scholarship committee next year and help fix it!
There is, of course, a legitimate question if each committee blindly choses from
the current pool of applicant without looking into history, or if there is some
institutional memory that will ensure a wider spread of accepted applications.
In the first case, it is not unlikely that someone who wrote a good application once
and who otherwise fits the criteria will have a good chance one year later.
In the second case, one could give bonus points for first-time applicants, or forbid
application immediately after one success, or have an arbitrarily complex system of
awarding handicap scores based on recent successful applications.
I’m personally on the fence - a scholarship may be the only chance for some people
to attend, so spreading them widely seems to be fair. On the other hand, repeat
visits help to build more lasting relationships.
But I do think this is a question that should have an explicit answer either way.
Bye,
Stephan
--
------------------------------ It can be done! ---------------------------------
Please email me as schulz@eprover.org (Stephan Schulz)
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l