Hi,
Just like Mykola, I attended Wikimania on different budgets. I believe I received a scholarship once, I was also denied once at least.
The problem expressed in this topic, the way I see it, is that some people may be picked from year to year basing on the same reasons (good proposal, region, etc.). The concern expressed by some is that while every year these merits may be true, the system leads to reinforcing the same cabal.
Except, it is my understanding that having previously attended Wikimania on a scholarship is an explicit criterion for lowering one's chances to get another one.
What is being postulated appears to be already reflected in the system. The system, btw, is very far from perfect and I think it is safe to assume that everyone agrees on that. Another issue, however, is whether we can prepare a better system while not spending significantly more money/volunteer time.
I'd suggest looking for concrete solutions and ideas rather than criticizing the outcomes.
Discussing particular people, and if they got sponsored repeatedly, does not sound fair to me - it is guilting them into believing that the fact they were nominated to come is something wrong.
Regarding shortlists - they surely are imperfect for various reasons, but common for such programs, including e.g. Fulbright (a shortlisted grantee may learn a/he is or is not going as late as two months prior to departure to the US).
Best,
DJ "pundit"
PS for clarity - I'm coming to Wikimania on the Board's budget.
On Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:51 Mykola Kozlenko mycola-k@ukr.net wrote:
Hi,
As a disclaimer: I have been in multiple roles, including receiving a WMF scholarship (2014, 2017 and 2018), being denied a WMF scholarship, attending Wikimania at my own expense and reviewing Wikimania scholarship applications for a chapter.
From this experience I do not agree with the 'law of diminishing returns' or draconian measures. However, there are several trends:
- First Wikimania is usually extremely motivating for almost everyone.
Yet it is hard for a first-time Wikimania attendee to clearly explain the value of Wikimania for them before attending it. On one hand, these people are very likely to become more involved, start new projects, share new ideas etc. On the other hand, their scholarship applications will be most likely somewhat vague on their plans for Wikimania, and we have to take that into account.
- Second and following Wikimanias are indeed less likely to bring that
much additional motivation. However, there is huge added value as these attendees already know what to expect from and what to look for at Wikimania and in some ways make Wikimania itself more valuable. This includes sharing at Wikimania: participating at round tables, making presentations or posters etc. This also includes learning from Wikimania: asking the questions their community wants to ask, meeting the people who work on the topics they are interested in etc. This is not a diminishing return, but this requires to think of the added value you can bring to Wikimania.
- For veteran Wikimedians attending a lot of times, Wikimania is also a
place to meet people with whom they work online and share experience both ways. For example, we know people want to meet stewards to learn more about their work, and stewards want to meet users to get some insight on their role. This might be a sufficient motivation to attend at own expense if costs are not too prohibitive, but if this is the case (I don't think we have stewards in Sub-Saharan Africa for example) some of them will probably need scholarships. They will bring added value by their experience and role even if they might have attended in previous years.
I don't think there is a simple solution but this definitely deserves a discussion either here or during the conference.
Best regards, Mykola (NickK)
--- Оригінальне повідомлення --- Від кого: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" nemowiki@gmail.com Дата: 30 травня 2018, 10:38:09
cs, 30/05/2018 10:16:
Is there any other way of investigating these issues /without/ mentioning the names of the scholarship awardees?
Well, in theory we've been publishing the names of people who got a scholarship for a few years now, so it should be possible to make a complete list of repeat recipients in N years and then talk just about the number rather than names.
I agree that repeat scholarships are a bad way to spend donor money, for the law of diminishing returns. We can disagree on how big the problem is, but we have sufficient evidence that it exists. In the past I've proposed and implemented severe penalties, but I'll clearly admit that I failed to effectively reform the review process.
I personally agree with more draconian solutions which would set very clear expectations. A total ban on a scholarship for those who got one the previous year is a possibility. It would be as fair as re-election limits in democratic competitions.
Federico
Wikimania-l mailing listWikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l