Concurring with Gnangarra: equally , if not much more important, is the invaluable face-to-face opportunity to discuss projects on which people work together online - and with the WMF if they are involved. There is no substitute for it - especially for en.Wiki whose volunteers are spread around the entire globe. The impact I brought back from Wikimanias was in 2012 in D.C. which resulted in the creation of the NewpagesFeed/Curation tools, and Italy 2016 which finally resulted in ACTRIAL this year after years of wrangling - both major Wikipedia features/policies requiring the consent of senior WMF staff. Admittedly my attendance doesn't do much for Thailand where I actually live as an expat.
The scholarships system does not take this kind of work for the movement by people who need to be present at these meetings into consideration, and I’m sure this is equally important for volunteers, who just for example, are dedicated to closing the gender gap, making Wikipedia more accessible in the 'Global South’, and discussing policies and technical issues.
There is also the point I mentioned earlier that there needs to be more coordination between the scholarships committe and the presentations committee for the people who have developed significant presentations only to be rejected at the last minute, or even after their arrival at the conference. In my experience, plenty of presentations are not actually of major importance or interest, and maybe this is one of the reasons, as mentioned by Gnangarra why the process should be begun earlier.
Kudpung
On 01, Jun2018, at 22:31, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
there is a reporting component, but in some cases the benefit is not what a person brings back, its the local experiences they share while there that really matters. Overall the exchanging of knowledge and the building of relationships is the key value of Wikimanias yet when it comes to reporting its the immediate numbers that get focus, nowhere have the wmf gone back to recipients 2,3 or 4 years later to see what the impact was and if that continued beyond the immediate post event reporting.
Maybe the scholarship process could open earlier so that more time can be invested in the selection process, its would also give more time to arrange visas and help more people plan ahead
On 1 June 2018 at 23:07, Sjoerd de Bruin <sjoerddebruin@me.com mailto:sjoerddebruin@me.com> wrote: I think that is already included in scholarship applications, if I remember correctly.
Greetings,
Sjoerd de Bruin
Op 1 jun. 2018, om 17:06 heeft Julie Workman <mlle.julie.w@gmail.com mailto:mlle.julie.w@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
Is there at present any metric by which previous scholarship attendees are judged on their dissemination of Wikimania experiences after the conference? The complaint being brought up is not only about awardees getting repeat scholarships, but failing to enrich their communities afterwards with what they learned / what it was like / who they met / what they will do now. With a limited number of scholarships available, it is true that the attendees are expected to share their good fortune with those who couldn't attend.
If nothing like that is in place, could it not be added? For example, a field on the application: "were you awarded a scholarship last year (and attended)?" "If yes, please describe (and provide links where possible) to the activities and discussions you organised with your community regarding your experience at Wikimania". If a sufficiently good and detailed response is not provided, the application can receive a lower score (or possibly be discarded...? I'm not au fait with the process).
Julia W
On 1 June 2018 at 13:00, <wikimania-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimania-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: Send Wikimania-l mailing list submissions to wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wikimania-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimania-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimania-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimania-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wikimania-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (Pine W)
- Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (cs)
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:31:08 -0700 From: Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com mailto:wiki.pine@gmail.com> To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)" <wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18 Message-ID: <CAF=dyJinVGV5eM7vBi7SFDLcqyLP4yakDa=VckDJZ4rPN76K1A@mail.gmail.com mailto:VckDJZ4rPN76K1A@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system is a perennial point of friction.
Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF strategic plan and with SMART goals.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <hjmwiki@gmail.com mailto:hjmwiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old faces year in, year out.
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ http://enwp.org/User:HJ +44 (0) 7507 536 971 Skype: harry_j_mitchell