Gnangarra, 17/04/19 13:23: Is it? The budgets I've seen so far suggest otherwise, but we don't have full data. Federico

impact isnt what an event costs its what it can achieve... the more we measure the dollar as a ghod the less we value the communities, and less we set ourselves up to achieve a real impact. We want to look at what a place can add not how cheaply the event can be, and regardless of the location some will be more than others as measure it fails. If the focus is just the dollar then we open up to corruption, and we will always end up with events in places that have the best US exchange rates much of that can be attributed the lack of social cohesion, and individual repressions. An event US, EU, or Australia opens ups GLAM collections, opens the opportunity to meet with philanthropic corporates & individuals to promote our need for long term funding, they also be favorable for disabilities and other concerns. Other communities need growth the event can bring that, its also brings status which is something we need to be careful of, we also need to balance safety somewhere like Bandar Seri Begawan wouldnt be a good idea at the moment. Tokyo would be expensive but gaining better access to 1000+ years of knowledge would be worth it, likewise Rio or Santiago or Koranic Sankore University in Timbukto. Every location comes with a set of issues, we need to balance them for what they can achieve for the movement, sometime it also means taking the easy options too where everything can be done with ease.... I understand why Rehman is saying in showing people the physical cost of them attending to help appreciate what they are getting, but the people that get the opportunity via scholarship should already know the value of attending otherwise why are they going, and why are we even holing an event. I know that for me to attend Sweden it'd cost me approximately 25% of my yearly income, I really dont need to be told that to appreciate the opportunity of attending. Hopefully people chosing to apply shouldn't be doing so just to have "jolly good time". There are lots of legitimate issues people can raise about Wikimanias, lets not added unnecessary noise about individuals who have no control over the decision of a committee. On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 19:19, Gabriel Thullen &lt;gabriel(a)thullen.com&gt; wrote: -- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here <https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8> .

I must correct a meaningful typo: On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:42 PM Asaf Bartov &lt;abartov(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: In that last sentence, the "only" should have been "also". I do not think it can *only* have that effect, at all. A. -- 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