Hello, today I and Martin have polished the scholarship vision/program for our Wikimania 2015 bid: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Esino_Lario/Scholarships. Considering a background and aiming for a long-term impact on the Wikimedia mission, we propose the following principles: Transparency; Accountability and self-reflection; Grassroot; Efficiency and fairness; Innovation. From those we identify 4 external needs and 8 goals. Please read the proposal and edit boldly or comment on talk page or wherever. Keep in mind it's still a draft, not the official WMIT proposal yet. While the bids warm up and the Wikimania discussion is still quiet, we think it's useful for everyone to focus the discussion on some specific areas in advance. (And if all bids adopt our idea of scholarships, all the better!)
Nemo
Out of curiosity, why is this bid specific? I think it would be much more valuable if we can have this discussion independent of the bid. These values and goals should be similar independent of the location. Even the members of the committee should be mostly independent of the location I think.
Lodewijk
2014/1/12 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com
Hello, today I and Martin have polished the scholarship vision/program for our Wikimania 2015 bid: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Esino_Lario/Scholarships. Considering a background and aiming for a long-term impact on the Wikimedia mission, we propose the following principles: Transparency; Accountability and self-reflection; Grassroot; Efficiency and fairness; Innovation. From those we identify 4 external needs and 8 goals. Please read the proposal and edit boldly or comment on talk page or wherever. Keep in mind it's still a draft, not the official WMIT proposal yet. While the bids warm up and the Wikimania discussion is still quiet, we think it's useful for everyone to focus the discussion on some specific areas in advance. (And if all bids adopt our idea of scholarships, all the better!)
Nemo
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Lodewijk, 12/01/2014 17:53:
Out of curiosity, why is this bid specific?
It's explained in the "crucial for the success of this Wikimania plan" passage and in several other places in the bid, where it's pointed out that Wikimania needs to be looked at as a whole.
I think it would be much more valuable if we can have this discussion independent of the bid. These values and goals should be similar independent of the location. Even the members of the committee should be mostly independent of the location I think.
We don't propose to change the (process of) composition of the committee; the bid only includes a proposed coordinator/point of contact with the local organising team, as per handbook/practice (that is me). We're just telling you one or two years in advance what we plan to do with that. :)
Nemo
I'm sorry, I totally am not understanding your arguments, why this discussion couldn't be held in a general way. Sure, for organizing Wikimania in this city it seems to be important, but I think it is important for /any/ city. The page doesn't include any arguments that I can understand which state why it would be /different/ if held in Italy. Or rather, why it should be.
You do propose already two members of this committee in your plan. I find that interesting, and not in line with how scholarships are usually discussed (by an international team, independent of the city), but personally I would be happy with the two of you being involved in any scholarship committee, again independent of the bid that wins.
In any case, I feel held back to engage in this discussion if that could be perceived as support for a particular bid - as I have not studied the bid itself. I think it would be better for the outcome of the discussion to hold it outside of that context. But of course you're totally free to hold any discussion you like, anywhere you like.
Lodewijk
2014/1/12 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com
Lodewijk, 12/01/2014 17:53:
Out of curiosity, why is this bid specific?
It's explained in the "crucial for the success of this Wikimania plan" passage and in several other places in the bid, where it's pointed out that Wikimania needs to be looked at as a whole.
I think it would be much
more valuable if we can have this discussion independent of the bid. These values and goals should be similar independent of the location. Even the members of the committee should be mostly independent of the location I think.
We don't propose to change the (process of) composition of the committee; the bid only includes a proposed coordinator/point of contact with the local organising team, as per handbook/practice (that is me). We're just telling you one or two years in advance what we plan to do with that. :)
Nemo
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Lodewijk, 12/01/2014 21:39:
I'm sorry, I totally am not understanding your arguments, why this discussion couldn't be held in a general way. Sure, for organizing Wikimania in this city it seems to be important, but I think it is important for /any/ city. The page doesn't include any arguments that I can understand which state why it would be /different/ if held in Italy. Or rather, why it should be.
Actually, it's explained in the section "Needs". Each piece can only work in coordination with all the other pieces, we want to raise the standard so we're planning each part according to the needs of the others. It's possible that other bids don't wish to accomodate those needs.
You do propose already two members of this committee in your plan. [...]
Membership is surely the least important thing :) and is not set in stone, but: it's 1 + deputy to avoid bottlenecks; it's what https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Handbook#Review_committee recommends, "one should be from the chapter hosting Wikimania". Our idea is to anticipate all those things that usually are discussed and decided "at the last minute", presenting a coherent plan from the beginning. The handbook says we need to offer a member of the committee? We already offer a name.
In any case, I feel held back to engage in this discussion if that could be perceived as support for a particular bid - as I have not studied the bid itself. I think it would be better for the outcome of the discussion to hold it outside of that context. But of course you're totally free to hold any discussion you like, anywhere you like.
And you're free to feel it that way. :) However I don't think this part of Wikimania should be discussed differently from the others; for instance I left a comment on visa (or something), which would apply to any bid, on the talk page of a specific bid which triggered that thought to me. Surely it doesn't mean that endorse that bid, does it?
Nemo
I like this vision very much. Like Lodewijk, I suggest the scholarships piece should not be bid specific.
I've been thinking a great deal about scholarships, travel, and attempts to build community via jet fuel. Some thoughts off the top of my head for the new year:
I don't understand why the current scholarship criteria make no mention of need. Are they meant to be for newcomers, or for the same community members each year?
I too am concerned that the current scholarship process tends to polarize the community, and too often simply rewards long-time community members, or those who are connected to large movement entities, with free travel: rather than increasing the diversity of new voices and faces at global events.
I think we should match every Euro spent on travel support with a Euro spent on infrastructure for great virtual participation: cameras, projectors, and video-screens for communities around the world (physical tools they can keep and use for years); making space to share the faces and voices of people who are unable to travel to the event; live-streaming hubs stationed around the event itself; and support for getting all videos up online within 24 hours.
I do remember why we moved away from finding other entities and institutions to provide travel support: it seemed 'easier' to do it ourselves. But as a result we are no longer empowering foundations that care about global dialogue to support Wikimedia in this way; and we are no longer learning from their criteria and understanding of the world.
This seems related to why we are funding so much of Wikimania directly from global donations, rather than developing the fundraising and sponsor-finding skills of our international community. This centralization of how Wikimania and scholarships are funded makes the conference less robust. It sets future conference up for failure: or at least an awkward transition if we stop spending so much on them.
IIRC, the Fedora community faced this years ago: they initially were thrilled to organize themselves at global events without much travel support. Then RedHat started paying for the travel of most of the core developers and community members. When they later stopped this, the core community members stopped coming: they now felt that a full scholarship was their due. It took a while for the conferences to become as useful again.
SJ
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Hello, today I and Martin have polished the scholarship vision/program for our Wikimania 2015 bid: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Esino_Lario/Scholarships. Considering a background and aiming for a long-term impact on the Wikimedia mission, we propose the following principles: Transparency; Accountability and self-reflection; Grassroot; Efficiency and fairness; Innovation. From those we identify 4 external needs and 8 goals. Please read the proposal and edit boldly or comment on talk page or wherever. Keep in mind it's still a draft, not the official WMIT proposal yet. While the bids warm up and the Wikimania discussion is still quiet, we think it's useful for everyone to focus the discussion on some specific areas in advance. (And if all bids adopt our idea of scholarships, all the better!)
Nemo
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On 13/01/2014 03:35, Samuel Klein wrote:
I don't understand why the current scholarship criteria make no mention of need. Are they meant to be for newcomers, or for the same community members each year?
Per my reply on [[wm2014:Talk:Scholarships]], there's simply no way for the reviewers or the WMF to verify someone actual needs. Unless we are comfortable and want to move down the road of asking for and checking each applicants personal financial circumstances before awarding a scholarship, there's no fair and accurate way of taking needs into account.
I too am concerned that the current scholarship process tends to polarize the community, and too often simply rewards long-time community members, or those who are connected to large movement entities, with free travel: rather than increasing the diversity of new voices and faces at global events.
This is a discussion the community should have. However, I can say now that I know of many people who not only disagree with the above, but think the exact opposite is actually taking place. Namely, that dedicated and long term contributors are missing out in the name of balance and diversity to those who have barely contributed to our projects and unlikely to do much in the future either.
Personally, I think a balance need to be struck between the two.
KTC
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On 13/01/2014 03:35, Samuel Klein wrote:
I don't understand why the current scholarship criteria make no mention of need. Are they meant to be for newcomers, or for the same community members each year?
Per my reply on [[wm2014:Talk:Scholarships]], there's simply no way for the reviewers or the WMF to verify someone actual needs. Unless we are comfortable and want to move down the road of asking for and checking each applicants personal financial circumstances before awarding a scholarship, there's no fair and accurate way of taking needs into account.
Thank you, Katie. I think it would be enough to state whether the scholarships are meant for those who cannot afford to attend, or whether they are meant to reward active participants. These are totally different goals. Our community is generally good-hearted: those who might apply under one circumstance would not under the other.
Nemo's proposal seems to provide a more nuanced way forward without checking financial circumstances. It also offers partial scholarships (which I think are a good idea, for just this reason).
I too am concerned that the current scholarship process tends to
polarize the community, and too often simply rewards long-time community members, or those who are connected to large movement entities, with free travel: rather than increasing the diversity of new voices and faces at global events.
This is a discussion the community should have. However, I can say now that I know of many people who not only disagree with the above, but think the exact opposite is actually taking place. Namely, that dedicated and long term contributors are missing out in the name of balance and diversity to those who have barely contributed to our projects and unlikely to do much in the future either.
Those are not opposites, exactly.
We have had people who barely contribute getting scholarships. That is not healthy. We have also had people who regularly get scholarships, and come to feel that this is deserved as a result of their contributions (and feel rejected when they don't get one). That feels to me like the situation Fedora was in; also unhealthy.
Perhaps we can change our notion of 'balance and diversity' so that it draws from our community of thousands of enormously active contributors who would benefit from sharing experiences and learning from other parts of our shared community, but have never yet done so. Most of those contributors do not apply for scholarships; barely know they exist; and do not think of coming to international events.
Personally, I think a balance need to be struck between the two.
Yes.
SJ
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I too am concerned that the current scholarship process tends to polarize the community, and too often simply rewards long-time community members, or those who are connected to large movement entities, with free travel: rather than increasing the diversity of new voices and faces at global events.
Do we have any statistics to back up this claim?
pb
*Philippe Beaudette * \ Director, Community Advocacy \ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Philippe Beaudette <philippe@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I too am concerned that the current scholarship process tends to polarize the community, and too often simply rewards long-time community members, or those who are connected to large movement entities, with free travel: rather than increasing the diversity of new voices and faces at global events.
Do we have any statistics to back up this claim?
I share a concern; it would be welcome to find it unwarranted.
The public statistics I know of are these reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/Scholarships/2013 That level of detail does not address either of the two stated concerns: that some recipients are not so active, and that there is limited rotation.
It would be welcome to see a count of the # of recipients who attended Wikimania for the first time; the # who received a travel scholarship for the first time; the # who were active contributors and to which {clusters of} projects. I also find Nemo's version of transparency compelling: In cases where scholarships are presented as an honor, the recipients are named, which also seems in the wiki-spirit.
SJ
Hi! I have a lot of Wikimania Scholarship statistics - obviously what is in the report on wiki only highlights a piece of them. As always, comments on meta reports are always helpful (there are none).
There are some gaps in data: I (/WMF) don't have the registration information from year to year, so I can't confirm whether or not someone has registered for and attended Wikimania outside of a scholarship. What I did just quickly look up is our percentage of repeat WMF scholars from 2012 and 2013:
- *85% *of 2013 Scholars *did not receive scholarship *in 2012 or received a scholarship but were unable to attend in 2012 - *5% *of 2013 Scholars received a partial scholarship in 2012 - 10% of 2013 scholars were also scholars in 2012
Those are for WMF scholarships. It is important to note that about 40-50% of attendees at Wikimania who arrive on scholarships are actually sponsored directly by *chapter* rather than WMF. It is possible that this group of people are repeat attendees/scholars (I don't know). It is also true that many chapters send board representatives and/or staff to Wikimania. Again, this may contribute to the feeling that the same people are always attending. (Note: the same is true for WMF and WMF board.)
As is evident in the selection criteria the scholarship committee puts forth, contributions on our wiki projects is the key component to receiving a scholarship. The scores are so close, it is really difficult (impossible?) to receive a scholarship from WMF without having contributions on wiki. The committee also tries to look at someone's contributions in relation to his/her local-wiki context. One specific example of this is a former scholar from the Kyrgyz Wikipedia. On first glance, it looked like her aggregate edit count was low, but on further digging the committee realized she had only been editing for a year, and was already a top 5 contributor on that wiki!
I have lots of comments on the various topics that are getting throw around -- partial scholarships, needs-based scholarships, disclosing of scholars names, data collection ... but I don't feel this is the best forum for discussion. If someone has a wiki page with these topics sectioned off, we should tackle a few together!
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Philippe Beaudette < philippe@wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I too am concerned that the current scholarship process tends to polarize the community, and too often simply rewards long-time community members, or those who are connected to large movement entities, with free travel: rather than increasing the diversity of new voices and faces at global events.
Do we have any statistics to back up this claim?
I share a concern; it would be welcome to find it unwarranted.
The public statistics I know of are these reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/Scholarships/2013 That level of detail does not address either of the two stated concerns: that some recipients are not so active, and that there is limited rotation.
It would be welcome to see a count of the # of recipients who attended Wikimania for the first time; the # who received a travel scholarship for the first time; the # who were active contributors and to which {clusters of} projects. I also find Nemo's version of transparency compelling: In cases where scholarships are presented as an honor, the recipients are named, which also seems in the wiki-spirit.
SJ
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Jessie Wild jwild@wikimedia.org wrote:
As is evident in the selection criteria the scholarship committee puts forth, contributions on our wiki projects is the key component to receiving a scholarship. The scores are so close, it is really difficult (impossible?) to receive a scholarship from WMF without having contributions on wiki. The committee also tries to look at someone's contributions in relation to his/her local-wiki context. One specific example of this is a former scholar from the Kyrgyz Wikipedia. On first glance, it looked like her aggregate edit count was low, but on further digging the committee realized she had only been editing for a year, and was already a top 5 contributor on that wiki!
Just so I understand, are you saying that scholarship applicants are rated based on a score, and that this score is primarily derived from edit count?
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
As is evident in the selection criteria the scholarship committee puts forth, contributions on our wiki projects is the key component to receiving a scholarship. The scores are so close, it is really difficult (impossible?) to receive a scholarship from WMF without having contributions on wiki. The committee also tries to look at someone's contributions in relation to his/her local-wiki context. One specific example of this is a former scholar from the Kyrgyz Wikipedia. On first glance, it looked like her aggregate edit count was low, but on further digging the committee realized she had only been editing for a year, and was already a top 5 contributor on that wiki!
Just so I understand, are you saying that scholarship applicants are rated based on a score, and that this score is primarily derived from edit count?
Applications are scored on different dimensions (see selection criteria), and these scores are weighted. One score has to do explicitly participation in WIkimedia projects, and this carries the biggest weight. Edit count is a factor taken into consideration with participation.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Jessie Wild jwild@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
As is evident in the selection criteria the scholarship committee puts forth, contributions on our wiki projects is the key component to receiving a scholarship. The scores are so close, it is really difficult (impossible?) to receive a scholarship from WMF without having contributions on wiki. The committee also tries to look at someone's contributions in relation to his/her local-wiki context. One specific example of this is a former scholar from the Kyrgyz Wikipedia. On first glance, it looked like her aggregate edit count was low, but on further digging the committee realized she had only been editing for a year, and was already a top 5 contributor on that wiki!
Just so I understand, are you saying that scholarship applicants are rated based on a score, and that this score is primarily derived from edit count?
Applications are scored on different dimensions (see selection criteria), and these scores are weighted. One score has to do explicitly participation in WIkimedia projects, and this carries the biggest weight. Edit count is a factor taken into consideration with participation.
...except the geographic quotas (I believe we had those in 2012, at least?) combined with paucity of candidates did result in some scholars who were not active editors (i.e. edited less than 5 times a month). Of the 7 scholarships accepted by people from sub-Saharan Africa in 2012, only 3 went to active editors.
Asaf
I made a page about the scholarships status, opportunities and challenges, by collecting hints form the proposals by Nemo and Martin, the comments i read here, and from recommendations on talk pages. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/Scholarships/SWOT_2005-2014_and_go...
The *goals* is probably the most important part which needs to be discussed https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/Scholarships/Context_analysis_2005... I added one to those proposed by Nemo and Martin, and a short description of what it can imply.
I didn't move Nemo and Martin's page simply because it presents a specific perspective. To discuss Wikimania scholarships goals for 2015 in a more neutral page, I thought a new one was an easier solution.
@ Lodewijk. Maybe the idea of the independency of the committee needs to be further discuss. I do understand the problem of discussing a page proposed within a bid by members of the jury and the Wikimania committee. I do not consider though that the scholarships or the program or any other "working" committee need to be independent from the local one (and vice-versa). Wikimania team is a team, not a group of committees which need to remain independent to each other to guarantee the separation of powers. having people already experienced and engaged in Wikimania is great, and different groups allow to split tasks according to skills, experience, taste and locations.
the handbook says to "begin developing scholarship criteria; develop scholarship process front page" in the early planning (one year or more before the event). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Handbook#Early_planning. It doesn't say who is supposed to do it. and since it is "one year or more before the event", Nemo and Martin started doing it. I trust their proposal very clearly shows that they are simply aiming at contributing to boost the impact of scholarships for the Wikimedia movement and for this very same reason Nemo asked for comments and help in this mailing list.
best, iolanda
Il giorno 14/gen/2014, alle ore 01:03, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org ha scritto:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Jessie Wild jwild@wikimedia.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
As is evident in the selection criteria the scholarship committee puts forth, contributions on our wiki projects is the key component to receiving a scholarship. The scores are so close, it is really difficult (impossible?) to receive a scholarship from WMF without having contributions on wiki. The committee also tries to look at someone's contributions in relation to his/her local-wiki context. One specific example of this is a former scholar from the Kyrgyz Wikipedia. On first glance, it looked like her aggregate edit count was low, but on further digging the committee realized she had only been editing for a year, and was already a top 5 contributor on that wiki!
Just so I understand, are you saying that scholarship applicants are rated based on a score, and that this score is primarily derived from edit count?
Applications are scored on different dimensions (see selection criteria), and these scores are weighted. One score has to do explicitly participation in WIkimedia projects, and this carries the biggest weight. Edit count is a factor taken into consideration with participation.
...except the geographic quotas (I believe we had those in 2012, at least?) combined with paucity of candidates did result in some scholars who were not active editors (i.e. edited less than 5 times a month). Of the 7 scholarships accepted by people from sub-Saharan Africa in 2012, only 3 went to active editors.
Asaf
Asaf Bartov Wikimedia FoundationImagine 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Jessie Wild jwild@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi! I have a lot of Wikimania Scholarship statistics - obviously what is in the report on wiki only highlights a piece of them. As always, comments on meta reports are always helpful (there are none).
That report has been wonderful the last two years, by the way.
Metacommented: I've copied the stats suggestion there, and some of the
other philosophical and practical questions from this thread. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania/Scholarships/2013
- *85% *of 2013 Scholars *did not receive scholarship *in 2012 or
received a scholarship but were unable to attend in 2012
- *5% *of 2013 Scholars received a partial scholarship in 2012
- 10% of 2013 scholars were also scholars in 2012
Thank you!
Those are for WMF scholarships. It is important to note that about 40-50% of attendees at Wikimania who arrive on scholarships are actually sponsored directly by *chapter* rather than WMF. It is possible that this group of people are repeat attendees/scholars (I don't know).
Also, as long as this is an application-based process, with no sense of nomination-for-recognition (in contrast to a purely achievement-based scholarship process) this will have a bias towards those who are good at writing a scholarship application. Which is probably a much smaller pool than the set of amazing people who would meld well with other maniacs.
It is also true that many chapters send board representatives and/or staff to Wikimania. Again, this may contribute to the feeling that the same people are always attending. (Note: the same is true for WMF and WMF board.)
Yes. The presence of institutional staff and governance at Wikimania has grown, including sponsored attendees and the # of plenary spots in the program dedicated to it. This has shifted the focus of the events a bit, perhaps away from creation and curation... (Are we becoming a movement of institution builders and grantors?)
This accounts for O(100) people - including yours truly - who attend by virtue of their staff or governance role, paid for by the movement. I have mixed feelings about this, as you know. While not always the same people, these are consistent roles over time. But this is a different topic worthy of its own discussion - and now has its own section on the talk page above.
One specific example of this is a former scholar from the Kyrgyz Wikipedia. On first glance, it looked like her aggregate edit count was low, but on further digging the committee realized she had only been editing for a year, and was already a top 5 contributor on that wiki!
:-) Despite posting some concerns in this thread, the overall selection process attracts a much wider pool, and is more thorough, than it was when I had anything to do with it. (those concerns were on the table years ago as well: if you have a purely contribution-based set of criteria, and the same people apply every year, you'll choose many of the same people every year.)
I have lots of comments on the various topics that are getting throw around -- partial scholarships, needs-based scholarships, disclosing of scholars names, data collection ... but I don't feel this is the best forum for discussion. If someone has a wiki page with these topics sectioned off, we should tackle a few together!
++ well said. I will take all further comments to the wiki page.
Warmly, SJ
wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org