On 10/9/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I *do* agree with you that we need to rethink weighting of the criteria, and have some criteria weighted more strongly than others in future. However, I do think the voting system is a great improvement on previous systems, and I continue to reiterate that community feedback is welcome. For many attendees I've talked to at the last three conferences, rotation was indeed by far the biggest concern for them; however the jury also chose to consider a holistic set of criteria.
I think I'd understand the decision making process better if each of the criteria classes had a clear explanation of how the criteria would improve the utility of the conference for people who are primarily interested in wikis and the collaborative authorship of reference works.
My own experience is that attendance from wiki*p*edians is relatively low at Wikimanias, but perhaps I am incorrect. I think this should be a serious concern and a major consideration.
I have heard people characterize Wikimania as simply an excuse to see exotic places. ... It's rude of me to repeat this somewhat insulting criticism, but it's a claim that I can't refute using the material currently available about the selection process.
Certainly the track record of selections is far more appealing to *me* as a jetsetter than as a Wikipedian... and as long as we're still looking at airfare well over $1000/person (which wouldn't be the case for me traveling to canada, mexico, or much of western europe), my money would be better spent contributing to other non-profits and traveling to regional Wikipedian events. (And certainly, I don't find Egypt appealing, with its poor track record of intolerance and mistreatment of female travelers who are foolish enough to violate Islamic norms)
Hopefully some discussionabout the details of the selection criteria will help improve my understanding and will help me refute criticisms when they arise.