On 10/9/07, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)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
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
Hopefully some discussionabout the details of the selection criteria
will help improve my understanding and will help me refute criticisms
when they arise.