I don't think Wikidata was projected to do this :D Should we instead create a WikiEventsHub with Wikibase installed? Regards, Ferdinando. Il giorno lun 7 ott 2019 alle ore 22:39 Lane Rasberry <lane(a)bluerasberry.com> ha scritto:

I'm pretty shocked at this idea; in fact, if someone created a Wikidata profile about me, I'd have it taken down under applicable legislation. Making financial support contingent on adding one's name to a publicly editable database does not seem to be particularly wise, nor for that matter particularly equitable; dozens if not hundreds of Wikimedians who have received sponsorships/scholarships to date live in places where publicly linking oneself to Wikipedia or its sister projects could be actively harmful to them. There are very, very few reasons for requiring a Wikimedian to publicly provide information about themselves in this way. Getting back to the original question: a lot of what would constitute best practices depends on the purpose of the scholarship. Is it a local or regional event? Is there a particular focus on the event (e.g., development of technical skills such as a hackathon, leadership education, new editor recruitment, a particular wikiproject such as Wikisource or Wikiquote, etc.)? Are there particular underrepresented groups that you want to encourage? All of these are worth considering, so that scholarships can be targeted in a way that is most likely to achieve the goals of the event. Also...consider whether you want to extend scholarships to people with a "proven track record" primarily, or to those who are new or even not yet part of the community. If you're going for the "proven track record" objective, consider what you'd count in favour of evidence of engagement: local/regional/chapter/user group activities, on-wiki activities, holding roles of responsibility either onwiki or offwiki, publishing research about Wikimedia projects, years involved, etc. Finally, decide what you want to ask the scholarship recipients to give you in return. Do you want them to commit to writing a report? commit to sharing information with other groups/local editors/etc? I'd encourage those offering scholarships to be forthright in identifying the criteria that will be used to assess the applicants in advance, as much as possible. If this is a large event and you'll be making an open invitation for scholarship applicants, it's important that you tell them what kind of applicant you are looking for, what the scholarship includes and excludes (e.g., travel, registration, accommodation, meals or per diem), and what you expect in return for the scholarship. Risker/Anne On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 16:39, Lane Rasberry <lane(a)bluerasberry.com> wrote:

I've never created a Wikidata profile about anyone, not even someone who is widely known. I've never created or edited a biographical article about someone who isn't really obviously notable, and who has a broad and widely known profile as verified in multiple non-Wikimedia (or Wikipedia/Wikimedia-related) sources. No, I would never create an article about a Wikimedian - or a Wikidata profile either - unless they are clearly and obviously notable outside of our little microcosm. Frankly, with very few exceptions, almost nobody whose "notability" is primarily related to this movement is actually notable in the strictest reading of the policies of most of our Wikipedia projects. As far as I'm concerned, most of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia/other project-related articles on most of our projects are a prime example of navel-gazing rather than actual notability. Further, I think it's terrible use of Wikidata to use it to store what are essentially the personnel records of Wikimedia volunteers. Risker/Anne On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 09:52, Henry Wood <henry.wood.1869(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Back to the original question (which is an interesting and worthwhile one, surely applicable to many events across the movement), I would hope that the WMF has some ability to provide guidance on these matters, or failing that, the committees who have put together other conferences (e.g., WikiCite, WikiConference, etc. etc.) The WMF used to do some detailed work on this, though my information is now nearly a decade out of date, I'm pretty confident they still do. I'd suggest reaching out to the grants folks at WMF and asking if they can pull something together. Pete -- User:Peteforsyth On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:20 AM Isaac Olatunde <reachout2isaac(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hello all, Speaking as an admin of Wikidata, someone having an item on the project should never be a criterion for a scholarship. That would not be fair to those who weren't lucky enough to get an item (I would probably delete any item made on any of you (in this thread) unless you meet one of our notability guidelines -- which are less strict than Wikipedia but still essentially must pass CSDA7). Not everyone is comfortable having their information on an item, and in most cases no one will be able to verify that information even if the person consents, since it most likely won't have reliable sourcing. Wikidata is emphatically not a LinkedIn or Facebook for us. It's a knowledgebase for the whole world. I also think all the ethics about posting someone's private information on Wikidata is kind of off-topic in this thread. It shouldn't be a basis of anyone's application anywhere. It's fundamentally not fair. Metrics for conferences should be fair while furthering the conference's objectives. On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:48 AM Henry Wood <henry.wood.1869(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Besides any other aspects, most scholarship recipients are probably not notable. When I suggested to create items for all of the Wikimania sessions I perceived it as concensus (in the Wikidata telegram group) that they were not notable. So unless they already are notable (and already should have an item) getting the scholarship will not make them notable. /Jan Ainali (skickat på språng så ursäkta min fåordighet) On Mon, Oct 7, 2019, 22:39 Lane Rasberry <lane(a)bluerasberry.com> wrote: