On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Ravishankar
<ravidreams@gmail.com> wrote:
Arun,
While all the noteworthy Wikimedians announced and jury mentions are good,
Thank you for that.
I am very disappointed that some of the very outstanding nominations are left out for unknown reasons.
Many thanks for your feedback. We are very keen to better the process for next year, and actively seek your feedback.
Please share these at the URL:
The process is limited by the nominations from the wikimedians. As the nominations didn't have coverage for all wikipedias and projects the Jury had to fill the gap and make mention of noteworthy contributions there.
If we hadn't recognized Anirudh or Sengai Podhuvan we would have ignored the shining examples that they are setting. Interestingly the nomination process did not result in their nominations. We should all reflect on that.
There is no need to limit the number of selections if documentation, learning is the motive. I resisted nominating anyone to save this disappointment for myself and the nominated Wikipedians.
Even a nomination is a celebration of their contribution. A nomination is like barnstar, Did we all not revel when we got one
First of all, having a jury sounds un-wikipediac for me. This is a kind of hierarchy which is common in award committees but does not belong in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, we have a jury only in extreme cases for arbitration.
The Jury had a purpose. Reviewing nominations across communities and projects. The challenge with 21+ languages and numerous projects was that one had spend time to understand nominations across these. The fact is there arent many of us who know wikimedians across projects,
In cases where we can have more than one able choice, we have only the community to nominate and recognize all able nominations (Example: sysop elections ). And, when the community is small, many times we assume good faith without voting and revert only if a difference of opinion arises ( Example: Featured Wikipedians in Tamil Wikipedia).
The community was involved in making nominations. Often there are more than one creditable nomination (in some cases 5 or more). The community was free to nominate more. In some communities we had no participation in the conference or know any wikipedian except their user ids. We had no nominations in 8 languages. No one knows who those wikipedians are. In smaller communities there are other challenges.
Please share your suggestions here:
In our earlier conversation analogies were drawn to Nobel prize and Jimmy's Global Wikimedian of the year. Jimmy's award is purely personal choice and there can be no controversy for that (Please clarify if that is an official award by WMF). A comparison with Nobel prize doesn't sound good as this is an exercise done by Wikipedians for the Wikipedians.
And the whole planning of this year's NWR left much to be desired.
Please suggest and provide specific feedback in the feedback page. They are very welcome.
If you want to continue doing this every year, please do it without jury and ask each community to send their choices and recognize all of them.
Would like to hear views of more people. Open to community consensus on this.
Thanks Ravi for your detailed note. Much appreciated. Glad you found the final mentions deserving,
Best regards
Arun
RaviOn Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Arun Ramarathnam
<arunram25@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
On behalf of the jury for the
NWR 2011, thank you all for you active participation and your nominations of contributing Wikimedians for the recognition.
We shared the details during Day 3 of the WikiConference India. The updated deck is shared for your reference,
Let us applaud all the
41 nominations. They are fantastic contributors and a great inspiration. We salute their passion and commitment to contribute
and develop educational content under a free license. We should celebrate everyone of them.
I would like to thank the entire
Jury personally for their time and efforts toward the NWR
2011 exercise.
This is the first year for the NWR
2011 and we have tried our best to make this exercise participative. Next year we hope to do even better. We welcome everyone's inputs to make this even process better next year.
The intention of this exercise was to Discover, Document, Recognize and Share the contributions of prolific Wikimedians. As you will appreciate this is an ongoing process. We hope we taken a small step in that direction.
Thank you.
regards
Arun
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-IN-Exec mailing list
Wikimedia-IN-Exec@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-exec