[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikimediaau-l] Wikimediaau-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 17

[David Gerard]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Orderinchaos78 <orderinchaos78 at gmail.com>
Date: 2008/8/24
Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Wikimediaau-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 17
To: wikimediaau-l at lists.wikimedia.org


I tend to agree with the views that have been expressed. The question
is what is Wikimania meant to be, and it seems that an exclusive
rather than inclusive mindset has pervaded the jury's considerations.
How are we meant to increase awareness of our activities if they
insist on keeping it where we are already popular? This would be like
a Government launching an election then campaigning only in its own
safe seats and inviting only its own supporters to hear their campaign
- a bit pointless really. It seems to almost go against the core aims
of the Wikimedia Foundation. The front page of the organisation's site
states plainly: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can
freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.".
Also, that it is "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and
distribution of free, multilingual content".

Essentially the argument boils down to "We won't vote for a location
because it's inconvenient to ourselves." That's really quite unfair on
the great bulk of free content supporters who are not on the jury.
It's also unfair to cities which make good faith bids, engage with
authorities and venues only to find they can realistically never win
because the jury is taking factors other than merit into
consideration.

There was even talk of offering us special scholarships as
compensation, but even that would not be fair as only the particular
individuals selected to go would get to share with a predominantly
remote group, and even assuming that a formal reporting process was
anticipated, it would do little or nothing for the furtherance of the
Foundation's aims in Australia, South East Asia, New Zealand or other
regions.

The question then is what is Wikimania intended to be? That question
can't even be answered by accessing its page on either meta or en.


Brianna said:
>
> Well good to know for sure now that "accessibility" means
> "accessibility for Europeans". Why not be explicit? Really, just tell
> people that 2010 is for Europeans. I think everyone would appreciate
> knowing where they stand.

Gnangarra said:
>
> I find such a position disappointing
>
> Knowing that such an issue exists is beneficial in that WM-au as priority
> should be working on addressing the bias within the Foundation, along with
> realising that any bid must have some component/sponsorship to reduce the
> travel expenses.
>
> There is nothing we can do about the travel time except to ensure that what
> ever the host location that direct flights/or one stop flights are readily
> available from both Europe and North America(pacific coast at least).

Michelle said:
>
> I have to agree as well.  Australia might not be accessible for Europeans,
> but its a lot more accessible to people from Oceania, Asia (especially SE
> Asia), and its borderline for South Africans too.
>
> I think that "more accessible to the majority" is really just code for"more
> accessible to people who live in Western Europe and/or the Eastern United
> States", a group that coincidentally was very well represented on the
> selection jury.  Which is a bit of a let-down and a kick in the teeth for
> everyone that has worked so hard on this.

_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l