The problem is myths and rumours will arise always in a process that is not
(and should not) be objective. We can't just give some
It is a subjective process where you evaluate so many people, with
different backgrounds and different contributions. What is more important?
Founding a chapter or making 100,000 edits on English Wikipedia? 5,000
edits on a smaller Wikipedia or 10,000 images on Wikimedia Commons? How do
we make also possible to bring people outside our movement or with very few
edits, but that are great promoting free knowledge? And how do we ensure
gender balance? Do we prioritize new attendents than can bring new ideas to
our movement or do we support experienced members that have a proven record
of great presentations and activities?
When you have a very limited number of scholarships and a lot of great
applicants, every time you make a decision to give a scholarship to
someone, you are taking it from someone else. And usually, that other
person totally deserve it. So, even though the committees have tried to
have a balance of all these factors, someone will complain and consider it
not fair. General numbers will help to reduce these rumours, but they will
always come up again.
2015-07-31 9:51 GMT-03:00 WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>om>:
There may be a rumour circulating among some editors
that the same people
get sponsorship every year, but there is also a rumour that there is no
point even applying if you had a grant three years ago. I considered it
worth applying for Mexico as I had been turned down for both Hong Kong and
Washington DC, but I know at least one editor who didn't apply this year
because he had had sponsorship two or three years ago.
In these circumstances it would be helpful to have a little information,
no need to have names, but if we could have the number of people who have
had sponsorship once, twice, three times or more in the last six years I
suspect it would do much to reassure people that the myth that the same
people get sponsorship every year is either true or untrue.
Regards
Jonathan
On 31 Jul 2015, at 13:16, Lane Rasberry <lane(a)bluerasberry.com> wrote:
Hello,
Leave the fairness of the scholarship process aside. Regardless of its
fairness, the process is generating ill-will because of lack of
transparency and poor communication. The problem might be growing to
something beyond what volunteers can manage and perhaps paid staff support
from the communications department of the WMF would be a worthwhile
investment to protect community reputation considering the seriousness of
this, the problem's persistence, and the fact that a little more
communication would go a long way to resolving the negativity.
Thanks Praveen for voicing concerns. They are worth addressing and what
you are saying is what a significant and large demographic also has been
believing for years. I first heard this in 2012. It is good that this year
for the first time the list of scholarship recipients was published and
shared openly. Regardless of whether the scholarship award process is fair
and adequate, it is definitely true that the rumor is circulating among
many countries, especially in the Global South, that some people are
getting scholarships repeatedly.
Here are some of the complaints which I have repeatedly heard, and which
are critical to address for the sake of community health:
1. People who get scholarships somehow become better candidates for
getting more scholarships, when ideally, new people from a region should
attend Wikimania every time
2. In the Global South especially, people who get scholarships
actively or unconsciously suppress the development of their local Wikimedia
community so that they retain a leadership role and remain the most
eligible people to receive scholarships, grants, attention from Wikimedia
community leaders, and other privileges.
3. There is a tremendous amount of ignorance and lack of cultural
insensitivity about the value of scholarships among WMF staff and Wikimedia
community members from richer countries. At this year's Wikimania, we
stayed in a city where ~75% of residents make USD 160 a month, (
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/07/24/world/social-issues-world/mexic…)
and stayed in a hotel where the nightly charge per room was $320 or two
month's income by local standards. The amount of money thrown around during
Wikimania is shocking to many Wikipedians and this issue is never
discussed, so far as I know.
4. Just in general and beyond scholarships - there needs to be more
discussion about how money is viewed differently in different places. This
applies to grants, staffing, community engagement, and many other things.
If complaints are not pouring in about this, it is only because people are
not comfortable speaking up. Diversity creates a lot of concerns and we are
a very diverse community.
yours,
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Nicholas Bashour <
nicholasbashour(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I believe that what Praveen may be saying is that
he thinks the value
that a repeat scholarship recipient can gain from coming back to wikimania
numerous times is outweighed by the value that someone who has never been
to wikimania but has nevertheless been a very involved wikimedian can gain
from attending. Therefore, given that there are limited resources,
scholarships should always go to the people who can gain the most from
receiving them, which Praveen may be arguing will always be someone who has
never been to wikimania versus someone who has. He's saying that despite
having many repeat scholarship recipients, there has not been any added
value on wiki to justify that, and therefore new recipients should be
actively prioritized over repeat ones. That's not to say whether or not
that's actually the case or that this was the point he was trying to
convey, but rather what I understood his argument to be.
Best,
Nicholas
Sent from my iPhone
Am 31.07.2015 um 07:39 schrieb Nkansah Rexford <nkansahrexford(a)gmail.com
:
I just want to know why some users were able to achieve scholarship again
and again while regular Wikimedians being
excluded.
And that is EXACTLY what Stuart explained. I understood, unless you
didn't!
> On Friday 31 July 2015 04:01 PM, Stuart Prior wrote:
>
> Praveen,
>
> I was chair of the Scholarship Committee for this year.
>
> It's unfortunate that you didn't get a scholarship, however there were
> many high quality applications and sometimes the difference between success
> and failure is very small, and I feel genuinely bad for any Wikimedian with
> a good application that didn't make it, but it's very competitive.
>
> We do take into account previous scholarship awards, and focus on making
> sure new people get a chance. But consistently good applications and
> excellent work can warrant repeat scholarship awards despite this.
>
> In some cases where people have been granted Scholarships previously but
> have been unable to attend the conference due to visa issues we have
> considered that when receiving their applications for the current year.
>
> I won't comment on any individual's scholarship, but "regular
> Wikimedians" certainly make up the bulk of the scholars. Edit count is not
> the only factor, but it still is a significant (and clearly verifiable)
> factor when looking at someone's application.
>
> However, we looked for organisers too. Some of our community are better
> facilitators and community builders than they are editors, and running
> events, training and building partnerships are things that were marked
> favourably.
>
> Moreover, two identical applicants can make wildly differing
> applications. We look for those that comprehensively demonstrate their
> contributions and qualify their statements.
>
> Please apply again next year. You have just as much opportunity as
> anyone else.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Best
>
> Stuart Prior
> User:Battleofalma
>
> On 31 July 2015 at 09:16, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote:
>
>> Hi Praveen,
>>
>> I've been a steward, as well as the chair of the FDC for three years,
>> so you may assume I've been somewhat active in Wikimedia movement. I did
>> not receive a global scholarship neither (although I did eventually go, as
>> I got elected to the Board of Trustees).
>>
>> I think it is clearly an assumption of bad faith to say that there is a
>> bias in scholarship committee. The criteria are explicit, and obviously
>> with limited resources a large number of excellent candidates, even with
>> accepted presentations, will not make it.
>>
>> I would suggest you focus on Wikimedia activity, prepare a great
>> presentation for the next year as well as a compelling application, and try
>> again.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> DJ "pundit"
>> 31 lip 2015 10:07 "praveenp" <me.praveen(a)gmail.com> napisał(a):
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please don't derail the actual topic of the thread. I really didnt
>>> assume such an interpretation from quoting his words. Whenever I asked
>>> about the issue to anybody, I generally got such a reply, which I want to
>>> avoid here.
>>>
>>> If it is need to start a new thread, I will do that. :-)
>>>
>>> But please tell me why some people regularly get scholarships atleast
>>> since 2008, active (in Wikimedia projects / outreach programms) users never
>>> get a chance to share their experience and problems at Wikimania.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Praveen. P
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday 31 July 2015 12:40 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>>>
>>> Praveen,
>>>
>>> Whether there was anything personal or confidential in Gerard's
>>> private emails to you is for him to say not for you to decide.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 Jul 2015, at 05:59, praveenp <me.praveen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Osmar Valdebenito,
>>> No offense was intended :-(. For prominent communities that may be
>>> true, but could you check list of users who got scholarship from Malayalam
>>> community.
>>>
>>>
>>> Amir Ladsgroup,
>>>
>>> 1) As you can see there is nothing confidential or personal in Gerards
>>> reply. He just gave a summary of "known" practices.
>>> 2) Users are not asking for trophies. They also want to participate
>>> Wikimania and share and get the experience.
>>> 3) Wikimedia projects are community processes. I simply don't
>>> understand how granting scholarship to same persons again and again for
>>> five or six years help that process. I also dont understand that
>>> communication and sharing of multiple viewpoints, ideas and practices is
>>> possible in the above scenario.
>>> 4) Yes; If clicking tick marks in translatewiki on some 500 string in
>>> 5 minutes before applying for scholarship (as reviewing the translation) is
>>> a prominent contribution.
>>>
>>> In the beginning every body treated equal, we have multiple
>>> participants (with understandable reasons) for Wikimania. It started to
>>> shrink later and now people plainly believe granting scholarship is an act
>>> of favoritism. I also want to prove I am wrong.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Praveen. P
>>> User:Praveenp
>>>
>>> PS: Mail striped because mailman held my previous reply claiming "
>>> Message body is too big:"
>>>
>>> On Friday 31 July 2015 05:03 AM, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
>>>
>>> There are several issues I want to comment:
>>> 1-First of all. Do you have permission from Gerard to publish your
>>> conversation? Maybe there is something confidential in it, Did you care to
>>> check?
>>> 2- Scholarship is not award or trophy, bear that in mind.
>>> 3- People are expected to come here and learn, communicate, etc.
>>> that's why a same person gets scholarship,
>>> 4- No one's wife got scholarship because of being wife of someone.
>>> They probably are prominent contributors too.
>>> 5- Check my first question and answer that. (Emphasizing)
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:05 AM Osmar Valdebenito <
>>> b1mbo.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, but when I read "No regular Wikimedian get any
scholarship", I
>>>> stopped reading.
>>>> It is not only a lie, but also very unfair to all the extremely great
>>>> Wikimedians that attended and made great contributions in Wikimania, and
>>>> also the volunteers that have helped now and in the past reviewing and
>>>> evaluated thousand of applications in the Scholarship Committee.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimania-l mailing
listWikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing
listWikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
--
+Rexford <http://google.com/+Nkansahrexford> | khophi.co
<http://khophi.co/about>
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
lane(a)bluerasberry.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l