On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Jessie Wild <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi! I have a lot of Wikimania Scholarship statistics - obviously what is > in the report on wiki only highlights a piece of them. As always, comments > on meta reports are always helpful (there are none). > That report has been wonderful the last two years, by the way. > > > Metacommented: I've copied the stats suggestion there, and some of the other philosophical and practical questions from this thread. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania/Scholarships/2013 > - *85% *of 2013 Scholars *did not receive scholarship *in 2012 or > received a scholarship but were unable to attend in 2012 > - *5% *of 2013 Scholars received a partial scholarship in 2012 > - 10% of 2013 scholars were also scholars in 2012 > > Thank you! > Those are for WMF scholarships. It is important to note that about 40-50% > of attendees at Wikimania who arrive on scholarships are actually sponsored > directly by *chapter* rather than WMF. It is possible that this group of > people are repeat attendees/scholars (I don't know). > Also, as long as this is an application-based process, with no sense of nomination-for-recognition (in contrast to a purely achievement-based scholarship process) this will have a bias towards those who are good at writing a scholarship application. Which is probably a much smaller pool than the set of amazing people who would meld well with other maniacs. > It is also true that many chapters send board representatives and/or staff > to Wikimania. Again, this may contribute to the feeling that the same > people are always attending. (Note: the same is true for WMF and WMF board.) > Yes. The presence of institutional staff and governance at Wikimania has grown, including sponsored attendees and the # of plenary spots in the program dedicated to it. This has shifted the focus of the events a bit, perhaps away from creation and curation... (Are we becoming a movement of institution builders and grantors?) This accounts for O(100) people - including yours truly - who attend by virtue of their staff or governance role, paid for by the movement. I have mixed feelings about this, as you know. While not always the same people, these are consistent roles over time. But this is a different topic worthy of its own discussion - and now has its own section on the talk page above. > One specific example of this is a former scholar from the Kyrgyz > Wikipedia. On first glance, it looked like her aggregate edit count was > low, but on further digging the committee realized she had only been > editing for a year, and was already a top 5 contributor on that wiki! > :-) Despite posting some concerns in this thread, the overall selection process attracts a much wider pool, and is more thorough, than it was when I had anything to do with it. (those concerns were on the table years ago as well: if you have a purely contribution-based set of criteria, and the same people apply every year, you'll choose many of the same people every year.) > I have lots of comments on the various topics that are getting throw > around -- partial scholarships, needs-based scholarships, disclosing of > scholars names, data collection ... but I don't feel this is the best forum > for discussion. If someone has a wiki page with these topics sectioned off, > we should tackle a few together! > ++ well said. I will take all further comments to the wiki page. Warmly, SJ
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
