Lodewijk - I think you are carrying the conversation in an inappropriate direction by trying to logically examine the merit of the points. Instead of trying to prove or disprove the rumors, I would instead propose to examine whether this kind of discussion really exists in significant amounts, and if so, what basis does it have. Criticisms more often have their basis in people being unable to get the information they request. If I were to identify a problem, it would be in transparency and communication about the scholarship process, and not that I find the problem with the process itself.
Osmar - I was not criticizing the decision to host the conference in Mexico. I just said that the conference operated on a budget which was modest by international standards but great by local standards. This is typical for international conferences in the developing world. I try to be sensitive but if I did something which irks you then message me privately so that I can learn and change my behavior. Also, I do think rumors can be lessened if there is more transparency in the scholarship process. This year we listed scholarship recipients, which is an improvement, and maybe next year the list can be developed further in some way. I stand by my claim of rumors that Wikimedia community leaders in the global south are at greater risk for being accused of corruption than elsewhere. I am not aware of persistent accusations directed at anyone, but the idea arises and I feel like the concerns should be voiced and addressed. The cause of the communication problem is the economic difference - what is a small amount of money in a wealthier country can worth more locally in some places, and more money creates more tension. It is expected in the Wikipedia movement that most people be comfortable with funding levels of wealthier countries, but more sensitivity on how money is perceived in local places would be useful. I also advocate that a much greater slice of available funding should go to economies where the money goes further. There are people, young students in the developing world especially, who have correctly recognized that the monetary value of a Wikimania scholarship is more than some people in their social circles spend in a year. I am mostly dropping out of this talk. I only wanted to defend Praveen's claim. When people voice a concern then that concern should be accepted and examined, and problems with submitting the claim could be handled separately. He is voicing a popular persistent concern and the community should take notice. Thanks everyone for your attention. yours, On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote: > Hi Lane, > > (disclosure: I received a scholarship this year, and on multiple occasions > in the past) > Thank you for voicing your concerns. While others can probably respond in > more detail and accuracy, I would also like to respond to some of the > assumptions you're making. > > First of all, you state that new people should attend Wikimania every > time. I don't believe this is true at face value - I think a mix is > important. In the end, there are several goals for the scholarship program, > and one of them is to add value to the conference. Sometimes it could be > that someone adds a lot of value to the conference, for example through > helping the organisation of the conference, or by adding an important > session to the program. It is true that people who have been to Wikimania > before, are more likely to be able to explain why they add value. The > solution here is not to give people who have never been to Wikimania an > advantage, but to help them to explain why they add value. Support them, > train them. > > Your assumption number 2 is a big accusation, and I would be interested to > see some numbers/facts to support that (perhaps best to create a new thread > for that). > > Assumption number 3 is a no-win discussion. On one side, there's an > argument that we want scholarships, regular attendees and WMF staff to stay > in the same location, so that they can mingle (this is already hard enough, > as people tend to clog together with those they know, even this year). At > the same time you're assuming that WMF actually had to pay the price that > you're quoting. This is a big assumption. As far as I understood, huge > reductions were accomplished, making this venue competitive with other, > usually much cheaper, hotels while maintaining a high quality. But, I do > recognize the image that is being created, and I agree that we could very > well do with a Wikimania that is slightly less 'professional' and has a > slightly lower quality. It may be cheaper, but also will have consequences > on the other end. > > Best, > Lodewijk > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Lane Rasberry <l...@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/mexico-poverty-rate-hit-46-2-last-year-2-million-join-ranks-poor/) >> 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 < >> nicholasbash...@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 <nkansahrexf...@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 <dar...@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.prav...@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.prav...@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.wikipe...@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>>>> Wikimania-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Lane Rasberry >> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia >> 206.801.0814 >> l...@bluerasberry.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimania-l mailing list >> Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l > > -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 l...@bluerasberry.com
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
