(responding inline) 2017-04-22 7:41 GMT+02:00 Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com>:
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> > wrote: > >> (not responding to a person in particular) >> I'm a little bit at a loss here. The proposal is to share a lot of >> information from the application process (whether attempted to anonimize or >> not) beyond statistics. Given the high number of countries and other rather >> specific characteristics, anything vaguely useful will likely contain at >> least some personally identifiable information. >> > > PII disclosures can be limited to what users have already disclosed in > public (which, admittedly, may not be entirely current and truthful.) > Aggregated information can be provided as well. > Sure - like I said, probably rather useless depending on the goal you want to actually *do* with the information. And still tricky, aggregated information could be provided to some extent, but probably not to the level of detail you'd want. > > >> More likely even, anything you can share without being personally >> identifiable will probably not be very relevant for the application >> consideration. Sure, you could do some gender statistics, but how does that >> tell you why people have been rejected? >> > > I anticipate that the level of transparency would be insufficient to > evaluate the Scholarship Committee and WMF decisions about individual > applicants. However, the information that is published may still be useful > and of interest when considering trends and groups. > OK, so you want to discover 'trends and groups'. Goal 1 identified. > > >> >> So I'd like to take a step back: what exactly is the problem you're >> trying to solve? Is publishing a lot of data really the best approach to >> that solution? If you define the problem well, I can imagine a few >> alternative approaches, like asking the scholarship committee to report >> back with an analysis of the problem and how they went about it - or asking >> an independent person/persons to sign an NDA, and go into the data, >> investigate and report back. They could actually go in depth - but it >> requires a good definition of the problem. >> > > My impression is that there are disappointments and complaints almost > every year about scholarship awards. I hope that increasing transparency > will result in a decreased number and intensity of complaints about > individual cases, and will also increase the amount of information that is > made public which can be used by anyone and everyone to analyze policies > and practices and to make recommendations for refinements or changes as may > seem best. > > Also, as a broader theme, I would like to see more transparency about how > WMF funds are used. A change of practice like we're discussing here would > be one step in that direction. > > Of course there are going to be disappointments and complaints every year. Unless we increase the acceptance rate to 100%, that is bound to happen in a process that always results in some personally disappointing outcomes. Even with perfect transparency and process, people will be disappointed. And a process will never be perfect. I sincerely doubt transparency will decrease the intensity or number of complaints about individual cases - I rather suspect it will increase them. As transparency often does. Which is fine if the transparency brings other benefits - but don't expect it to go down. Also, identified the second goal: propose recommendations for refinements and changes. Good! Two valuable goals. Now, just disclosing stuff the best approach to tackling it? Lodewijk >> Best, >> Lodewijk >> >> 2017-04-21 13:32 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Cardy <werespielchequ...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Hi Pine, I agree with you that partial transparency can be a positive >>> and at least assure people that their region/language/project is getting a >>> fair share even if they were declined. But I'd suggest that can be done >>> with anonymised stats rather than applications with some details redacted >>> or withheld. >>> >> > Let me ask: why shouldn't the usernames of applicants, and whether they > were offered scholarships, be made public in future years if scholarship > applicants are told in advance that this information will be published? > > >> >>> Trend analysis can be self defeating, >>> >> > How so? > > >> I've discussed this off wiki with some of the people who have had >>> scholarships in the past, including a couple of people who didn't apply >>> this year because they assumed they would be declined for Montreal after >>> having had scholarships recently. >>> >>> What might save a lot of time on everyone's part would be if there was a >>> simple rule such as we don't give the same person a scholarship for two >>> consecutive Wikimanias. Emphasis on give rather than award as there will be >>> people who were awarded a scholarship but could not get a visa. That would >>> reduce the workload of the scholarship team, and also of the applicants. >>> You could of course balance that by other factors, I'm hoping thatFrench >>> speakers are being given preference for Montreal. >>> >> > I agree with the general sentiment that giving scholarships to the same > person for multiple consecutive Wikimanias should be avoided. If what I'm > told is true that there are thousands of applicants for only a few hundred > scholarship spots, perhaps the bar should be even higher and scholarships > should be awarded to the same person at most once out of every three years. > It would help to have the information that we're discussing in this thread > be made public so that we can have a better-informed conversation about the > policies for scholarship awards. (: > > Pine > > _______________________________________________ > 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
