To put this into perspective with some numbers: in 2014-17, out of 378 people awarded scholarships, 309 people have been awarded one scholarship, 55 have been awarded two, 14 have been awarded three, and 0 have been awarded four. Caveat that this is solely from the WMF lists on meta, so isn't including other scholarships/funding methods that aren't listed.
Thanks, Mike > On 20 May 2017, at 04:07, Adrian Raddatz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, I'm Adrian. I was one of the organizers of the scholarship committee this > year. Obviously we cannot discuss the merits of specific applications in this > forum, but I wanted to clear up a couple of things. > > First, what Risker said is largely true. Those who are repeatedly funded tend > to bring something to the table, and need to prove to the reviewers that they > have shared their past Wikimania experiences with their communities. If > people are being repeatedly funded, then there is usually a reason for it. > The scholarship committee is made up of mainly new people every year, and > each application is reviewed by a minimum of three people. There isn't much > room for unfairness or intentional bias in those circumstances. The people > who are repeatedly funded tend to be highly active with the movement both on > and off wiki, and write exceptional applications for their scholarships. > > That said, repeated funding of the same people is a concern. This year, we > introduced a rule where those who had been funded in the past year would > receive a point deduction on their score this year. This has leveled the > playing field a bit, and may be magnified a bit next year, though I won't be > one of the people making that decision. If you are very concerned with this, > I would recommend doing your own calculation of the percentage of repeat > winners each year, seeing if that has gone down this year, and then use those > concrete numbers to express a problem rather than comparing yourself to > someone who has received a scholarship. > > Wikimania scholarships are highly competitive. Only one is awarded for every > 5-6 people that make it to phase 2, and every one of those applications is a > serious one. Don't be discouraged if you aren't selected in any given year - > there's always next year. Take a look at the reviewer's guide to see > specifically how these are marked > (<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars/Reviewer%27s_guide > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars/Reviewer%27s_guide>>). > > Regards, > > On May 19, 2017 7:56 PM, "Risker" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Gnangarra, you missed some possible reasons for repeated scholarships: > the successful repeat applicants are performing at a higher standard than > others, year after year (I have seen people who make maybe 300 edits in a > year complain that they weren't selected over someone who's made 10,000 on > multiple projects during that same year) > the successful repeat applicants are identified with one or more specific > demographics that otherwise have significant difficulty in attending > (geographic, gender, sexual orientation, language group, etc.) > the successful repeat applicants are bringing something specific to > Wikimania, such as excellent and well-attended presentations, knowledge of > some specific area of interest (e.g., one or more sister projects, Wikidata), > etc. > > > Let's not assume that people who have received scholarships more than once > have somehow gamed the system, or that there is a systemic error if someone > gets a scholarship more than once. > > > > Risker/Anne (who received a partial scholarship once, long ago) > > > On 19 May 2017 at 22:35, Gnangarra <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > If there is a general opinion based on facts that the some individuals are > the recipients of a regular scholarship, then that is something that needs to > be discussed. Unfortunately to prove the hypothesis that this is happening > there does need to be some presentation of what the basis for that theory is > and that means actually naming individuals otherwise it gets dismissed as > nonsense but in naming, providing the basis the person gets told "sending > emails like this one would certainly in-and-of-itself be a reason against." > ensures that no one ever questions the processes. Well I really dont care > anymore if I dont get to go to another Wikimania I'm going to challenge the > process because its seen as having flaws and that to me needs to addressed. > > What I see as the potential reasons for repeated scholarships for the same > person is that > they are active, they apply every year > they are good communicators and self promoters > they have the time capacity to attend every year > previous years application arent tested against current applications for > repetitions > each year the applications are judged in isolation that year,... > theres no validation of what was claimed in previous reporting to actual > outcomes > the same core group of people put their hand up to make the selections every > year > the criteria isnt sufficiently dynamic between each wikimania to draw new > applicants to the top > > We can dismiss it as jealousy or sour grapes or some other type of gripe. > Alternatively we can ask the questions, is there a basis for the perception > can we do things better... > > On 20 May 2017 at 09:48, praveenp <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > So it is incredibly appropriate to grant scholarship to same person again and > again? Usually applicant do not complain about this disparity because it > would immediately branded as their desperation. If we could not speak about > this, how could we ensure diversity and equality? > > On Saturday 20 May 2017 01:53 AM, LFaraone wrote: >> It would be incredibly inappropriate to discuss a specific person's >> eligibility in public like this. >> >> Simply put: people who get scholarships do so according to the published >> selection criteria. People who do not, did not qualify. >> >> In my opinion, sending emails like this one would certainly in-and-of-itself >> be a reason against. > > As a community, if questioning a process leads to disqualification, is not a > good tendency. I was the only one sent mails in 2015. Why none of the other > applicant gets scholarship? > > While discussing this without any name, it immediately rebutted as false > argument. If we use any names, it is inappropriate! > >> >> On 19 May 2017 at 18:36, praveenp <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have sent a similar email on 2015 [1] >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2015-July/006921.html>, >> but I haven't got a clear answer there yet. I simply asked why certain >> people get Wikimania Scholarship each year, while other applicants rejected >> repeatedly. I have used a comparison of User:Viswaprabha and myself >> (User:Praveenp) there. >> >> Please note that this email is not about someone going to Wikimanias again >> and again, it is about granting Wikimania scholarships to same persons again >> and again. This is not personal, I am just using personalities and >> scholarships familiar to me. I am sure that, atleast other Indian language >> communities facing similar problem. I occasionally hear people from other >> communities mentioning scholarship by terms like "Winkimania Scholarship" >> or "Wikimania Permanent Scholarship". >> >> From my home wiki community (Malayalam Language Community), only year I >> remember that User:Viswaprabha didn't recieve the Wikimania scholarship was >> 2016. I assume that was just because of the thread regarding this issue in >> 2015. User:Netha Hussain, another user from our premises also get repeating >> scholarships (not this year), but I am not sure that whether she represents >> Malayalam Language Community. Frankly, I haven't seen any of these >> scholarship receivers sharing anything to community in recent years. Then, >> what is the advantage of selecting same persons again and again for >> scholarship? Isn't it better to let more different people to share and >> experience global community? >> >> I also wish to share a personal experience of intolerance. I raised the >> issue in 2015 and then in 2016 I applied scholarship. I didn't even pass >> "Selection Phase 1" yesteryear. According to Phase 1 criteria, every >> serious application must pass to Phase 2. I asked about this to Ellie Young >> in a reply, which I didn't get a response yet. Ironically, a very similar >> application by me entered Phase 2 this year! >> >> Could someone clarify? >> >> [1] - >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2015-July/006921.html >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2015-July/006921.html> >> >> >> Praveen Prakash >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimania-l mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- Luke // LFaraone >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimania-l mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l> > > > > > -- > GN. > President Wikimedia Australia > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > <http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > <http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
