On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 21 May 2017 at 20:12, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'm sorry, Pine....but no. It's naming and shaming. If Praveen had >>> wanted to highlight the frequency of Wikimedians being granted Wikimania >>> scholarsips, they could have done exactly what Mike Peel did - compare the >>> relevant lists and highlight the frequency of users receiving one, two or >>> three grants over the four years for which data is available. That would >>> have been - and is - a reasonable point of discussion. It turns out that >>> Praveen's information was incomplete at best, and incorrect at worst. >>> >> >> It's possible that I misread something, but the question that I read in >> Praveen's original email was, "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 don't see how >> citing a specific example amounts to naming and shaming. Unless I'm >> overlooking something, there was an honest question of whether current >> system of selecting awardees should be modified and examples of the >> outcomes of the current award system were provided. I think it is risky to >> read negatively into others' motives, and at this point I don't see >> evidence that would support a view that there was malicious intent in the >> examples being provided. The examples may be uncomfortable, but that's a >> very long way from being malicious. >> > > I think you may have missed some comments from the later part of the > thread. I found them highly disturbing. Frankly, they were disturbing > enough that many other Wikimedians I know would have walked away from the > projects entirely; we cannot afford to allow people to be browbeaten for > being able to demonstrate on a repeated basis that they're productive and > valuable members of our community. > >
I find it disturbing that there seemed to be an effort to shut down a discussion when someone raised concerns about how WMF funds are being used. > >> >>> >>> That one specific individual has received more than one of them, and >>> someone is implying that the grantee failed to live up to their undertaken >>> responsibilities, is not a reasonable way of discussing those points. >>> >> >> I disagree. If there are examples of grantees not fulfilling their >> obligations but being awarded subsequent grants, that would be a problem. I >> don't want people to be fearful of being attacked for discussing situations >> in which they reasonably think that there may be a problem. I think that an >> underlying issue may be the lack of transparency in the awards >> applications. If there was more transparency then venerability would be >> less of a challenge. I realize that this is a complex problem, and >> hopefully there can be constructive discussions about how to address it. >> > > It may be a reason to draw this to the attention of the Wikimania > Scholarship Committee, or the WMF Travel and Supports grants staff. It is > not appropriate to start a thread on a mailing list that has thousands of > subscribers. As it turns out, there is good reason to doubt a significant > amount of what was said anyway. > > We need to stop enabling behaviour like this. The Wikimania-L mailing > list is not an appropriate place to rail against another Wikimedian. None > of the Wikimedia-related mailing lists are. This is an excellent example > of bullying, and it needs to stop. > > I'm perplexed about how this discussion could be considered bullying. An uncomfortable discussion is different from bullying. If you have a concrete example of bullying in this thread (admittedly I may have overlooked one), I would be appreciative if you would contact me off-list and perhaps we can have an off-list discussion. "It is not appropriate to start a thread on a mailing list that has thousands of subscribers" is a statement of opinion. I feel that it should be possible to have a civil discussion about this matter in public. There has been no private information leaked here (at least not that I have observed). A conversation that is uncomfortable is not necessarily the same as a conversation that is forbidden. If nonpublic information was being discussed then yes, that should probably be moved to a different venue. That is not the case here. I think it would be fine to move this discussion onto Meta so that thoughts could be organized in a threaded, more easily understood way. I say that in hopes of keeping the conversation organized, not in an effort to stop it. Pine
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
