Greetings, Thanks for that thoughtful comment, User:Viswaprabha. However, while it's a good idea to discontinue this thread, I don't think new thread on Wikimania scholarship is necessary at this time.
Regards, Isaac. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:16 AM, ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) < viswapra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > Since this thread has gone so long, let me take a bit more freedom to > intervene yet another time: > > I said I am sad for my name was (perhaps) unnecessarily dragged into the > list. But I have not felt a bit, even for a moment, that Praveen intended > any real harm or hurt for me. His original intention could have been just > that he wanted everyone into looking at a genuine generic issue and get it > discussed and resolved on the long term. > > As I have mentioned earlier, I have great respect to Praveen's > contribution towards our rather small but a very active and well-knit > community. If someone asked me to name the most significant users who > influenced the positive growth of our community, he would be included in > the top three or four in the list without a doubt. That he was not > considered for the scholarship even for once is a matter that I too feel > sad about, even though he is one among the few whom I have never known as a > real world person. He has kept his anonymity so very well that also makes > him continue as a true unbiased warrior of our community. I am not sure, > but perhaps his self-chosen anonymity could have limited his abilities to > participate in off-wiki activities and thus reducing his scores counted for > a scholarship. > > In any case, I feel that this thread has grown way beyond its true > original intended purpose. > > May I request all of you to call it a break and stop this thread here and > start a fresh one just focusing on how to reduce any imperfections if at > all, in our methodologies to select scholarship winners in even better ways? > > Love and smiles to all and hail Wikipedia! > > User:Viswaprabha > > > > > On 23 May 2017 at 09:18, praveenp <me.prav...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thank you Kerry for perfect analysis. I had almost lost hope here. :-) >> On Monday 22 May 2017 05:38 PM, Isaac Olatunde wrote: >> >> Greetings, >> >> I want to agree with Gnangara that the OP has no intention to attack the >> user who was cited as an example. Saying User:XYZ received a scholarship >> consecutively is not an attack but a statement of fact (if their claim was >> actually correct). To be honest, interpreting OP's concern as an attack, >> jealousy etc. is far close to assuming good faith. However, I don't >> think I'll be interested in a discussion that focus on "Why was User:XYZ >> awarded a scholarship and not me?" but would be interested in a discussion >> that focus on how to improve the selection process". >> >> >> As you can see, it is not easy to convince the problem even with an >> example. Please don't misinterpret this. Attending Wikimania on scholarship >> is not my final intention. Unlike most other users, I am pretty anonymous, >> it gives me more freedom than them. >> >> Some years back, there was a huge rift between Wikimedia and Malayalam >> Language community. A large part of community stopped active participation >> after that. In my own case, last year after someone told me that some of my >> contributions were not that important, I didn't want to do that. We really >> wish to avoid such situations. As a small community, every user is >> important. >> >> I really didn't intend to be rude or bully. English is just not my native >> language. >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Isaac ( >> *who has never received a scholarship or apply for one this year) * >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Peter Southwood < >> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: >> >>> Fair comment, and actionable suggestions. >>> >>> P >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Wikimania-l [mailto:wikimania-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On >>> Behalf Of *Kerry Raymond >>> *Sent:* Monday, 22 May 2017 4:57 AM >>> *To:* 'Wikimania general list (open subscription)' >>> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimania-l] Granting Scholarship to same persons every >>> year >>> >>> >>> >>> This observation has been made by a few people (some of them involved in >>> the scholarship decision-making process) is that past recipients often >>> continue to out-perform others in terms of the criteria in subsequent >>> years. What hasn’t been commented on is why this is so? >>> >>> >>> >>> If we believe that an attendee to Wikimania benefits in terms of >>> learning new skills, hearing new ideas, making new contacts, then we should >>> hardly be surprised if an attendee is then in a position to “grow” as a >>> Wikimedian and hence be more able to “out-compete” others who didn’t have >>> the benefit of attending. (And If we don’t believe that attendees benefit >>> or grow from Wikimania attendance, then we should stop running Wikimania). >>> Also the scholarship recipient has an expectation to share with their >>> community what they have learned, even that process of sharing adds to >>> their list of activities that they can use as evidence as subsequent >>> scholarship applications. >>> >>> >>> >>> Aside. If you have read the book Freakonomics or followed their blog, >>> you will be aware >>> >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics >>> >>> >>> >>> of their study of how professional footballers tend to have their >>> birthdays clustered in a few months of the year and how this phenomenon has >>> its roots in spotting football talent in very young players and then >>> training them. Because junior sport is usually based around age limits with >>> a specific cut-off day, the children who just exceed the age limit by a >>> month or two will usually be less physically developed than those who >>> exceed the age limit by 10 or 11 months. Thus, the older children in the >>> cohort are more likely to be selected for the team and receive coaching. >>> Next year (still with a relative age developmental advantage AND with one >>> year of extra coaching) these older children in the cohort are again appear >>> the most able and again selected for the team (giving them yet another year >>> of coaching benefit over those not selected). This cycle repeats throughout >>> their childhood ensuring the older ones within the “age year” are >>> disproportionate represented in both junior sport and then into college and >>> professional sport, giving rise to the observed clustering of birthdays in >>> professional footballers. >>> >>> >>> >>> This is exactly the same phenomenon as we are seeing with Wikimania >>> scholarships. >>> >>> >>> >>> How can the playing field of Wikimania scholarships be made a little >>> fairer? I don’t think the answer lies in deducting some points from those >>> who have had a scholarship before. I think the solution lies in having two >>> streams of scholarships, one for the first timers who compete among >>> themselves on criteria that assesses their **potential** to “grow” >>> through the Wikimania experience and a second set of scholarships for those >>> who are applying to come for a second/third/… time with criteria more >>> appropriate to that group, how much did they “grow” and how much did they >>> “share” relative to the number of Wikimania opportunities they have had >>> (note one might also want to include attendance at Wikimedia Conference and >>> other similar movement events in this regard)? >>> >>> >>> >>> Note in both streams it is still possible to include factors like the >>> Global North/South issue, minority groups, etc in the criteria as >>> consistent with the movement’s strategic goals. The key difference is >>> whether you are assessing only potential for growth from attending for the >>> first-timers as opposed to observed growth from past attending and likely >>> potential for further growth from additional attendance for the repeaters. >>> >>> >>> >>> If that approach is taken, then the only question that remains is the >>> relative number of scholarships (or amount of funds) available in each of >>> the two streams. Obviously there’s a range of possibilities, but I would be >>> tempted to operate on a simple pro-rata principle at least in the first >>> year of operation. After the weeding out of the ineligible or people who >>> show poorly against the criteria (however many phases there are to do >>> that), look at the size of the two remaining groups and go pro-rata. That >>> is, if after the preliminary cull(s), there are 200 potential first-timers >>> and 100 potential repeaters, then allocated twice as many scholarship (or >>> twice as much funding) to the first-time group as to the repeater group. If >>> that does not seem to produce a good mix of attendees, then tweak it >>> whichever way seems appropriate the next year. >>> >>> >>> >>> My key point is to stop comparing a basket of mixed apples and oranges >>> and start comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. That >>> should give you mix of the best apples and the best oranges. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kerry >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
