Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

Julie Workman
Is there at present any metric by which previous scholarship attendees are judged on their dissemination of Wikimania experiences after the conference? The complaint being brought up is not only about awardees getting repeat scholarships, but failing to enrich their communities afterwards with what they learned / what it was like / who they met / what they will do now. With a limited number of scholarships available, it is true that the attendees are expected to share their good fortune with those who couldn't attend.

If nothing like that is in place, could it not be added? For example, a field on the application: "were you awarded a scholarship last year (and attended)?" "If yes, please describe (and provide links where possible) to the activities and discussions you organised with your community regarding your experience at Wikimania". If a sufficiently good and detailed response is not provided, the application can receive a lower score (or possibly be discarded...? I'm not au fait with the process).

Julia W

On 1 June 2018 at 13:00, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send Wikimania-l mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimania-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (Pine W)
   2. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (cs)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:31:08 -0700
From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID:
        <CAF=dyJinVGV5eM7vBi7SFDLcqyLP4yakDa=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter
the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF
presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a
one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and
have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens
with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of
financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system
is a perennial point of friction.

Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review
of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With
WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers
spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would
make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to
synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring
that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time
that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship
system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for
scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't
envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that
some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF
strategic plan and with SMART goals.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the
> other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on
> scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board
> members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old
> faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/attachments/20180531/42687ccd/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:58:35 +0700
From: cs <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I  have attended several  Wikimanias.
I  would have thought  that  with  the Wikipedias being voluntary contributed and managed projects, that  the conference shoud have a sharp focus on  attendance and presentations by  the communities.
However, this is not  the case. Presentation  time is, IMO, excessively  allocated to  various  speakers from the salaried staff.
This has been brought  up  on several  occasions.
In some instances, some presentations have had almost  duplicate  content.
Many  Foundations take on  a promotional aspect  of the WMF’s work.
The credit  for  the entire movement  should go  to  the community volunteers.

Kudpung

> On 01, Jun2018, at 08:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system is a perennial point of friction.
>
> Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF strategic plan and with SMART goals.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine> )
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ <http://enwp.org/User:HJ>
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/attachments/20180601/da922580/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


------------------------------

End of Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1
*******************************************


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

Sjoerd de Bruin
I think that is already included in scholarship applications, if I remember correctly.

Greetings,

Sjoerd de Bruin

Op 1 jun. 2018, om 17:06 heeft Julie Workman <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Is there at present any metric by which previous scholarship attendees are judged on their dissemination of Wikimania experiences after the conference? The complaint being brought up is not only about awardees getting repeat scholarships, but failing to enrich their communities afterwards with what they learned / what it was like / who they met / what they will do now. With a limited number of scholarships available, it is true that the attendees are expected to share their good fortune with those who couldn't attend.

If nothing like that is in place, could it not be added? For example, a field on the application: "were you awarded a scholarship last year (and attended)?" "If yes, please describe (and provide links where possible) to the activities and discussions you organised with your community regarding your experience at Wikimania". If a sufficiently good and detailed response is not provided, the application can receive a lower score (or possibly be discarded...? I'm not au fait with the process).

Julia W

On 1 June 2018 at 13:00, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send Wikimania-l mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimania-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (Pine W)
   2. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (cs)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:31:08 -0700
From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID:
        <CAF=dyJinVGV5eM7vBi7SFDLcqyLP4yakDa=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter
the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF
presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a
one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and
have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens
with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of
financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system
is a perennial point of friction.

Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review
of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With
WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers
spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would
make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to
synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring
that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time
that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship
system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for
scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't
envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that
some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF
strategic plan and with SMART goals.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the
> other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on
> scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board
> members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old
> faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/attachments/20180531/42687ccd/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:58:35 +0700
From: cs <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I  have attended several  Wikimanias.
I  would have thought  that  with  the Wikipedias being voluntary contributed and managed projects, that  the conference shoud have a sharp focus on  attendance and presentations by  the communities.
However, this is not  the case. Presentation  time is, IMO, excessively  allocated to  various  speakers from the salaried staff.
This has been brought  up  on several  occasions.
In some instances, some presentations have had almost  duplicate  content.
Many  Foundations take on  a promotional aspect  of the WMF’s work.
The credit  for  the entire movement  should go  to  the community volunteers.

Kudpung

> On 01, Jun2018, at 08:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system is a perennial point of friction.
>
> Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF strategic plan and with SMART goals.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine> )
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ <http://enwp.org/User:HJ>
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/attachments/20180601/da922580/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


------------------------------

End of Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

Gnangarra
there is a reporting component, but in some cases the benefit is not what a person brings back, its the local experiences they share while there that really matters.   Overall the exchanging of knowledge and the building of relationships is the key value of Wikimanias yet when it comes to reporting its the immediate numbers that get focus, nowhere have the wmf gone back to recipients 2,3 or 4 years later to see what the impact was and if that continued beyond the immediate post event reporting.

Maybe the scholarship process could open earlier so that more time can be invested in the selection process, its would also give more time to arrange visas and help more people plan ahead 



On 1 June 2018 at 23:07, Sjoerd de Bruin <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think that is already included in scholarship applications, if I remember correctly.

Greetings,

Sjoerd de Bruin

Op 1 jun. 2018, om 17:06 heeft Julie Workman <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Is there at present any metric by which previous scholarship attendees are judged on their dissemination of Wikimania experiences after the conference? The complaint being brought up is not only about awardees getting repeat scholarships, but failing to enrich their communities afterwards with what they learned / what it was like / who they met / what they will do now. With a limited number of scholarships available, it is true that the attendees are expected to share their good fortune with those who couldn't attend.

If nothing like that is in place, could it not be added? For example, a field on the application: "were you awarded a scholarship last year (and attended)?" "If yes, please describe (and provide links where possible) to the activities and discussions you organised with your community regarding your experience at Wikimania". If a sufficiently good and detailed response is not provided, the application can receive a lower score (or possibly be discarded...? I'm not au fait with the process).

Julia W

On 1 June 2018 at 13:00, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send Wikimania-l mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimania-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (Pine W)
   2. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (cs)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:31:08 -0700
From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID:
        <CAF=dyJinVGV5eM7vBi7SFDLcqyLP4yakDa=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter
the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF
presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a
one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and
have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens
with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of
financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system
is a perennial point of friction.

Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review
of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With
WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers
spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would
make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to
synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring
that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time
that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship
system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for
scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't
envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that
some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF
strategic plan and with SMART goals.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the
> other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on
> scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board
> members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old
> faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/attachments/20180531/42687ccd/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:58:35 +0700
From: cs <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I  have attended several  Wikimanias.
I  would have thought  that  with  the Wikipedias being voluntary contributed and managed projects, that  the conference shoud have a sharp focus on  attendance and presentations by  the communities.
However, this is not  the case. Presentation  time is, IMO, excessively  allocated to  various  speakers from the salaried staff.
This has been brought  up  on several  occasions.
In some instances, some presentations have had almost  duplicate  content.
Many  Foundations take on  a promotional aspect  of the WMF’s work.
The credit  for  the entire movement  should go  to  the community volunteers.

Kudpung

> On 01, Jun2018, at 08:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system is a perennial point of friction.
>
> Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF strategic plan and with SMART goals.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine> )
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ <http://enwp.org/User:HJ>
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/attachments/20180601/da922580/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


------------------------------

End of Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l




--
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8, UWAP, 2017.  Order here.


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
cs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

cs
Concurring  with  Gnangarra: equally , if not  much  more important, is the invaluable face-to-face opportunity to  discuss projects on which people  work  together online - and with the WMF if they  are involved. There is no  substitute for  it - especially for  en.Wiki whose volunteers are spread around the entire globe. The impact I  brought  back from  Wikimanias was in  2012 in D.C. which  resulted in the creation  of the NewpagesFeed/Curation tools, and Italy 2016 which  finally resulted in  ACTRIAL  this year after years of wrangling - both  major Wikipedia features/policies requiring  the consent  of senior WMF staff. Admittedly  my  attendance doesn't  do  much  for  Thailand where I  actually live as an expat. 

The scholarships system does not  take this kind of  work  for  the movement by  people who  need to be present at these meetings into  consideration, and I’m  sure this is equally important for volunteers,  who  just  for  example, are dedicated to  closing the gender gap, making Wikipedia more accessible in  the 'Global South’, and discussing  policies and technical issues.

There is also  the point  I  mentioned earlier that  there needs to be more coordination between the scholarships committe and the presentations committee for  the people who  have developed significant presentations only  to  be rejected at  the last  minute, or even after their arrival at  the conference. In  my  experience, plenty  of presentations are not  actually of major importance or interest, and maybe this is one of the reasons, as mentioned by  Gnangarra why  the process should be begun earlier.


Kudpung


On 01, Jun2018, at 22:31, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:

there is a reporting component, but in some cases the benefit is not what a person brings back, its the local experiences they share while there that really matters.   Overall the exchanging of knowledge and the building of relationships is the key value of Wikimanias yet when it comes to reporting its the immediate numbers that get focus, nowhere have the wmf gone back to recipients 2,3 or 4 years later to see what the impact was and if that continued beyond the immediate post event reporting.

Maybe the scholarship process could open earlier so that more time can be invested in the selection process, its would also give more time to arrange visas and help more people plan ahead 



On 1 June 2018 at 23:07, Sjoerd de Bruin <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think that is already included in scholarship applications, if I remember correctly.

Greetings,

Sjoerd de Bruin

Op 1 jun. 2018, om 17:06 heeft Julie Workman <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Is there at present any metric by which previous scholarship attendees are judged on their dissemination of Wikimania experiences after the conference? The complaint being brought up is not only about awardees getting repeat scholarships, but failing to enrich their communities afterwards with what they learned / what it was like / who they met / what they will do now. With a limited number of scholarships available, it is true that the attendees are expected to share their good fortune with those who couldn't attend.

If nothing like that is in place, could it not be added? For example, a field on the application: "were you awarded a scholarship last year (and attended)?" "If yes, please describe (and provide links where possible) to the activities and discussions you organised with your community regarding your experience at Wikimania". If a sufficiently good and detailed response is not provided, the application can receive a lower score (or possibly be discarded...? I'm not au fait with the process).

Julia W

On 1 June 2018 at 13:00, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send Wikimania-l mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimania-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (Pine W)
   2. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (cs)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:31:08 -0700
From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID:
        <CAF=dyJinVGV5eM7vBi7SFDLcqyLP4yakDa=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter
the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF
presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a
one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and
have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens
with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of
financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system
is a perennial point of friction.

Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review
of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With
WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers
spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would
make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to
synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring
that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time
that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship
system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for
scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't
envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that
some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF
strategic plan and with SMART goals.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the
> other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on
> scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board
> members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old
> faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/attachments/20180531/42687ccd/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:58:35 +0700
From: cs <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I  have attended several  Wikimanias.
I  would have thought  that  with  the Wikipedias being voluntary contributed and managed projects, that  the conference shoud have a sharp focus on  attendance and presentations by  the communities.
However, this is not  the case. Presentation  time is, IMO, excessively  allocated to  various  speakers from the salaried staff.
This has been brought  up  on several  occasions.
In some instances, some presentations have had almost  duplicate  content.
Many  Foundations take on  a promotional aspect  of the WMF’s work.
The credit  for  the entire movement  should go  to  the community volunteers.

Kudpung

> On 01, Jun2018, at 08:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system is a perennial point of friction.
>
> Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF strategic plan and with SMART goals.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine> )
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ <http://enwp.org/User:HJ>
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/attachments/20180601/da922580/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


------------------------------

End of Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l




--
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8, UWAP, 2017.  Order here.

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

derhexer-2
In reply to this post by Sjoerd de Bruin
That's true: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Wikimania_scholars/Reviewer%27s_guide#Score_adjustment_for_previous_scholars (that this is not the perfect system is well known to everyone in the committee which, as Mardetanha said, changes every year—it's still very hard to implement a process which does not favor these who are used to write good applications if we don't draw lots).

We had to start the scholarship processes at some point due to visa regulations, unfortunately before the program team could finish their process. For that reason, the scholarship committee proposed to save some money for people who could not hold their presentations without a scholarship. But in the end, it's the WMF who thankfully manages all the outcomes and the jury only evalutes the applications at some point.

Best,
Martin/DerHexer



Von: Sjoerd de Bruin <[hidden email]>
An: Wikimania general list (open subscription) <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: 17:15 Freitag, 1.Juni 2018
Betreff: Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

I think that is already included in scholarship applications, if I remember correctly.

Greetings,

Sjoerd de Bruin

Op 1 jun. 2018, om 17:06 heeft Julie Workman <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Is there at present any metric by which previous scholarship attendees are judged on their dissemination of Wikimania experiences after the conference? The complaint being brought up is not only about awardees getting repeat scholarships, but failing to enrich their communities afterwards with what they learned / what it was like / who they met / what they will do now. With a limited number of scholarships available, it is true that the attendees are expected to share their good fortune with those who couldn't attend.

If nothing like that is in place, could it not be added? For example, a field on the application: "were you awarded a scholarship last year (and attended)?" "If yes, please describe (and provide links where possible) to the activities and discussions you organised with your community regarding your experience at Wikimania". If a sufficiently good and detailed response is not provided, the application can receive a lower score (or possibly be discarded...? I'm not au fait with the process).

Julia W

On 1 June 2018 at 13:00, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send Wikimania-l mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimania-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (Pine W)
   2. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (cs)


------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:31:08 -0700
From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID:
        <CAF= dyJinVGV5eM7vBi7SFDLcqyLP4yakD a=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter
the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF
presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a
one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and
have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens
with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of
financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system
is a perennial point of friction.

Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review
of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With
WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers
spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would
make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to
synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring
that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time
that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship
system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for
scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't
envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that
some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF
strategic plan and with SMART goals.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine )

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the
> other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on
> scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board
> members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old
> faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikimania-l/ attachments/20180531/42687ccd/ attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:58:35 +0700
From: cs <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I  have attended several  Wikimanias.
I  would have thought  that  with  the Wikipedias being voluntary contributed and managed projects, that  the conference shoud have a sharp focus on  attendance and presentations by  the communities.
However, this is not  the case. Presentation  time is, IMO, excessively  allocated to  various  speakers from the salaried staff.
This has been brought  up  on several  occasions.
In some instances, some presentations have had almost  duplicate  content.
Many  Foundations take on  a promotional aspect  of the WMF’s work.
The credit  for  the entire movement  should go  to  the community volunteers.

Kudpung

> On 01, Jun2018, at 08:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system is a perennial point of friction.
>
> Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF strategic plan and with SMART goals.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine> )
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ <http://enwp.org/User:HJ>
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikimania-l/ attachments/20180601/da922580/ attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

______________________________ _________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


------------------------------

End of Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1
****************************** *************

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l



_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

Chris Keating-2
Thinking about it, drawing lots might not be the silliest idea in the universe.

After all, ability to write a great application is at best a rough
proxy for actual impact. Why not have a less granular system that
filters out the "clear No"s and then allocate the remaining places by
ballot, taking into account the demographics/projects that need to be
represented?

Chris


On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:19 PM, DerHexer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> That's true:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Wikimania_scholars/Reviewer%27s_guide#Score_adjustment_for_previous_scholars
> (that this is not the perfect system is well known to everyone in the
> committee which, as Mardetanha said, changes every year—it's still very hard
> to implement a process which does not favor these who are used to write good
> applications if we don't draw lots).
>
> We had to start the scholarship processes at some point due to visa
> regulations, unfortunately before the program team could finish their
> process. For that reason, the scholarship committee proposed to save some
> money for people who could not hold their presentations without a
> scholarship. But in the end, it's the WMF who thankfully manages all the
> outcomes and the jury only evalutes the applications at some point.
>
> Best,
> Martin/DerHexer
>
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Sjoerd de Bruin <[hidden email]>
> An: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
> <[hidden email]>
> Gesendet: 17:15 Freitag, 1.Juni 2018
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1
>
> I think that is already included in scholarship applications, if I remember
> correctly.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Sjoerd de Bruin
>
> Op 1 jun. 2018, om 17:06 heeft Julie Workman <[hidden email]> het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> Is there at present any metric by which previous scholarship attendees are
> judged on their dissemination of Wikimania experiences after the conference?
> The complaint being brought up is not only about awardees getting repeat
> scholarships, but failing to enrich their communities afterwards with what
> they learned / what it was like / who they met / what they will do now. With
> a limited number of scholarships available, it is true that the attendees
> are expected to share their good fortune with those who couldn't attend.
>
> If nothing like that is in place, could it not be added? For example, a
> field on the application: "were you awarded a scholarship last year (and
> attended)?" "If yes, please describe (and provide links where possible) to
> the activities and discussions you organised with your community regarding
> your experience at Wikimania". If a sufficiently good and detailed response
> is not provided, the application can receive a lower score (or possibly be
> discarded...? I'm not au fait with the process).
>
> Julia W
>
> On 1 June 2018 at 13:00, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Send Wikimania-l mailing list submissions to
>         [hidden email]. org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         wikimania-l-request@lists. wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         wikimania-l-owner@lists. wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimania-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (Pine W)
>    2. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (cs)
>
>
> ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:31:08 -0700
> From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
> To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
>         <[hidden email]. org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
> Message-ID:
>         <CAF= dyJinVGV5eM7vBi7SFDLcqyLP4yakD a=[hidden email].
> com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter
> the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF
> presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a
> one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and
> have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens
> with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of
> financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system
> is a perennial point of friction.
>
> Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review
> of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With
> WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers
> spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would
> make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to
> synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring
> that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time
> that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship
> system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for
> scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't
> envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that
> some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF
> strategic plan and with SMART goals.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine )
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the
>> other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on
>> scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board
>> members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same
>> old
>> faces year in, year out.
>>
>> Harry Mitchell
>> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
>> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
>> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikimania-l/
> attachments/20180531/42687ccd/ attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:58:35 +0700
> From: cs <[hidden email]>
> To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
>         <[hidden email]. org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
> Message-ID: <28D68047-E5DC-4B96-BF0C- [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I  have attended several  Wikimanias.
> I  would have thought  that  with  the Wikipedias being voluntary
> contributed and managed projects, that  the conference shoud have a sharp
> focus on  attendance and presentations by  the communities.
> However, this is not  the case. Presentation  time is, IMO, excessively
> allocated to  various  speakers from the salaried staff.
> This has been brought  up  on several  occasions.
> In some instances, some presentations have had almost  duplicate  content.
> Many  Foundations take on  a promotional aspect  of the WMF’s work.
> The credit  for  the entire movement  should go  to  the community
> volunteers.
>
> Kudpung
>
>> On 01, Jun2018, at 08:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter
>> the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF
>> presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a
>> one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and
>> have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens with
>> Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of financial
>> cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system is a
>> perennial point of friction.
>>
>> Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review
>> of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With
>> WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers
>> spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would
>> make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to synchronize
>> with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring that there are
>> SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time that goes into
>> Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship system could be
>> reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for scholarships and how to
>> align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't envision reducing funding for
>> Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that some re-thinking and evaluation
>> would be good to align funding with the WMF strategic plan and with SMART
>> goals.
>>
>> Pine
>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/User:Pine> )
>>
>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the
>> other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on
>> scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board
>> members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old
>> faces year in, year out.
>>
>> Harry Mitchell
>> http://enwp.org/User:HJ <http://enwp.org/User:HJ>
>> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
>> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>>
>> ______________________________ _________________
>> Wikimania-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]. org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikimania-l/
> attachments/20180601/da922580/ attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> [hidden email]. org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1
> ****************************** *************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
cs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

cs
Chris,

I  don’t  think drawing  lots is the solution. If  anything, even more attention  should  be given to  applicants’ including  their editing  history and or other active participation, and whether or not they  have planned a presentation. I  have to  say  I  have met  people  at  the conferences who  admitted to  me they  simply made an application in  the hope of receiving  a scholarship and just  got  lucky. This of course is our  fault as former committee members, but  being  on  that  commitee as it  is organised, is one heck  of a big  job.

Kudpung

On 05, Jun2018, at 22:53, Chris Keating <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thinking about it, drawing lots might not be the silliest idea in the universe.

After all, ability to write a great application is at best a rough
proxy for actual impact. Why not have a less granular system that
filters out the "clear No"s and then allocate the remaining places by
ballot, taking into account the demographics/projects that need to be
represented?

Chris


On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:19 PM, DerHexer <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's true:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Wikimania_scholars/Reviewer%27s_guide#Score_adjustment_for_previous_scholars
(that this is not the perfect system is well known to everyone in the
committee which, as Mardetanha said, changes every year—it's still very hard
to implement a process which does not favor these who are used to write good
applications if we don't draw lots).

We had to start the scholarship processes at some point due to visa
regulations, unfortunately before the program team could finish their
process. For that reason, the scholarship committee proposed to save some
money for people who could not hold their presentations without a
scholarship. But in the end, it's the WMF who thankfully manages all the
outcomes and the jury only evalutes the applications at some point.

Best,
Martin/DerHexer


________________________________
Von: Sjoerd de Bruin <[hidden email]>
An: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
<[hidden email]>
Gesendet: 17:15 Freitag, 1.Juni 2018
Betreff: Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

I think that is already included in scholarship applications, if I remember
correctly.

Greetings,

Sjoerd de Bruin

Op 1 jun. 2018, om 17:06 heeft Julie Workman <[hidden email]> het
volgende geschreven:

Is there at present any metric by which previous scholarship attendees are
judged on their dissemination of Wikimania experiences after the conference?
The complaint being brought up is not only about awardees getting repeat
scholarships, but failing to enrich their communities afterwards with what
they learned / what it was like / who they met / what they will do now. With
a limited number of scholarships available, it is true that the attendees
are expected to share their good fortune with those who couldn't attend.

If nothing like that is in place, could it not be added? For example, a
field on the application: "were you awarded a scholarship last year (and
attended)?" "If yes, please describe (and provide links where possible) to
the activities and discussions you organised with your community regarding
your experience at Wikimania". If a sufficiently good and detailed response
is not provided, the application can receive a lower score (or possibly be
discarded...? I'm not au fait with the process).

Julia W

On 1 June 2018 at 13:00, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Send Wikimania-l mailing list submissions to
       [hidden email]. org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
       https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
       wikimania-l-request@lists. wikimedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
       wikimania-l-owner@lists. wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimania-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (Pine W)
  2. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (cs)


------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:31:08 -0700
From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
       <[hidden email]. org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID:
       <CAF= dyJinVGV5eM7vBi7SFDLcqyLP4yakD a=[hidden email].
com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter
the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF
presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a
one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and
have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens
with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of
financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system
is a perennial point of friction.

Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review
of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With
WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers
spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would
make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to
synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring
that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time
that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship
system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for
scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't
envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that
some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF
strategic plan and with SMART goals.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine )

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the
other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on
scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board
members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same
old
faces year in, year out.

Harry Mitchell
http://enwp.org/User:HJ
+44 (0) 7507 536 971
Skype: harry_j_mitchell

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikimania-l/
attachments/20180531/42687ccd/ attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:58:35 +0700
From: cs <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
       <[hidden email]. org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID: <28D68047-E5DC-4B96-BF0C- [hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I  have attended several  Wikimanias.
I  would have thought  that  with  the Wikipedias being voluntary
contributed and managed projects, that  the conference shoud have a sharp
focus on  attendance and presentations by  the communities.
However, this is not  the case. Presentation  time is, IMO, excessively
allocated to  various  speakers from the salaried staff.
This has been brought  up  on several  occasions.
In some instances, some presentations have had almost  duplicate  content.
Many  Foundations take on  a promotional aspect  of the WMF’s work.
The credit  for  the entire movement  should go  to  the community
volunteers.

Kudpung

On 01, Jun2018, at 08:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter
the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF
presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a
one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and
have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens with
Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of financial
cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system is a
perennial point of friction.

Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review
of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With
WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers
spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would
make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to synchronize
with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring that there are
SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time that goes into
Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship system could be
reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for scholarships and how to
align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't envision reducing funding for
Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that some re-thinking and evaluation
would be good to align funding with the WMF strategic plan and with SMART
goals.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/User:Pine> )

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email]
<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the
other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on
scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board
members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old
faces year in, year out.

Harry Mitchell
http://enwp.org/User:HJ <http://enwp.org/User:HJ>
+44 (0) 7507 536 971
Skype: harry_j_mitchell

______________________________ _________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]. org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikimania-l/
attachments/20180601/da922580/ attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

______________________________ _________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]. org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


------------------------------

End of Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1
****************************** *************


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l



_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
cs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

cs
In reply to this post by derhexer-2
I am surprised to  learn that  the jury’s selection is a mere recommendation to  the WMF.  I  was not  aware of that.
I’m  not  sure that  the program teams are ideally  constituted. The choice of presentations and/or allocations of time slots for  various  activities has often left  me baffled.

Kudpung

On 05, Jun2018, at 22:19, DerHexer <[hidden email]> wrote:

That's true: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Wikimania_scholars/Reviewer%27s_guide#Score_adjustment_for_previous_scholars (that this is not the perfect system is well known to everyone in the committee which, as Mardetanha said, changes every year—it's still very hard to implement a process which does not favor these who are used to write good applications if we don't draw lots).

We had to start the scholarship processes at some point due to visa regulations, unfortunately before the program team could finish their process. For that reason, the scholarship committee proposed to save some money for people who could not hold their presentations without a scholarship. But in the end, it's the WMF who thankfully manages all the outcomes and the jury only evalutes the applications at some point.

Best,
Martin/DerHexer



Von: Sjoerd de Bruin <[hidden email]>
An: Wikimania general list (open subscription) <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: 17:15 Freitag, 1.Juni 2018
Betreff: Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

I think that is already included in scholarship applications, if I remember correctly.

Greetings,

Sjoerd de Bruin

Op 1 jun. 2018, om 17:06 heeft Julie Workman <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Is there at present any metric by which previous scholarship attendees are judged on their dissemination of Wikimania experiences after the conference? The complaint being brought up is not only about awardees getting repeat scholarships, but failing to enrich their communities afterwards with what they learned / what it was like / who they met / what they will do now. With a limited number of scholarships available, it is true that the attendees are expected to share their good fortune with those who couldn't attend.

If nothing like that is in place, could it not be added? For example, a field on the application: "were you awarded a scholarship last year (and attended)?" "If yes, please describe (and provide links where possible) to the activities and discussions you organised with your community regarding your experience at Wikimania". If a sufficiently good and detailed response is not provided, the application can receive a lower score (or possibly be discarded...? I'm not au fait with the process).

Julia W

On 1 June 2018 at 13:00, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send Wikimania-l mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimania-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (Pine W)
   2. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (cs)


------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:31:08 -0700
From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID:
        <CAF= dyJinVGV5eM7vBi7SFDLcqyLP4yakD a=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter
the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF
presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a
one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and
have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens
with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of
financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system
is a perennial point of friction.

Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review
of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With
WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers
spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would
make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to
synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring
that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time
that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship
system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for
scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't
envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that
some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF
strategic plan and with SMART goals.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine )

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the
> other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on
> scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board
> members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old
> faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikimania-l/ attachments/20180531/42687ccd/ attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:58:35 +0700
From: cs <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I  have attended several  Wikimanias.
I  would have thought  that  with  the Wikipedias being voluntary contributed and managed projects, that  the conference shoud have a sharp focus on  attendance and presentations by  the communities.
However, this is not  the case. Presentation  time is, IMO, excessively  allocated to  various  speakers from the salaried staff.
This has been brought  up  on several  occasions.
In some instances, some presentations have had almost  duplicate  content.
Many  Foundations take on  a promotional aspect  of the WMF’s work.
The credit  for  the entire movement  should go  to  the community volunteers.

Kudpung

> On 01, Jun2018, at 08:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system is a perennial point of friction.
>
> Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF strategic plan and with SMART goals.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine> )
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ <http://enwp.org/User:HJ>
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikimania-l/ attachments/20180601/da922580/ attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

______________________________ _________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


------------------------------

End of Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1
****************************** *************

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

Ellie Young
I'd like to clarify this a bit more:  

The Scholarship committee reviews and scores the applications that make it into Phase 2.  The WMF staff uses these
scores to distribute the scholarships evenly among the groups.  These scores are NOT "mere recommendations".  Also, if any person who gets their paper accepted to the program and cannot attend because they did not receive a scholarship, the program committee can recommend that we offer them support  via the Wikimania budget.

Ellie Young
WMF Event Manager


On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:12 PM, cs <[hidden email]> wrote:
I am surprised to  learn that  the jury’s selection is a mere recommendation to  the WMF.  I  was not  aware of that.
I’m  not  sure that  the program teams are ideally  constituted. The choice of presentations and/or allocations of time slots for  various  activities has often left  me baffled.

Kudpung


On 05, Jun2018, at 22:19, DerHexer <[hidden email]> wrote:

That's true: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Wikimania_scholars/Reviewer%27s_guide#Score_adjustment_for_previous_scholars (that this is not the perfect system is well known to everyone in the committee which, as Mardetanha said, changes every year—it's still very hard to implement a process which does not favor these who are used to write good applications if we don't draw lots).

We had to start the scholarship processes at some point due to visa regulations, unfortunately before the program team could finish their process. For that reason, the scholarship committee proposed to save some money for people who could not hold their presentations without a scholarship. But in the end, it's the WMF who thankfully manages all the outcomes and the jury only evalutes the applications at some point.

Best,
Martin/DerHexer



Von: Sjoerd de Bruin <[hidden email]>
An: Wikimania general list (open subscription) <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: 17:15 Freitag, 1.Juni 2018
Betreff: Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

I think that is already included in scholarship applications, if I remember correctly.

Greetings,

Sjoerd de Bruin

Op 1 jun. 2018, om 17:06 heeft Julie Workman <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Is there at present any metric by which previous scholarship attendees are judged on their dissemination of Wikimania experiences after the conference? The complaint being brought up is not only about awardees getting repeat scholarships, but failing to enrich their communities afterwards with what they learned / what it was like / who they met / what they will do now. With a limited number of scholarships available, it is true that the attendees are expected to share their good fortune with those who couldn't attend.

If nothing like that is in place, could it not be added? For example, a field on the application: "were you awarded a scholarship last year (and attended)?" "If yes, please describe (and provide links where possible) to the activities and discussions you organised with your community regarding your experience at Wikimania". If a sufficiently good and detailed response is not provided, the application can receive a lower score (or possibly be discarded...? I'm not au fait with the process).

Julia W

On 1 June 2018 at 13:00, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send Wikimania-l mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimania-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (Pine W)
   2. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (cs)


------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:31:08 -0700
From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID:
        <CAF= dyJinVGV5eM7vBi7SFDLcqyLP4yakD a=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter
the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF
presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a
one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and
have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens
with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of
financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system
is a perennial point of friction.

Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review
of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With
WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers
spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would
make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to
synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring
that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time
that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship
system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for
scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't
envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that
some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF
strategic plan and with SMART goals.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine )

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the
> other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on
> scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board
> members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old
> faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikimania-l/ attachments/20180531/42687ccd/ attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:58:35 +0700
From: cs <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I  have attended several  Wikimanias.
I  would have thought  that  with  the Wikipedias being voluntary contributed and managed projects, that  the conference shoud have a sharp focus on  attendance and presentations by  the communities.
However, this is not  the case. Presentation  time is, IMO, excessively  allocated to  various  speakers from the salaried staff.
This has been brought  up  on several  occasions.
In some instances, some presentations have had almost  duplicate  content.
Many  Foundations take on  a promotional aspect  of the WMF’s work.
The credit  for  the entire movement  should go  to  the community volunteers.

Kudpung

> On 01, Jun2018, at 08:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system is a perennial point of friction.
>
> Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF strategic plan and with SMART goals.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine> )
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ <http://enwp.org/User:HJ>
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikimania-l/ attachments/20180601/da922580/ attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

______________________________ _________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


------------------------------

End of Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1
****************************** *************

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l




--
Ellie Young
Events Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
c. 510 701 8649

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
cs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

cs
So  in other word’s, The WMF  ‘does’ have the final  say  in  who  is awarded a scholarship. I was   not  aware that  this is the case. Thank  you  Ellie , for  the clarification.
I do believe the program selection  should be begun  earlier and that  there should be some active collaboration between the scholarships approvals systems(s) and those who do  the  program selections.

Kudpung

On 07, Jun2018, at 00:59, Ellie Young <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'd like to clarify this a bit more:  

The Scholarship committee reviews and scores the applications that make it into Phase 2.  The WMF staff uses these
scores to distribute the scholarships evenly among the groups.  These scores are NOT "mere recommendations".  Also, if any person who gets their paper accepted to the program and cannot attend because they did not receive a scholarship, the program committee can recommend that we offer them support  via the Wikimania budget.

Ellie Young
WMF Event Manager


On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:12 PM, cs <[hidden email]> wrote:
I am surprised to  learn that  the jury’s selection is a mere recommendation to  the WMF.  I  was not  aware of that.
I’m  not  sure that  the program teams are ideally  constituted. The choice of presentations and/or allocations of time slots for  various  activities has often left  me baffled.

Kudpung


On 05, Jun2018, at 22:19, DerHexer <[hidden email]> wrote:

That's true: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Wikimania_scholars/Reviewer%27s_guide#Score_adjustment_for_previous_scholars (that this is not the perfect system is well known to everyone in the committee which, as Mardetanha said, changes every year—it's still very hard to implement a process which does not favor these who are used to write good applications if we don't draw lots).

We had to start the scholarship processes at some point due to visa regulations, unfortunately before the program team could finish their process. For that reason, the scholarship committee proposed to save some money for people who could not hold their presentations without a scholarship. But in the end, it's the WMF who thankfully manages all the outcomes and the jury only evalutes the applications at some point.

Best,
Martin/DerHexer



Von: Sjoerd de Bruin <[hidden email]>
An: Wikimania general list (open subscription) <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: 17:15 Freitag, 1.Juni 2018
Betreff: Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

I think that is already included in scholarship applications, if I remember correctly.

Greetings,

Sjoerd de Bruin

Op 1 jun. 2018, om 17:06 heeft Julie Workman <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Is there at present any metric by which previous scholarship attendees are judged on their dissemination of Wikimania experiences after the conference? The complaint being brought up is not only about awardees getting repeat scholarships, but failing to enrich their communities afterwards with what they learned / what it was like / who they met / what they will do now. With a limited number of scholarships available, it is true that the attendees are expected to share their good fortune with those who couldn't attend.

If nothing like that is in place, could it not be added? For example, a field on the application: "were you awarded a scholarship last year (and attended)?" "If yes, please describe (and provide links where possible) to the activities and discussions you organised with your community regarding your experience at Wikimania". If a sufficiently good and detailed response is not provided, the application can receive a lower score (or possibly be discarded...? I'm not au fait with the process).

Julia W

On 1 June 2018 at 13:00, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send Wikimania-l mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimania-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (Pine W)
   2. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (cs)


------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:31:08 -0700
From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID:
        <CAF= dyJinVGV5eM7vBi7SFDLcqyLP4yakD a=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter
the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF
presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a
one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and
have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens
with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of
financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system
is a perennial point of friction.

Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review
of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With
WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers
spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would
make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to
synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring
that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time
that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship
system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for
scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't
envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that
some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF
strategic plan and with SMART goals.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine )

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the
> other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on
> scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board
> members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old
> faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikimania-l/ attachments/20180531/42687ccd/ attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:58:35 +0700
From: cs <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I  have attended several  Wikimanias.
I  would have thought  that  with  the Wikipedias being voluntary contributed and managed projects, that  the conference shoud have a sharp focus on  attendance and presentations by  the communities.
However, this is not  the case. Presentation  time is, IMO, excessively  allocated to  various  speakers from the salaried staff.
This has been brought  up  on several  occasions.
In some instances, some presentations have had almost  duplicate  content.
Many  Foundations take on  a promotional aspect  of the WMF’s work.
The credit  for  the entire movement  should go  to  the community volunteers.

Kudpung

> On 01, Jun2018, at 08:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system is a perennial point of friction.
>
> Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF strategic plan and with SMART goals.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine> )
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ <http://enwp.org/User:HJ>
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikimania-l/ attachments/20180601/da922580/ attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

______________________________ _________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


------------------------------

End of Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1
****************************** *************

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l




--
Ellie Young
Events Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
c. 510 701 8649
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

Lodewijk
Hi Kudpung,

(without being intimitely familiar with this particular year, the underneath is based on my experience and conversations from previous years)
I would almost say: of course. As the disburser, the WMF will at the very least have to check that the recipient is not on some terrorism watchlist or otherwise unable to receive the money, on a blacklist of the Trust and Safety, etc. As such, they need some flexibility to overrule the committee. 

I agree it would be /nice/ for the scholarship process to have earlier program decisions. However, the other side is that for the program, it would be nice to have as late as possible submissions, because that improved the likelihood that the sessions are still relevant by the time the conference is there. When there are project related sessions, that there is actually a clear overview of what to present. 

As with many decisions, the timeline of Wikimania is a fragile one with many timelines that need to be coordinated. It will never be perfect - because every time you improve something on the right, something on the left will suffer. 

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:43 PM, cs <[hidden email]> wrote:
So  in other word’s, The WMF  ‘does’ have the final  say  in  who  is awarded a scholarship. I was   not  aware that  this is the case. Thank  you  Ellie , for  the clarification.
I do believe the program selection  should be begun  earlier and that  there should be some active collaboration between the scholarships approvals systems(s) and those who do  the  program selections.

Kudpung

On 07, Jun2018, at 00:59, Ellie Young <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'd like to clarify this a bit more:  

The Scholarship committee reviews and scores the applications that make it into Phase 2.  The WMF staff uses these
scores to distribute the scholarships evenly among the groups.  These scores are NOT "mere recommendations".  Also, if any person who gets their paper accepted to the program and cannot attend because they did not receive a scholarship, the program committee can recommend that we offer them support  via the Wikimania budget.

Ellie Young
WMF Event Manager


On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:12 PM, cs <[hidden email]> wrote:
I am surprised to  learn that  the jury’s selection is a mere recommendation to  the WMF.  I  was not  aware of that.
I’m  not  sure that  the program teams are ideally  constituted. The choice of presentations and/or allocations of time slots for  various  activities has often left  me baffled.

Kudpung


On 05, Jun2018, at 22:19, DerHexer <[hidden email]> wrote:

That's true: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Wikimania_scholars/Reviewer%27s_guide#Score_adjustment_for_previous_scholars (that this is not the perfect system is well known to everyone in the committee which, as Mardetanha said, changes every year—it's still very hard to implement a process which does not favor these who are used to write good applications if we don't draw lots).

We had to start the scholarship processes at some point due to visa regulations, unfortunately before the program team could finish their process. For that reason, the scholarship committee proposed to save some money for people who could not hold their presentations without a scholarship. But in the end, it's the WMF who thankfully manages all the outcomes and the jury only evalutes the applications at some point.

Best,
Martin/DerHexer



Von: Sjoerd de Bruin <[hidden email]>
An: Wikimania general list (open subscription) <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: 17:15 Freitag, 1.Juni 2018
Betreff: Re: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

I think that is already included in scholarship applications, if I remember correctly.

Greetings,

Sjoerd de Bruin

Op 1 jun. 2018, om 17:06 heeft Julie Workman <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Is there at present any metric by which previous scholarship attendees are judged on their dissemination of Wikimania experiences after the conference? The complaint being brought up is not only about awardees getting repeat scholarships, but failing to enrich their communities afterwards with what they learned / what it was like / who they met / what they will do now. With a limited number of scholarships available, it is true that the attendees are expected to share their good fortune with those who couldn't attend.

If nothing like that is in place, could it not be added? For example, a field on the application: "were you awarded a scholarship last year (and attended)?" "If yes, please describe (and provide links where possible) to the activities and discussions you organised with your community regarding your experience at Wikimania". If a sufficiently good and detailed response is not provided, the application can receive a lower score (or possibly be discarded...? I'm not au fait with the process).

Julia W

On 1 June 2018 at 13:00, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send Wikimania-l mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimania-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (Pine W)
   2. Re: Update on Wikimania '18 (cs)


------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:31:08 -0700
From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID:
        <CAF= dyJinVGV5eM7vBi7SFDLcqyLP4yakD a=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter
the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF
presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a
one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and
have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens
with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of
financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system
is a perennial point of friction.

Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review
of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With
WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers
spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would
make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to
synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring
that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time
that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship
system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for
scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't
envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that
some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF
strategic plan and with SMART goals.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine )

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the
> other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on
> scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board
> members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old
> faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikimania-l/ attachments/20180531/42687ccd/ attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 08:58:35 +0700
From: cs <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)"
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Update on Wikimania '18
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I  have attended several  Wikimanias.
I  would have thought  that  with  the Wikipedias being voluntary contributed and managed projects, that  the conference shoud have a sharp focus on  attendance and presentations by  the communities.
However, this is not  the case. Presentation  time is, IMO, excessively  allocated to  various  speakers from the salaried staff.
This has been brought  up  on several  occasions.
In some instances, some presentations have had almost  duplicate  content.
Many  Foundations take on  a promotional aspect  of the WMF’s work.
The credit  for  the entire movement  should go  to  the community volunteers.

Kudpung

> On 01, Jun2018, at 08:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Harry, I recall hearing that there was a push a year or two back to alter the proportion of presentations at Wikimania so that there were fewer WMF presentations and more community presentations. I don't know if that was a one time event or if that's ongoing. I have never been to Wikimania, and have no plans to go in the foreseeable future, but I watch what happens with Wikimania partly because it's an expensive operation in terms of financial cost and in terms of volunteer time. Also, the scholarship system is a perennial point of friction.
>
> Dariusz or Ellie, are there any thoughts at WMF about doing a full review of the scholarship system and the value of Wikimania to the community? With WMF spending so much money on Wikimania year after year, and volunteers spending so much time on Wikimania year after year, I think that it would make sense to do this type of review, which might be possible to synchronize with WMF's strategy process. I am very interested in ensuring that there are SMART goals being achieved with all of the money and time that goes into Wikimania. At the same time, I think that the scholarship system could be reviewed to consider the strategic priorities for scholarships and how to align those priorities to SMART goals. I don't envision reducing funding for Wikimania and scholarships, but I think that some re-thinking and evaluation would be good to align funding with the WMF strategic plan and with SMART goals.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/User:Pine> )
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Harry Mitchell <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> Since you raise chapter scholarships, it would be nice to see some of the other big chapters (and to some extent the WMF) spending more on scholarships for rank-and-file Wikimedians rather than staff and board members. That might help with the perception that Wikimania is the same old faces year in, year out.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ <http://enwp.org/User:HJ>
> +44 (0) 7507 536 971
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/ pipermail/wikimania-l/ attachments/20180601/da922580/ attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

______________________________ _________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


------------------------------

End of Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1
****************************** *************

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l




--
Ellie Young
Events Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
c. 510 701 8649
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l



_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Chris Keating-2
Chris Keating, 05/06/2018 18:53:
> Thinking about it, drawing lots might not be the silliest idea in the universe.

Sure. It's used in several kinds of official selections and there's
ample research on the effects. That said, it's rarely popular, because
it's often perceived as a failure or last resort.

Federico

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

Chris Keating-2
I think in our case the advantages would be

a) it saves a lot of volunteer time because applications would need
much less assessment
b) it protects the system from the perpetual accusation that "there
are some people who always get scholarships"
c) it also removes "skill in writing applications" as a factor in
deciding who gets a scholarship

The drawback would be
d) arguably it might reduce the impact of the event, if quality of
application is in fact linked to the impact from a particular person
attending the conference

It's worth noting that the other big movement event, the Wikimedia
Conference, does not award scholarships based on applications, or
merit - the WMF just funds whoever various chapters and user groups
want to attend (which is more often a case of who's the first to put
up their hand, or the last to run out of the room, than any kind of
rigorous process)

Not saying that a lottery would necessarily be the right answer but
the more I think about it the more I think "well, what IS the case for
application-based scholarships, and do they really achieve the goals
for the event?"

Chris

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Chris Keating, 05/06/2018 18:53:
>>
>> Thinking about it, drawing lots might not be the silliest idea in the
>> universe.
>
>
> Sure. It's used in several kinds of official selections and there's ample
> research on the effects. That said, it's rarely popular, because it's often
> perceived as a failure or last resort.
>
> Federico

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikimania-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 1

Pine W
In reply to this post by Julie Workman
I suggest that a public dialogue about the strategic goals of Wikimania, the strategic goals of Wikimania scholarships, and how to achieve those goals in cost-effective ways, would be good to have. Perhaps WMF Learning and Evaluation, in partnership with WMF Community Resources, could facilitate this dialogue in WMF Annual Plan year 2019-2020. Preparation work could be done in 2018-2019 as time allows.


_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l