Quantcast

WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Ellie Young
Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.



--
Ellie Young
Events Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
​ 


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

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Dr Pavanaja

Hello,

 

I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

 

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

 

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

 

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.

 

 

 

--

Ellie Young

Events Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

​ 

 


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

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Risker
I would like the Wikimedia Foundation NOT to do that.  Our user privacy is to be respected.  People who applied for scholarships had every reason to expect that the WMF would not publish their names if they were not awarded one, for example. Nobody who applies is guaranteed a WMF scholarship; however, several other organizations actively provide scholarships to community members who did not receive a WMF scholarship.  Transparency does not require putting users into embarrassing or awkward situations, and many users who applied for scholarships may not have done so if they were told that the names and details of their application would be published.   The scholarship committee is made up largely of volunteers, and they don't deserve the inevitable brickbats that would be thrown their way if particularly vocal members of the community disagreed with their decisions. And it's a given that just about every member of the community will disagree with one or more decision made by the committee.  So no, please don't publish any details of any application, or how any individual candidate was assessed.  That's not transparency. 

Risker/Anne

On 18 April 2017 at 22:51, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

 

I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

 

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

 

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

 

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.

 

 

 

--

Ellie Young

Events Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

​ 

 


_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Pine W
Risker: it seems to me that there are two two different issues.

First, fear of criticism or controversy are not justifications for withholding information.

That said, I tend to agree you about the privacy issue for applicants. Any information releases should be compliant with what applicants were told at the time that they applied, and perhaps in future years there can be more specific considerations of what kinds of information should be released. Perhaps not much information will be released this year if users weren't told that the fact that they applied would be published (and my guess is that they weren't), but perhaps in future years this can be done along with other information that is not particularly sensitive, e.g. public contribution histories and public roles such as board or committee memberships.

(Note: I have not applied for a Wikimania scholarship and I don't plan to do so in the foreseeable future.)

Pine


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

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Gnangarra
In reply to this post by Dr Pavanaja
Contributions is such wide term are you talking about edits in projects or work on the ground in assisting others, what about the unseen work like supporting an affiliate to be successful or a GLAM to open up its resources

When talking about edits is a photo uploaded to commons worth more because its used in multiple projects than some one who starts an article in one language, does an english wp edit have a greater weigh over a french wp edit because it has more potential viewers or does a noongar wp edit in the incubator which is opening access to a whole new culture and language to the movement have greater value.

Issue around the fair  balance across communities of access to Wikimania is also a question does a country with well financed chapter have less to contribute compared to a country closer but limited finanaces, does a counrty where it'll cost 5-10,000 US$ for each attendee deserve greater numbers supported because its not possible for people to attend over a country that the cost is less than US$1000, would 10 people attending be better than 1 person attending.

Does a country with 20 million people deserve to 1/10th the amount of attendees of a country with 200million people. Every one contributes in the way they feel most comfortable and safe. For some time is unlimited for others time contributing is a constant risk there is no way we as community can openly value these, the committee does the best it can with the knowledge presented to them by the candidates....   Whether we agree with the decisions of the committee or not the individuals should not be subject to the vitriol that the community can and does hand out regularly nor should they be put at excessive risk for what they have done. 

A list of everyone who accepts a scholarship enables transparency in ensuring reporting from those people, but even that can carry a risk for them. Putting contributions how ever its defined increases the risk of harm both from within the community and from outside, doing harm to satisfy curiosity isnt acceptable

 

On 19 April 2017 at 10:51, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

 

I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

 

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

 

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

 

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.

 

 

 

--

Ellie Young

Events Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

​ 

 


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




--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


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

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Pine W
I agree that the committee is likely to consider many nonpublic factors in making their decisions.

> "Whether we agree with the decisions of the committee or not the individuals should not be subject to the vitriol that the community can and does hand out regularly nor should they be put at
> excessive risk for what they have done."

I don't think that publishing a list of the committee's decisions is a high-risk decision. Grants committees publish their decisions, and I don't see why there should be a different standard for the Wikimania scholarship committee.

> "Putting contributions how ever its defined increases the risk of harm both from within the community and from outside, doing harm to satisfy curiosity isnt acceptable"

Transparency is one of Wikimedia's values, and people who make decisions about Wikimedia resources should generally be transparent with those decisions. The nature and degree of that transparency have some variations, but I expect the default to be transparency rather than hiding information, particularly when the primary justification for hiding information is because it might be controversial or receive criticism. The default position should be transparency.

Pine


On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:
Contributions is such wide term are you talking about edits in projects or work on the ground in assisting others, what about the unseen work like supporting an affiliate to be successful or a GLAM to open up its resources

When talking about edits is a photo uploaded to commons worth more because its used in multiple projects than some one who starts an article in one language, does an english wp edit have a greater weigh over a french wp edit because it has more potential viewers or does a noongar wp edit in the incubator which is opening access to a whole new culture and language to the movement have greater value.

Issue around the fair  balance across communities of access to Wikimania is also a question does a country with well financed chapter have less to contribute compared to a country closer but limited finanaces, does a counrty where it'll cost 5-10,000 US$ for each attendee deserve greater numbers supported because its not possible for people to attend over a country that the cost is less than US$1000, would 10 people attending be better than 1 person attending.

Does a country with 20 million people deserve to 1/10th the amount of attendees of a country with 200million people. Every one contributes in the way they feel most comfortable and safe. For some time is unlimited for others time contributing is a constant risk there is no way we as community can openly value these, the committee does the best it can with the knowledge presented to them by the candidates....   Whether we agree with the decisions of the committee or not the individuals should not be subject to the vitriol that the community can and does hand out regularly nor should they be put at excessive risk for what they have done. 

A list of everyone who accepts a scholarship enables transparency in ensuring reporting from those people, but even that can carry a risk for them. Putting contributions how ever its defined increases the risk of harm both from within the community and from outside, doing harm to satisfy curiosity isnt acceptable

 

On 19 April 2017 at 10:51, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

 

I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

 

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

 

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

 

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.

 

 

 

--

Ellie Young

Events Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

​ 

 


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




--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Dr Pavanaja
In reply to this post by Gnangarra

Wikimedia contributions are public numbers. If username is known, all contributions can be found out. What is secrecy in that? Only thing not disclosed is how the evaluations are done. This should be made public, since the entire movement is run by public funding.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gnangarra
Sent: 19 April 2017 09:12 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Contributions is such wide term are you talking about edits in projects or work on the ground in assisting others, what about the unseen work like supporting an affiliate to be successful or a GLAM to open up its resources

 

When talking about edits is a photo uploaded to commons worth more because its used in multiple projects than some one who starts an article in one language, does an english wp edit have a greater weigh over a french wp edit because it has more potential viewers or does a noongar wp edit in the incubator which is opening access to a whole new culture and language to the movement have greater value.

 

Issue around the fair  balance across communities of access to Wikimania is also a question does a country with well financed chapter have less to contribute compared to a country closer but limited finanaces, does a counrty where it'll cost 5-10,000 US$ for each attendee deserve greater numbers supported because its not possible for people to attend over a country that the cost is less than US$1000, would 10 people attending be better than 1 person attending.

 

Does a country with 20 million people deserve to 1/10th the amount of attendees of a country with 200million people. Every one contributes in the way they feel most comfortable and safe. For some time is unlimited for others time contributing is a constant risk there is no way we as community can openly value these, the committee does the best it can with the knowledge presented to them by the candidates....   Whether we agree with the decisions of the committee or not the individuals should not be subject to the vitriol that the community can and does hand out regularly nor should they be put at excessive risk for what they have done. 

 

A list of everyone who accepts a scholarship enables transparency in ensuring reporting from those people, but even that can carry a risk for them. Putting contributions how ever its defined increases the risk of harm both from within the community and from outside, doing harm to satisfy curiosity isnt acceptable

 

 

 

On 19 April 2017 at 10:51, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

 

I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

 

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

 

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

 

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.

 

 

 

--

Ellie Young

Events Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

​ 

 


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



 

--

GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


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

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Nawaraj Ghimire
I thing result may be public its make know about other non selected applicant also 
thanks
Nawaraj Ghimire

With Best Regards


Nawaraj Ghimire



WI EDUCATION PVT. LTD.

House No. 370/10, Newplaza Marga,
Putalisadak 31, Kathmandu, Nepal
(Opposite of Kumari Bank)
GPO Box.23785

Landline: +977-1-4434282 (10:00 AM to 06:00 PM  KST)
Mobile: +977-9808301613 (Nawaraj Ghimire, Int'l Relation Officer)

e-Mail: [hidden email]
Website: www.wieducation.edu.np
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Wikimedia contributions are public numbers. If username is known, all contributions can be found out. What is secrecy in that? Only thing not disclosed is how the evaluations are done. This should be made public, since the entire movement is run by public funding.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gnangarra
Sent: 19 April 2017 09:12 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Contributions is such wide term are you talking about edits in projects or work on the ground in assisting others, what about the unseen work like supporting an affiliate to be successful or a GLAM to open up its resources

 

When talking about edits is a photo uploaded to commons worth more because its used in multiple projects than some one who starts an article in one language, does an english wp edit have a greater weigh over a french wp edit because it has more potential viewers or does a noongar wp edit in the incubator which is opening access to a whole new culture and language to the movement have greater value.

 

Issue around the fair  balance across communities of access to Wikimania is also a question does a country with well financed chapter have less to contribute compared to a country closer but limited finanaces, does a counrty where it'll cost 5-10,000 US$ for each attendee deserve greater numbers supported because its not possible for people to attend over a country that the cost is less than US$1000, would 10 people attending be better than 1 person attending.

 

Does a country with 20 million people deserve to 1/10th the amount of attendees of a country with 200million people. Every one contributes in the way they feel most comfortable and safe. For some time is unlimited for others time contributing is a constant risk there is no way we as community can openly value these, the committee does the best it can with the knowledge presented to them by the candidates....   Whether we agree with the decisions of the committee or not the individuals should not be subject to the vitriol that the community can and does hand out regularly nor should they be put at excessive risk for what they have done. 

 

A list of everyone who accepts a scholarship enables transparency in ensuring reporting from those people, but even that can carry a risk for them. Putting contributions how ever its defined increases the risk of harm both from within the community and from outside, doing harm to satisfy curiosity isnt acceptable

 

 

 

On 19 April 2017 at 10:51, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

 

I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

 

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

 

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

 

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.

 

 

 

--

Ellie Young

Events Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

​ 

 


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



 

--

GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Risker
In reply to this post by Pine W
Pine, have you noticed how we're seeing fewer and fewer well-qualified community members actively seeking out the responsibility of various committee roles?  (I'll point out that this is particularly noticeable amongst women within the community.)  It's because they are being bombarded, more and more, by unreasonable levels of criticism.  I can say this with a fair bit of authority because I've been involved inhigh-profile committees, task forces, steering groups and responsible roles for 8 years, and the level of criticism has definitely affected where I'm willing to invest my volunteer efforts.  I turn down 10 attempts to recruit me for various tasks for every one I accept, and I'm not alone.

The Wikimania Scholarship Committee does work that will never satisfy everyone, and all of their decisions will be found wanting by some segment of the community.  It is a very difficult job - there are so many factors to weigh that, even though there are some basic minimal levels of activity expected, deciding between a candidate with a few thousand edits who is one of the most proliferate editors of a small wiki (e.g., the editor mainly translates high-value articles and posts them in a single edit) against one who specializes in high quality images (but only uploads 50 a year) against one who averages 15,000 edits but mainly works in anti-vandalism, against one who has few on-wiki contributions but has trained and educated dozens of very productive editors....well, you see the challenge.  These are all valuable contributors - but their contribution to the movement is very different, and those who value some of those contributions over others will find personal justification in complaining about the decisions the committee makes. 

There may be some reasonable arguments about providing some aggregate information such as the number of applicants from different regions and the percentage that were successful....but again, there are other routes to Wikimania including scholarships from large chapters, which often sponsor community members from other regions, and often select recipients from the pool of WMF-sponsored scholarship applicants. 

Of course, there is an easier way to affect the outcome of these discussions.  Sign up in late 2017/early 2018 to become a member of the scholarship committee. 

Risker/Anne



On 18 April 2017 at 23:32, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
Risker: it seems to me that there are two two different issues.

First, fear of criticism or controversy are not justifications for withholding information.

That said, I tend to agree you about the privacy issue for applicants. Any information releases should be compliant with what applicants were told at the time that they applied, and perhaps in future years there can be more specific considerations of what kinds of information should be released. Perhaps not much information will be released this year if users weren't told that the fact that they applied would be published (and my guess is that they weren't), but perhaps in future years this can be done along with other information that is not particularly sensitive, e.g. public contribution histories and public roles such as board or committee memberships.

(Note: I have not applied for a Wikimania scholarship and I don't plan to do so in the foreseeable future.)

Pine


_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Risker
In reply to this post by Dr Pavanaja
Pavajana, it's the user names that are confidential in this case.  Nothing stops unsuccessful candidates from publishing their own names, if they wish. How many do you think will do that? 

Risker/Anne

On 18 April 2017 at 23:56, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Wikimedia contributions are public numbers. If username is known, all contributions can be found out. What is secrecy in that? Only thing not disclosed is how the evaluations are done. This should be made public, since the entire movement is run by public funding.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gnangarra
Sent: 19 April 2017 09:12 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Contributions is such wide term are you talking about edits in projects or work on the ground in assisting others, what about the unseen work like supporting an affiliate to be successful or a GLAM to open up its resources

 

When talking about edits is a photo uploaded to commons worth more because its used in multiple projects than some one who starts an article in one language, does an english wp edit have a greater weigh over a french wp edit because it has more potential viewers or does a noongar wp edit in the incubator which is opening access to a whole new culture and language to the movement have greater value.

 

Issue around the fair  balance across communities of access to Wikimania is also a question does a country with well financed chapter have less to contribute compared to a country closer but limited finanaces, does a counrty where it'll cost 5-10,000 US$ for each attendee deserve greater numbers supported because its not possible for people to attend over a country that the cost is less than US$1000, would 10 people attending be better than 1 person attending.

 

Does a country with 20 million people deserve to 1/10th the amount of attendees of a country with 200million people. Every one contributes in the way they feel most comfortable and safe. For some time is unlimited for others time contributing is a constant risk there is no way we as community can openly value these, the committee does the best it can with the knowledge presented to them by the candidates....   Whether we agree with the decisions of the committee or not the individuals should not be subject to the vitriol that the community can and does hand out regularly nor should they be put at excessive risk for what they have done. 

 

A list of everyone who accepts a scholarship enables transparency in ensuring reporting from those people, but even that can carry a risk for them. Putting contributions how ever its defined increases the risk of harm both from within the community and from outside, doing harm to satisfy curiosity isnt acceptable

 

 

 

On 19 April 2017 at 10:51, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

 

I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

 

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

 

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

 

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.

 

 

 

--

Ellie Young

Events Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

​ 

 


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



 

--

GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Adrian Raddatz
Agree with what Risker said above, that it's hard to get community members to volunteer for these committees. That's the easiest way to get involved if you don't think the process is going well.

Adrian Raddatz

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pavajana, it's the user names that are confidential in this case.  Nothing stops unsuccessful candidates from publishing their own names, if they wish. How many do you think will do that? 

Risker/Anne

On 18 April 2017 at 23:56, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Wikimedia contributions are public numbers. If username is known, all contributions can be found out. What is secrecy in that? Only thing not disclosed is how the evaluations are done. This should be made public, since the entire movement is run by public funding.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gnangarra
Sent: 19 April 2017 09:12 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Contributions is such wide term are you talking about edits in projects or work on the ground in assisting others, what about the unseen work like supporting an affiliate to be successful or a GLAM to open up its resources

 

When talking about edits is a photo uploaded to commons worth more because its used in multiple projects than some one who starts an article in one language, does an english wp edit have a greater weigh over a french wp edit because it has more potential viewers or does a noongar wp edit in the incubator which is opening access to a whole new culture and language to the movement have greater value.

 

Issue around the fair  balance across communities of access to Wikimania is also a question does a country with well financed chapter have less to contribute compared to a country closer but limited finanaces, does a counrty where it'll cost 5-10,000 US$ for each attendee deserve greater numbers supported because its not possible for people to attend over a country that the cost is less than US$1000, would 10 people attending be better than 1 person attending.

 

Does a country with 20 million people deserve to 1/10th the amount of attendees of a country with 200million people. Every one contributes in the way they feel most comfortable and safe. For some time is unlimited for others time contributing is a constant risk there is no way we as community can openly value these, the committee does the best it can with the knowledge presented to them by the candidates....   Whether we agree with the decisions of the committee or not the individuals should not be subject to the vitriol that the community can and does hand out regularly nor should they be put at excessive risk for what they have done. 

 

A list of everyone who accepts a scholarship enables transparency in ensuring reporting from those people, but even that can carry a risk for them. Putting contributions how ever its defined increases the risk of harm both from within the community and from outside, doing harm to satisfy curiosity isnt acceptable

 

 

 

On 19 April 2017 at 10:51, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

 

I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

 

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

 

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

 

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.

 

 

 

--

Ellie Young

Events Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

​ 

 


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



 

--

GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Subhashish Panigrahi
I too can't agree with Risker more on the privacy aspects. Also, it's important to respect those handful of community members that were part of the scholarship committee would have spent hours evaluating a few thousand applications, and the WMF staff who were part of it. If I can summarize what a former committee member shared on Facebook some time ago - a lot of deserving Wikimedians do not get a scholarship. But it's almost impossible for the committee to make everything right. Also many deserving applicants miss out communicating their contribution clearly which doesn't leave the committee to evaluate their applications with a full knowledge of those applicants' contribution. Being a great contributor is one thing, and being able to communicate one's contribution with context to someone less familiar with a contributor's home community is another thing. When this situation can be made better by creating learning patterns and other learning documents so that many contributors, especially those whose native language is not English can be benefited, it is NOT OK to share awarded/rejected application details. Wikimedians and many others that are trying to do the right thing by sharing knowledge are already in risk because of their public writing. It will be insane to put them in more risk. A former colleague and a fellow Wikimedian and I received legal threats once  from someone who was failing to retain a Wikipedia article, and it made me scared even though I was working in an organization full of lawyers.

Let's assume some good faith here, and better the  resources that would be useful for many applicants for the coming years.

Subhashish

On 19-Apr-2017, at 9:42 AM, Adrian Raddatz <[hidden email]> wrote:

Agree with what Risker said above, that it's hard to get community members to volunteer for these committees. That's the easiest way to get involved if you don't think the process is going well.

Adrian Raddatz

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pavajana, it's the user names that are confidential in this case.  Nothing stops unsuccessful candidates from publishing their own names, if they wish. How many do you think will do that? 

Risker/Anne

On 18 April 2017 at 23:56, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Wikimedia contributions are public numbers. If username is known, all contributions can be found out. What is secrecy in that? Only thing not disclosed is how the evaluations are done. This should be made public, since the entire movement is run by public funding.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gnangarra
Sent: 19 April 2017 09:12 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Contributions is such wide term are you talking about edits in projects or work on the ground in assisting others, what about the unseen work like supporting an affiliate to be successful or a GLAM to open up its resources

 

When talking about edits is a photo uploaded to commons worth more because its used in multiple projects than some one who starts an article in one language, does an english wp edit have a greater weigh over a french wp edit because it has more potential viewers or does a noongar wp edit in the incubator which is opening access to a whole new culture and language to the movement have greater value.

 

Issue around the fair  balance across communities of access to Wikimania is also a question does a country with well financed chapter have less to contribute compared to a country closer but limited finanaces, does a counrty where it'll cost 5-10,000 US$ for each attendee deserve greater numbers supported because its not possible for people to attend over a country that the cost is less than US$1000, would 10 people attending be better than 1 person attending.

 

Does a country with 20 million people deserve to 1/10th the amount of attendees of a country with 200million people. Every one contributes in the way they feel most comfortable and safe. For some time is unlimited for others time contributing is a constant risk there is no way we as community can openly value these, the committee does the best it can with the knowledge presented to them by the candidates....   Whether we agree with the decisions of the committee or not the individuals should not be subject to the vitriol that the community can and does hand out regularly nor should they be put at excessive risk for what they have done. 

 

A list of everyone who accepts a scholarship enables transparency in ensuring reporting from those people, but even that can carry a risk for them. Putting contributions how ever its defined increases the risk of harm both from within the community and from outside, doing harm to satisfy curiosity isnt acceptable

 

 

 

On 19 April 2017 at 10:51, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

 

I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

 

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

 

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

 

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.

 

 

 

--

Ellie Young

Events Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

​ 

 


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



 

--

GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Dr Pavanaja
In reply to this post by Pine W

<QUOTE>

I don't think that publishing a list of the committee's decisions is a high-risk decision. Grants committees publish their decisions, and I don't see why there should be a different standard for the Wikimania scholarship committee.

</QUOTE>

 

I fully agree.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pine W
Sent: 19 April 2017 09:24 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

I agree that the committee is likely to consider many nonpublic factors in making their decisions.


> "Whether we agree with the decisions of the committee or not the individuals should not be subject to the vitriol that the community can and does hand out regularly nor should they be put at
> excessive risk for what they have done."

I don't think that publishing a list of the committee's decisions is a high-risk decision. Grants committees publish their decisions, and I don't see why there should be a different standard for the Wikimania scholarship committee.

> "Putting contributions how ever its defined increases the risk of harm both from within the community and from outside, doing harm to satisfy curiosity isnt acceptable"

Transparency is one of Wikimedia's values, and people who make decisions about Wikimedia resources should generally be transparent with those decisions. The nature and degree of that transparency have some variations, but I expect the default to be transparency rather than hiding information, particularly when the primary justification for hiding information is because it might be controversial or receive criticism. The default position should be transparency.


Pine

 

 

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:

Contributions is such wide term are you talking about edits in projects or work on the ground in assisting others, what about the unseen work like supporting an affiliate to be successful or a GLAM to open up its resources

 

When talking about edits is a photo uploaded to commons worth more because its used in multiple projects than some one who starts an article in one language, does an english wp edit have a greater weigh over a french wp edit because it has more potential viewers or does a noongar wp edit in the incubator which is opening access to a whole new culture and language to the movement have greater value.

 

Issue around the fair  balance across communities of access to Wikimania is also a question does a country with well financed chapter have less to contribute compared to a country closer but limited finanaces, does a counrty where it'll cost 5-10,000 US$ for each attendee deserve greater numbers supported because its not possible for people to attend over a country that the cost is less than US$1000, would 10 people attending be better than 1 person attending.

 

Does a country with 20 million people deserve to 1/10th the amount of attendees of a country with 200million people. Every one contributes in the way they feel most comfortable and safe. For some time is unlimited for others time contributing is a constant risk there is no way we as community can openly value these, the committee does the best it can with the knowledge presented to them by the candidates....   Whether we agree with the decisions of the committee or not the individuals should not be subject to the vitriol that the community can and does hand out regularly nor should they be put at excessive risk for what they have done. 

 

A list of everyone who accepts a scholarship enables transparency in ensuring reporting from those people, but even that can carry a risk for them. Putting contributions how ever its defined increases the risk of harm both from within the community and from outside, doing harm to satisfy curiosity isnt acceptable

 

 

 

On 19 April 2017 at 10:51, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

 

I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

 

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

 

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

 

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.

 

 

 

--

Ellie Young

Events Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

​ 

 

 

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



 

--

GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Risker
Grant applications are public.  There is public discussion of them, in addition to non-public deliberations. And grant review committees (including the Funds Dissemination Committee of which I am a member) make recommendations, not final decisions. 

Wikimania scholarship applications are confidential, and are required to include information considered private under the WMF privacy policy. The Scholarship Committee does not publish any private information about its applicants, and does not name the unsuccessful applicants, many of whom may still receive a scholarship from another movement entity.

Risker/Anne





On 19 April 2017 at 01:04, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

<QUOTE>

I don't think that publishing a list of the committee's decisions is a high-risk decision. Grants committees publish their decisions, and I don't see why there should be a different standard for the Wikimania scholarship committee.

</QUOTE>

 

I fully agree.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pine W
Sent: 19 April 2017 09:24 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

I agree that the committee is likely to consider many nonpublic factors in making their decisions.


> "Whether we agree with the decisions of the committee or not the individuals should not be subject to the vitriol that the community can and does hand out regularly nor should they be put at
> excessive risk for what they have done."

I don't think that publishing a list of the committee's decisions is a high-risk decision. Grants committees publish their decisions, and I don't see why there should be a different standard for the Wikimania scholarship committee.

> "Putting contributions how ever its defined increases the risk of harm both from within the community and from outside, doing harm to satisfy curiosity isnt acceptable"

Transparency is one of Wikimedia's values, and people who make decisions about Wikimedia resources should generally be transparent with those decisions. The nature and degree of that transparency have some variations, but I expect the default to be transparency rather than hiding information, particularly when the primary justification for hiding information is because it might be controversial or receive criticism. The default position should be transparency.


Pine

 

 

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:

Contributions is such wide term are you talking about edits in projects or work on the ground in assisting others, what about the unseen work like supporting an affiliate to be successful or a GLAM to open up its resources

 

When talking about edits is a photo uploaded to commons worth more because its used in multiple projects than some one who starts an article in one language, does an english wp edit have a greater weigh over a french wp edit because it has more potential viewers or does a noongar wp edit in the incubator which is opening access to a whole new culture and language to the movement have greater value.

 

Issue around the fair  balance across communities of access to Wikimania is also a question does a country with well financed chapter have less to contribute compared to a country closer but limited finanaces, does a counrty where it'll cost 5-10,000 US$ for each attendee deserve greater numbers supported because its not possible for people to attend over a country that the cost is less than US$1000, would 10 people attending be better than 1 person attending.

 

Does a country with 20 million people deserve to 1/10th the amount of attendees of a country with 200million people. Every one contributes in the way they feel most comfortable and safe. For some time is unlimited for others time contributing is a constant risk there is no way we as community can openly value these, the committee does the best it can with the knowledge presented to them by the candidates....   Whether we agree with the decisions of the committee or not the individuals should not be subject to the vitriol that the community can and does hand out regularly nor should they be put at excessive risk for what they have done. 

 

A list of everyone who accepts a scholarship enables transparency in ensuring reporting from those people, but even that can carry a risk for them. Putting contributions how ever its defined increases the risk of harm both from within the community and from outside, doing harm to satisfy curiosity isnt acceptable

 

 

 

On 19 April 2017 at 10:51, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

 

I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

 

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

 

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

 

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.

 

 

 

--

Ellie Young

Events Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

​ 

 

 

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



 

--

GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Dr Pavanaja
In reply to this post by Subhashish Panigrahi

Dear Subhashish,

 

According to you, making noise about your contributions is more important than actually doing the things. I have been saying this for quite some time – it is always the talkers who get noticed and get credited while doers keep doing silently. So one has to be more active in social media, writing  blogs, getting mentioned in English media, etc. Thanks for enlightening.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Subhashish Panigrahi
Sent: 19 April 2017 10:26 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

I too can't agree with Risker more on the privacy aspects. Also, it's important to respect those handful of community members that were part of the scholarship committee would have spent hours evaluating a few thousand applications, and the WMF staff who were part of it. If I can summarize what a former committee member shared on Facebook some time ago - a lot of deserving Wikimedians do not get a scholarship. But it's almost impossible for the committee to make everything right. Also many deserving applicants miss out communicating their contribution clearly which doesn't leave the committee to evaluate their applications with a full knowledge of those applicants' contribution. Being a great contributor is one thing, and being able to communicate one's contribution with context to someone less familiar with a contributor's home community is another thing. When this situation can be made better by creating learning patterns and other learning documents so that many contributors, especially those whose native language is not English can be benefited, it is NOT OK to share awarded/rejected application details. Wikimedians and many others that are trying to do the right thing by sharing knowledge are already in risk because of their public writing. It will be insane to put them in more risk. A former colleague and a fellow Wikimedian and I received legal threats once  from someone who was failing to retain a Wikipedia article, and it made me scared even though I was working in an organization full of lawyers.

 

Let's assume some good faith here, and better the  resources that would be useful for many applicants for the coming years.

Subhashish


On 19-Apr-2017, at 9:42 AM, Adrian Raddatz <[hidden email]> wrote:

Agree with what Risker said above, that it's hard to get community members to volunteer for these committees. That's the easiest way to get involved if you don't think the process is going well.


Adrian Raddatz

 

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

Pavajana, it's the user names that are confidential in this case.  Nothing stops unsuccessful candidates from publishing their own names, if they wish. How many do you think will do that? 

Risker/Anne

 

On 18 April 2017 at 23:56, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Wikimedia contributions are public numbers. If username is known, all contributions can be found out. What is secrecy in that? Only thing not disclosed is how the evaluations are done. This should be made public, since the entire movement is run by public funding.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gnangarra
Sent: 19 April 2017 09:12 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Contributions is such wide term are you talking about edits in projects or work on the ground in assisting others, what about the unseen work like supporting an affiliate to be successful or a GLAM to open up its resources

 

When talking about edits is a photo uploaded to commons worth more because its used in multiple projects than some one who starts an article in one language, does an english wp edit have a greater weigh over a french wp edit because it has more potential viewers or does a noongar wp edit in the incubator which is opening access to a whole new culture and language to the movement have greater value.

 

Issue around the fair  balance across communities of access to Wikimania is also a question does a country with well financed chapter have less to contribute compared to a country closer but limited finanaces, does a counrty where it'll cost 5-10,000 US$ for each attendee deserve greater numbers supported because its not possible for people to attend over a country that the cost is less than US$1000, would 10 people attending be better than 1 person attending.

 

Does a country with 20 million people deserve to 1/10th the amount of attendees of a country with 200million people. Every one contributes in the way they feel most comfortable and safe. For some time is unlimited for others time contributing is a constant risk there is no way we as community can openly value these, the committee does the best it can with the knowledge presented to them by the candidates....   Whether we agree with the decisions of the committee or not the individuals should not be subject to the vitriol that the community can and does hand out regularly nor should they be put at excessive risk for what they have done. 

 

A list of everyone who accepts a scholarship enables transparency in ensuring reporting from those people, but even that can carry a risk for them. Putting contributions how ever its defined increases the risk of harm both from within the community and from outside, doing harm to satisfy curiosity isnt acceptable

 

 

 

On 19 April 2017 at 10:51, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

 

I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

 

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

 

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

 

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.

 

 

 

--

Ellie Young

Events Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

​ 

 


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



 

--

GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Craig Franklin-2
In reply to this post by Risker
I just want to say I agree 100% with Risker here.  Obviously there are going to be a lot of people unhappy that they didn't get a scholarship, and to some extent the decision about who did and did not receive funding is a purely subjective one.  I'm not sure that releasing all this information would necessarily provide any benefit to the movement, as opposed to more fuel for drama and sniping that would help nobody.

Not to mention that it would be grossly unethical at this point to publish the details of applicants if they weren't made fully aware of how and what information would be published when they made their application.  I expect many excellent applicants would not apply in the future if we were to start posting information about people's personal situations and the like to satisfy some vague notion of "transparency".

Cheers,
Craig

On 19 April 2017 at 14:02, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
Pine, have you noticed how we're seeing fewer and fewer well-qualified community members actively seeking out the responsibility of various committee roles?  (I'll point out that this is particularly noticeable amongst women within the community.)  It's because they are being bombarded, more and more, by unreasonable levels of criticism.  I can say this with a fair bit of authority because I've been involved inhigh-profile committees, task forces, steering groups and responsible roles for 8 years, and the level of criticism has definitely affected where I'm willing to invest my volunteer efforts.  I turn down 10 attempts to recruit me for various tasks for every one I accept, and I'm not alone.

The Wikimania Scholarship Committee does work that will never satisfy everyone, and all of their decisions will be found wanting by some segment of the community.  It is a very difficult job - there are so many factors to weigh that, even though there are some basic minimal levels of activity expected, deciding between a candidate with a few thousand edits who is one of the most proliferate editors of a small wiki (e.g., the editor mainly translates high-value articles and posts them in a single edit) against one who specializes in high quality images (but only uploads 50 a year) against one who averages 15,000 edits but mainly works in anti-vandalism, against one who has few on-wiki contributions but has trained and educated dozens of very productive editors....well, you see the challenge.  These are all valuable contributors - but their contribution to the movement is very different, and those who value some of those contributions over others will find personal justification in complaining about the decisions the committee makes. 

There may be some reasonable arguments about providing some aggregate information such as the number of applicants from different regions and the percentage that were successful....but again, there are other routes to Wikimania including scholarships from large chapters, which often sponsor community members from other regions, and often select recipients from the pool of WMF-sponsored scholarship applicants. 

Of course, there is an easier way to affect the outcome of these discussions.  Sign up in late 2017/early 2018 to become a member of the scholarship committee. 

Risker/Anne



On 18 April 2017 at 23:32, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
Risker: it seems to me that there are two two different issues.

First, fear of criticism or controversy are not justifications for withholding information.

That said, I tend to agree you about the privacy issue for applicants. Any information releases should be compliant with what applicants were told at the time that they applied, and perhaps in future years there can be more specific considerations of what kinds of information should be released. Perhaps not much information will be released this year if users weren't told that the fact that they applied would be published (and my guess is that they weren't), but perhaps in future years this can be done along with other information that is not particularly sensitive, e.g. public contribution histories and public roles such as board or committee memberships.

(Note: I have not applied for a Wikimania scholarship and I don't plan to do so in the foreseeable future.)

Pine


_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Gnangarra
In reply to this post by Dr Pavanaja
This has already drawn a lot of opinions but it has yet to actually provide any substantive reasonings for how releasing details with links to individuals improve transparency.  

The process, reasonings, and results could be released without identifiers to enable a review of the  process at time later in the year to help people play with the modeling but putting private details in the public realm doesnt make the process more transparent nor improve it.  The greater personal detail the WMF publishes the less likely individuals are going to be able to participate, especially those in already minority and displaced segments of society. 

every contribution matters, ever contribution is valuable, and every contribution is different 

 

On 19 April 2017 at 13:15, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Subhashish,

 

According to you, making noise about your contributions is more important than actually doing the things. I have been saying this for quite some time – it is always the talkers who get noticed and get credited while doers keep doing silently. So one has to be more active in social media, writing  blogs, getting mentioned in English media, etc. Thanks for enlightening.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Subhashish Panigrahi
Sent: 19 April 2017 10:26 AM


To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

I too can't agree with Risker more on the privacy aspects. Also, it's important to respect those handful of community members that were part of the scholarship committee would have spent hours evaluating a few thousand applications, and the WMF staff who were part of it. If I can summarize what a former committee member shared on Facebook some time ago - a lot of deserving Wikimedians do not get a scholarship. But it's almost impossible for the committee to make everything right. Also many deserving applicants miss out communicating their contribution clearly which doesn't leave the committee to evaluate their applications with a full knowledge of those applicants' contribution. Being a great contributor is one thing, and being able to communicate one's contribution with context to someone less familiar with a contributor's home community is another thing. When this situation can be made better by creating learning patterns and other learning documents so that many contributors, especially those whose native language is not English can be benefited, it is NOT OK to share awarded/rejected application details. Wikimedians and many others that are trying to do the right thing by sharing knowledge are already in risk because of their public writing. It will be insane to put them in more risk. A former colleague and a fellow Wikimedian and I received legal threats once  from someone who was failing to retain a Wikipedia article, and it made me scared even though I was working in an organization full of lawyers.

 

Let's assume some good faith here, and better the  resources that would be useful for many applicants for the coming years.

Subhashish


On 19-Apr-2017, at 9:42 AM, Adrian Raddatz <[hidden email]> wrote:

Agree with what Risker said above, that it's hard to get community members to volunteer for these committees. That's the easiest way to get involved if you don't think the process is going well.


Adrian Raddatz

 

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

Pavajana, it's the user names that are confidential in this case.  Nothing stops unsuccessful candidates from publishing their own names, if they wish. How many do you think will do that? 

Risker/Anne

 

On 18 April 2017 at 23:56, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Wikimedia contributions are public numbers. If username is known, all contributions can be found out. What is secrecy in that? Only thing not disclosed is how the evaluations are done. This should be made public, since the entire movement is run by public funding.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gnangarra
Sent: 19 April 2017 09:12 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Contributions is such wide term are you talking about edits in projects or work on the ground in assisting others, what about the unseen work like supporting an affiliate to be successful or a GLAM to open up its resources

 

When talking about edits is a photo uploaded to commons worth more because its used in multiple projects than some one who starts an article in one language, does an english wp edit have a greater weigh over a french wp edit because it has more potential viewers or does a noongar wp edit in the incubator which is opening access to a whole new culture and language to the movement have greater value.

 

Issue around the fair  balance across communities of access to Wikimania is also a question does a country with well financed chapter have less to contribute compared to a country closer but limited finanaces, does a counrty where it'll cost 5-10,000 US$ for each attendee deserve greater numbers supported because its not possible for people to attend over a country that the cost is less than US$1000, would 10 people attending be better than 1 person attending.

 

Does a country with 20 million people deserve to 1/10th the amount of attendees of a country with 200million people. Every one contributes in the way they feel most comfortable and safe. For some time is unlimited for others time contributing is a constant risk there is no way we as community can openly value these, the committee does the best it can with the knowledge presented to them by the candidates....   Whether we agree with the decisions of the committee or not the individuals should not be subject to the vitriol that the community can and does hand out regularly nor should they be put at excessive risk for what they have done. 

 

A list of everyone who accepts a scholarship enables transparency in ensuring reporting from those people, but even that can carry a risk for them. Putting contributions how ever its defined increases the risk of harm both from within the community and from outside, doing harm to satisfy curiosity isnt acceptable

 

 

 

On 19 April 2017 at 10:51, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

 

I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

 

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

 

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

 

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.

 

 

 

--

Ellie Young

Events Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

​ 

 


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



 

--

GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
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




--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


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

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

WereSpielChequers-2
In reply to this post by Risker
Risker is right.

You can't publish such a table this year because it would break the promises made to applicants who were declined.

 You could start a discussion on meta, and make a proposal to publish such data for future Wikimanias. I'd hope you wouldn't get consensus, but if you did we could then monitor the effect on the 2018 Wikimania. If the requirement to publish details on unsuccessful applicants as well as successful ones was deterring a significant proportion of applicants, or deterring certain types of applicants such as applicants from particular countries, then I'd hope 2019 would revert to the obviously superior system of not publicly listing the people who applied for scholarships but were declined. I do appreciate that in the future historians studying Wikipedia would really appreciate this data, and I can see the point of putting it in a sealed archive and publishing after all concerned have probably died. I'm not sure I see the point in publishing it now, if people are concerned about fairness then get someone you trust to run for the scholarship committee.

Regards

WereSpielChequers


On 19 Apr 2017, at 04:14, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would like the Wikimedia Foundation NOT to do that.  Our user privacy is to be respected.  People who applied for scholarships had every reason to expect that the WMF would not publish their names if they were not awarded one, for example. Nobody who applies is guaranteed a WMF scholarship; however, several other organizations actively provide scholarships to community members who did not receive a WMF scholarship.  Transparency does not require putting users into embarrassing or awkward situations, and many users who applied for scholarships may not have done so if they were told that the names and details of their application would be published.   The scholarship committee is made up largely of volunteers, and they don't deserve the inevitable brickbats that would be thrown their way if particularly vocal members of the community disagreed with their decisions. And it's a given that just about every member of the community will disagree with one or more decision made by the committee.  So no, please don't publish any details of any application, or how any individual candidate was assessed.  That's not transparency. 

Risker/Anne

On 18 April 2017 at 22:51, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

 

I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.

 

Regards,

Pavanaja

 

 

From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

 

Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]

 

April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.

 

A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.

 

We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.

 

 

 

--

Ellie Young

Events Manager

Wikimedia Foundation

​ 

 


_______________________________________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

derhexer-2
Hi,

transparency on the selection can only work when also the application texts are public because we have many very active Wikimedians who are not very clear about what they ever did or actually do, how this is relevant to Wikimania and if they are able to and want to share this at Wikimania and back in their local communities afterwards. However, if only the results were published, there could be no useful discussion between the committee and others without information from the application texts.

But when applications are public, it would make absolutely no sense to have a committee for the selection because every decision by the committe could be easily be debated. When the expertise of the committee is questioned, people would be hesitant to participate as already described in this thread. Hence, only a public selection done by the community as a replacement for the committee would make sense.

When the community would decide on the applications, we had to define who would be part of that community: who's eligible to vote on these? should the votes be public? would large discussions be allowed? etc. As we have lots of experience with public elections, we can also easily name the disadvantages of these: Popularity contests for only those people who can stand public criticism, sometimes by few very loud destructive people or even enemy groups, on everything they every did. Tons of people would be refrain from applying at all, something we strongy have to face at the moment with elections for adminship or other committees as pointed out by Risker.

Of course, we had transparency as a result and more public discussions around the selection, but we would have no safe space for applicants at all (also in terms of sensitive data like personal living conditions and anonymity). I see no third working model besides these and my preference would clearly be the committee. But if you like, you can, of course, seek consensus on the other model. I will raise my concerns there as pointed out here.

Best,
Martin/DerHexer
(long-time scholarship committee member and co-organizer)


Von: Jonathan Cardy <[hidden email]>
An: Wikimania general list (open subscription) <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: 9:09 Mittwoch, 19.April 2017
Betreff: Re: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Risker is right.

You can't publish such a table this year because it would break the promises made to applicants who were declined.

 You could start a discussion on meta, and make a proposal to publish such data for future Wikimanias. I'd hope you wouldn't get consensus, but if you did we could then monitor the effect on the 2018 Wikimania. If the requirement to publish details on unsuccessful applicants as well as successful ones was deterring a significant proportion of applicants, or deterring certain types of applicants such as applicants from particular countries, then I'd hope 2019 would revert to the obviously superior system of not publicly listing the people who applied for scholarships but were declined. I do appreciate that in the future historians studying Wikipedia would really appreciate this data, and I can see the point of putting it in a sealed archive and publishing after all concerned have probably died. I'm not sure I see the point in publishing it now, if people are concerned about fairness then get someone you trust to run for the scholarship committee.

Regards

WereSpielChequers


On 19 Apr 2017, at 04:14, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would like the Wikimedia Foundation NOT to do that.  Our user privacy is to be respected.  People who applied for scholarships had every reason to expect that the WMF would not publish their names if they were not awarded one, for example. Nobody who applies is guaranteed a WMF scholarship; however, several other organizations actively provide scholarships to community members who did not receive a WMF scholarship.  Transparency does not require putting users into embarrassing or awkward situations, and many users who applied for scholarships may not have done so if they were told that the names and details of their application would be published.   The scholarship committee is made up largely of volunteers, and they don't deserve the inevitable brickbats that would be thrown their way if particularly vocal members of the community disagreed with their decisions. And it's a given that just about every member of the community will disagree with one or more decision made by the committee.  So no, please don't publish any details of any application, or how any individual candidate was assessed.  That's not transparency. 

Risker/Anne

On 18 April 2017 at 22:51, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,
 
I would like WMF to make the list of applicants, their contributions, the weightage used for each kind of contribution and the final list of scholarship awardees in a table form. Since WMF is run by the contributions of the volunteers, such a transparency is definitely needed from WMF. I hope WMF will oblige.
 
Regards,
Pavanaja
 
 
From: Wikimania-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ellie Young
Sent: 19 April 2017 01:23 AM
To: Wikimania general list (open subscription)
Subject: [Wikimania-l] WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania
 
Everyone who applied for a scholarship to Wikimania '17 has been notified about the status.   If you have not heard, please check your spam filter, or send email to ask about the status to:   [hidden email]
 
April 18 is the deadline for people who were offered a scholarship to respond.
 
A final list of everyone who was awarded and able to accept will be posted to on the wiki in early May.
 
We expect registration for Wikimania '17 to go live on or before May 1st.
 
 
 
--
Ellie Young
Events Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
​ 
 

______________________________ _________________
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
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: WMF Scholarships to attend Wikimania

Pine W
I'll respond to Risker and DerHexer in a single email.

> Pine, have you noticed how we're seeing fewer and fewer well-qualified community members actively seeking out the responsibility of various committee roles? 

While I haven't looked at committees' member applications in some time, it wouldn't surprise me if a dwindling pool of highly qualified applicants is a problem. My understanding from the information that I see from WMF Analytics is that our population has somewhat plateaued. I've been thinking for awhile about how to address this problem, and while I think that there are ways of making incremental progress such as with the Wikipedia in Education Program and the engagement of more enthusiasts for particular subjects like cultural heritage or public health, I have yet to imagine a way to make significant progress. I'd be glad to have an off-list conversation with you about that subject.

> It's because they are being bombarded, more and more, by unreasonable levels of criticism.  I can say this with a fair bit of authority because I've been involved inhigh-profile committees, task forces, steering groups and responsible
> roles for 8 years, and the level of criticism has definitely affected where I'm willing to invest my volunteer efforts.  I turn down 10 attempts to recruit me for various tasks for every one I accept, and I'm not alone.

I don't volunteer for Arbcom for similar reasons: too much stress and conflict, and too little gratitude. WMF is working on some of the civility issues, but that's a long journey. Again, I'd be glad to have an off-list conversation about that sometime.

> The Wikimania Scholarship Committee does work that will never satisfy everyone, and all of their decisions will be found wanting by some segment of the community.  It is a very difficult job - there are so many factors to weigh that,
> even though there are some basic minimal levels of activity expected, deciding between a candidate with a few thousand edits who is one of the most proliferate editors of a small wiki (e.g., the editor mainly translates high-value articles
> and posts them in a single edit) against one who specializes in high quality images (but only uploads 50 a year) against one > who averages 15,000 edits but mainly works in anti-vandalism, against one who has few on-wiki
> contributions but has trained and educated dozens of very productive editors....well, you see the challenge.  These are all valuable contributors - but their contribution to the movement is very different, and those who value some of those
> contributions over others will find personal justification in complaining about the decisions the committee makes. 

> There may be some reasonable arguments about providing some aggregate information such as the number of applicants from different regions and the percentage that were successful....but again, there are other routes to Wikimania
> including scholarships from large chapters, which often sponsor community members from other regions, and often select recipients from the pool of WMF-sponsored scholarship applicants. 

I think that publishing the usernames of the applicants, the decisions made by the committee, and perhaps some other aggregate information would be a good move in the spirit of transparency, if done in future years when applicants can be told in advance that this will be done. I anticipate that there will be disagreements, but civil discussions are beneficial to inform future work of the Committee as well as community and WMF practices and policies.

> Of course, there is an easier way to affect the outcome of these discussions.  Sign up in late 2017/early 2018 to become a member of the scholarship committee. 

No thank you.


On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:41 AM, DerHexer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

transparency on the selection can only work when also the application texts are public because we have many very active Wikimedians who are not very clear about what they ever did or actually do, how this is relevant to Wikimania and if they are able to and want to share this at Wikimania and back in their local communities afterwards. However, if only the results were published, there could be no useful discussion between the committee and others without information from the application texts.

I think that partial information is better than none. However, I think there's room for discussion about what kinds of information should be made public; for example it might be that individual users' countries aren't published in the scholarships announcement if the user hasn't themselves already declared that information publicly. I am mindful of the safety of scholarship applicants who live in countries where their participation in Wikipedia might place them at risk, and I would take that into consideration when designing the reports that are published. Also, I think it's reasonable to withhold the prose application texts that applicants write to the Committee for privacy and safety reasons.
 

But when applications are public, it would make absolutely no sense to have a committee for the selection because every decision by the committe could be easily be debated. When the expertise of the committee is questioned, people would be hesitant to participate as already described in this thread. Hence, only a public selection done by the community as a replacement for the committee would make sense.

Grant applications are public, and we have grants committees, and those committees' decisions are subject to review and occasional debate. It seems to me that the Wikimania Scholarship Committee should align itself with the grants committees in publishing decisions. Discussions and debates, when done civilly, can be informative and lead to better decisions in the future.
 

When the community would decide on the applications, we had to define who would be part of that community: who's eligible to vote on these? should the votes be public? would large discussions be allowed? etc. As we have lots of experience with public elections, we can also easily name the disadvantages of these: Popularity contests for only those people who can stand public criticism, sometimes by few very loud destructive people or even enemy groups, on everything they every did. Tons of people would be refrain from applying at all, something we strongy have to face at the moment with elections for adminship or other committees as pointed out by Risker.

I'm having a little difficulty understanding this paragraph, so please help me understand. Is the concern about electing the members of the Scholarship Committee, or is the concern about direct public votes on individual scholarship applications?
 

Of course, we had transparency as a result and more public discussions around the selection, but we would have no safe space for applicants at all (also in terms of sensitive data like personal living conditions and anonymity). I see no third working model besides these and my preference would clearly be the committee. But if you like, you can, of course, seek consensus on the other model. I will raise my concerns there as pointed out here.

As I stated above, I think that publishing some information to enhance transparency and inform future decisions can be done while withholding other information for the safety and privacy of applicants.

From my perspective, the purpose of making decisions of the Scholarship Committee more transparent is *not* to foster controversy or debate for their own sake. My hope is that more transparency would foster civil discussion, promote learning, and facilitate improvements in future years for the committee as well as for the WMF and the community in general.

Pine

_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
12
Loading...