On 21 May 2017 at 20:12, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm sorry, Pine....but no. It's naming and shaming. If Praveen had >> wanted to highlight the frequency of Wikimedians being granted Wikimania >> scholarsips, they could have done exactly what Mike Peel did - compare the >> relevant lists and highlight the frequency of users receiving one, two or >> three grants over the four years for which data is available. That would >> have been - and is - a reasonable point of discussion. It turns out that >> Praveen's information was incomplete at best, and incorrect at worst. >> > > It's possible that I misread something, but the question that I read in > Praveen's original email was, "Then, what is the advantage of selecting > same persons again and again for scholarship? Isn't it better to let more > different people to share and experience global community?" I don't see how > citing a specific example amounts to naming and shaming. Unless I'm > overlooking something, there was an honest question of whether current > system of selecting awardees should be modified and examples of the > outcomes of the current award system were provided. I think it is risky to > read negatively into others' motives, and at this point I don't see > evidence that would support a view that there was malicious intent in the > examples being provided. The examples may be uncomfortable, but that's a > very long way from being malicious. >
I think you may have missed some comments from the later part of the thread. I found them highly disturbing. Frankly, they were disturbing enough that many other Wikimedians I know would have walked away from the projects entirely; we cannot afford to allow people to be browbeaten for being able to demonstrate on a repeated basis that they're productive and valuable members of our community. > > >> >> That one specific individual has received more than one of them, and >> someone is implying that the grantee failed to live up to their undertaken >> responsibilities, is not a reasonable way of discussing those points. >> > > I disagree. If there are examples of grantees not fulfilling their > obligations but being awarded subsequent grants, that would be a problem. I > don't want people to be fearful of being attacked for discussing situations > in which they reasonably think that there may be a problem. I think that an > underlying issue may be the lack of transparency in the awards > applications. If there was more transparency then venerability would be > less of a challenge. I realize that this is a complex problem, and > hopefully there can be constructive discussions about how to address it. > It may be a reason to draw this to the attention of the Wikimania Scholarship Committee, or the WMF Travel and Supports grants staff. It is not appropriate to start a thread on a mailing list that has thousands of subscribers. As it turns out, there is good reason to doubt a significant amount of what was said anyway. We need to stop enabling behaviour like this. The Wikimania-L mailing list is not an appropriate place to rail against another Wikimedian. None of the Wikimedia-related mailing lists are. This is an excellent example of bullying, and it needs to stop. Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
