Greetings, I want to agree with Gnangara that the OP has no intention to attack the user who was cited as an example. Saying User:XYZ received a scholarship consecutively is not an attack but a statement of fact (if their claim was actually correct). To be honest, interpreting OP's concern as an attack, jealousy etc. is far close to assuming good faith. However, I don't think I'll be interested in a discussion that focus on "Why was User:XYZ awarded a scholarship and not me?" but would be interested in a discussion that focus on how to improve the selection process".
Regards, Isaac ( *who has never received a scholarship or apply for one this year)* On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Peter Southwood < [email protected]> wrote: > Fair comment, and actionable suggestions. > > P > > > > *From:* Wikimania-l [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Kerry Raymond > *Sent:* Monday, 22 May 2017 4:57 AM > *To:* 'Wikimania general list (open subscription)' > *Subject:* Re: [Wikimania-l] Granting Scholarship to same persons every > year > > > > This observation has been made by a few people (some of them involved in > the scholarship decision-making process) is that past recipients often > continue to out-perform others in terms of the criteria in subsequent > years. What hasn’t been commented on is why this is so? > > > > If we believe that an attendee to Wikimania benefits in terms of learning > new skills, hearing new ideas, making new contacts, then we should hardly > be surprised if an attendee is then in a position to “grow” as a Wikimedian > and hence be more able to “out-compete” others who didn’t have the benefit > of attending. (And If we don’t believe that attendees benefit or grow from > Wikimania attendance, then we should stop running Wikimania). Also the > scholarship recipient has an expectation to share with their community what > they have learned, even that process of sharing adds to their list of > activities that they can use as evidence as subsequent scholarship > applications. > > > > Aside. If you have read the book Freakonomics or followed their blog, you > will be aware > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics > > > > of their study of how professional footballers tend to have their > birthdays clustered in a few months of the year and how this phenomenon has > its roots in spotting football talent in very young players and then > training them. Because junior sport is usually based around age limits with > a specific cut-off day, the children who just exceed the age limit by a > month or two will usually be less physically developed than those who > exceed the age limit by 10 or 11 months. Thus, the older children in the > cohort are more likely to be selected for the team and receive coaching. > Next year (still with a relative age developmental advantage AND with one > year of extra coaching) these older children in the cohort are again appear > the most able and again selected for the team (giving them yet another year > of coaching benefit over those not selected). This cycle repeats throughout > their childhood ensuring the older ones within the “age year” are > disproportionate represented in both junior sport and then into college and > professional sport, giving rise to the observed clustering of birthdays in > professional footballers. > > > > This is exactly the same phenomenon as we are seeing with Wikimania > scholarships. > > > > How can the playing field of Wikimania scholarships be made a little > fairer? I don’t think the answer lies in deducting some points from those > who have had a scholarship before. I think the solution lies in having two > streams of scholarships, one for the first timers who compete among > themselves on criteria that assesses their **potential** to “grow” > through the Wikimania experience and a second set of scholarships for those > who are applying to come for a second/third/… time with criteria more > appropriate to that group, how much did they “grow” and how much did they > “share” relative to the number of Wikimania opportunities they have had > (note one might also want to include attendance at Wikimedia Conference and > other similar movement events in this regard)? > > > > Note in both streams it is still possible to include factors like the > Global North/South issue, minority groups, etc in the criteria as > consistent with the movement’s strategic goals. The key difference is > whether you are assessing only potential for growth from attending for the > first-timers as opposed to observed growth from past attending and likely > potential for further growth from additional attendance for the repeaters. > > > > If that approach is taken, then the only question that remains is the > relative number of scholarships (or amount of funds) available in each of > the two streams. Obviously there’s a range of possibilities, but I would be > tempted to operate on a simple pro-rata principle at least in the first > year of operation. After the weeding out of the ineligible or people who > show poorly against the criteria (however many phases there are to do > that), look at the size of the two remaining groups and go pro-rata. That > is, if after the preliminary cull(s), there are 200 potential first-timers > and 100 potential repeaters, then allocated twice as many scholarship (or > twice as much funding) to the first-time group as to the repeater group. If > that does not seem to produce a good mix of attendees, then tweak it > whichever way seems appropriate the next year. > > > > My key point is to stop comparing a basket of mixed apples and oranges and > start comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. That should > give you mix of the best apples and the best oranges. > > > > Kerry > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
