Talk:Wikimania/Frequent attendees

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Logic and purpose of this club[edit]

This seems rather pointless. I should point out that the large majority of the "perfect attendees" are or have been on the board of WMF for that time(with maybe 2-3 exceptions). While others are perennial Wikimania organizers, founders.

I also don't see the achievement here, whether its personal merit that allowed them to attend or just getting picked for scholarships. This seems like an effort of recognizing certain people for being in a particular clique and then get regularly paid trips to an annual conference. I'm sure 99% of the community members would want to be in that club, but they would never be picked constantly and repeatedly - it's not a matter of merit or achievement.

A better representation would be counting people who have actually paid for their own trip and not just been selected for scholarships from WMF. Without something like that, this might as well directly be scholarship related club whether from a chapter or WMF.

BTW I'm sure you are missing Austin and finne on the list. They might have missed a couple but have been at a lot of those things and organized a bunch of times. Theo10011 (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's just for us, a small documentation of our history and our shared ten-year adventure. (The question comes up every year of 'who's been to all of them?' - this is the answer). It doesn't imply any particular merit, of course, except maybe the merit of being dedicated to Wikimania for a long time! This list makes me think about how lucky I've been to meet all the amazing people I've met at Wikimania over the years. (Incidentally, I paid my own way for Wikimania every year until I was seated on the board). -- phoebe | talk 14:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Phoebe, I hate to be the one to state things like this and I know you are a genuinely big backer of Wikimania, a wonderful person, and an all around believer in the mission but things like these strike me of hubris and elitism. What should be my natural response here? Congratulations on your achievement? You do realize, no one new can join this club? Anything short of a time-machine would not be able to get anyone to those past events. I might be going off on a tangent to explain this, but if you would bear with me and allow me to philosophize for a few moments, I'd like my position on the matter to be preserved for later and hopefully explain where I'm coming from on the matter.
So, allow me to explain, we talk about the other part of the world all the time, the "global south", the poor and disenfranchised, underprivileged who actually use the information on Wikipedia to better their lives, get jobs, go on to colleges and cure diseases, build unbelievable things, and change the world. It might be from a small wikipedia zero screen on a mobile, or a decade old refurbished PC. Now, you know the only way they will prob. be able to attend is with a scholarship, and you know how they are selected, the system is far from perfect - they would have to be EXTREMELY lucky to just be selected once. Even the editing community, the system is far from perfect. the most active editors in another language won't get a chance, if they do, the winners would be divided among languages, location, edit count - making a very odd group of strangers. As it stands, only the chapter people, WMF staff, the board, and a few people in a clique would have the privilege and the means of attending year after year - it's hardly based on any merit, so what exactly do we celebrate?
Even when being picked isn't an issue, and someone has the money, larger political relations are. I know for several wikipedians, for whom visas alone became the bane of their existence for the past events. Think of our people from Bangladesh, Ghana etc., think of the problems we had in Egypt, Taipei, Haifa, even the state department US - I know of stories where they waited days outside the embassy, provided hundreds of documents, were interviewed, insulted and then eventually rejected. I also remember reading the treatment in the airport itself in case of haifa, where several Indian origin people were singled out, searched, detained and humiliated. You were fortunate enough to be born an American, you think those people had a choice in the matter? To be able to not think, just buy a ticket and fly to the next conference?
In stark contrasts to affiliation pages on Meta here, things like stroopwafel addict and certain editing philosophies which seem quirky and silly, this list seems untenable and just celebrates people who are in a clique already and will prob. remain there for a while congratulating themselves. Anyone can disagree and be a deletionist, change their outlook or find/even make a certain kind of dutch pastry. The bottom line, all this list says is - SUCK IT! I either had money or I had power for the last 9 of these events that I could travel to any corner of the world at whim and have my stamp there. And you couldn't!!!
I'm saying this, knowing full well that it might not seem nice to hear (especially from me) but do think of it being here for the next few years and all those new wild-eyed kids that will only get a chance to attend once, if that. I understand your sentiment here, and I'm not saying this should be removed, but we also shouldn't celebrate being born to privilege. You have wonderful memories and friends already to remind you of your time, prob. thousands of pictures and pages. But making it some sort of an elitist "club" strike me as juvenile and unbecoming of the sort of people I have known for years. Anyway, Thanks for giving me the chance to explain. Kind regards. Theo10011 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Had you bothered to read the history of the page, and the comments those of us in this "club" have made, you'd see that (a) we didn't create this list, and (b) we too are troubled by the inherent elitism, ageism and exclusivity of this grouping. The page makes no claim as to the merit of people being in the list, just that we are there. Personally, I would not have called it a "club" - though I understand the colloquial American English term as it is meant, I agree that it is inappropriate, and would have chosen a term that is more neutral in international English, like "list".
But feel free to instead complain. I'm not sure what value you think your comments are bringing to the movement, though. James F. (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
What history? Can you point me to it then?
Your characterization of being bothered by this, hardly seems in line with the one expressed by Phoebe. I made my concern known here on the associated talk page, for someone as troubled by this supposed grouping you are only here objecting to me. Great that we're back to "you can only complain".
At best this is immature and infantile, to play this game. People on the board, and senior members of the community dare I say, like you, should be making a stand or displaying some sort of hesitation here. But apparently it exists somewhere, and you are against it. It's just me you find objectionable and a negative for bringing to the appropriate talk page of the actual list. I hope you'll realize the hypocrisy there at some point. I'm only pointing out the inherent narcissism there.
Might I also suggest a club of millionaire, then first-class fliers, or perhaps a list, instead of a 'club' would make all the difference there? Or how about flown most first-class cross-Atlantic on a Concorde, because all of those clubs would still be bigger and possibly easier to get included in than the one in question. But all I can do is complain apparently, while you sir, can only constantly find people like me objectionable, while allegedly agreeing with my stance, just not stating or repeating it publicly. Theo10011 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It is just a no-big-deal page that states a fact. If there is anything wrong, then the fact is the wrong thing. This can be handled better than this uncalled-for drama.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 19:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed (!). --Nemo 10:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit of a white privilege club[edit]

While I encourage people to be proud of their participation in Wikimedia projects, membership in this club is more dependent on personal wealth than any other factor, and related to circumstances of birth. I am not sure that the existence of this page is something that can be appreciated by most of our community. It might be implying a hierarchy of esteem which is inaccessible to most people.

I wish there could be a club like this which could be more inclusive.

I am extremely grateful for the immense sacrifices and personal devotion to our common goals that the people listed here have made. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

/me points out that the members of that list are not all 'white' or 'privileged'. --Alison Wheeler (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Climbable mountain[edit]

Or we can make this into a "list of Wikimedians by number of Wikimanias attended". It'll be long but less exclusive. (NB. I adore everybody who's on this list.) Deryck C. 16:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd support that as a separate page (in fact I'm red-linking it in your comment above, to encourage its creation). It is a worthwile (well, at least interesting) list to have, but it would represent something different than what this page currently is. As I state below, I believe that the particular meaning this page adopted is valuable in its own right as historical record, so there would be loss of information in replacing the list with something else. --Waldir (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename page[edit]

A lot of tension has been surfacing on this talk page regarding what IMO is an incorrect interpretation of this page as some sort of congratulatory list. Can't we just appreciate its value as historical data? Perhaps the reason several people assume it's about anything other than that is the word "club" (and perhaps "perfect"?) in the title. So let's change that to something more innocuous, as has been suggested above. How about "Wikimania/List of regular attendees", or "Wikimania/Most frequent attendees"? --Waldir (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I just see these sort of lists as similar to the little boxes many editors put on their userpages; a nod to something they've done. "Perfect" though is a loaded word so I've moved the article to what the list is really about: those who've managed to attend all - 100% - of the Wikimania events to date. --Alison Wheeler (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe the word "club" is even more controversial than "perfect" was. Also, Hundred percent is very vague as one can't figure out what the page is about by its title alone. I'd support a different title (see my proposals above). --Waldir (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Unilateral overhaul of the page[edit]

It's totally inappropriate to overhaul the page like that without any input from the editors who built this page over the years. I appreciate that it was done in good faith, but data was clearly lost and is now presented in a less readable form. And what for? I honestly don't see how the table was harmful, and I'd appreciate if someone could present the argument for us to decide collaboratively. Pinging Jdforrester and those who edited the page since the transition: KTC, Ijon and Fuzheado. --Waldir (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

First, I appreciate the energy and vigor you've brought to this humble corner of Meta! :) As someone who's marginally "conflicted" as a member of the 100% club, I've largely acquiesced to whatever direction others want to take with this page. That includes my fellow 100%'er @Jdforrester: refactoring the page to more closely resemble what Jimmy Wales now likes to do at Wikimania, which is ask for people who've been to, "At least n Wikimanias" so that the final set of folks standing is not constantly shrinking. I can sympathize with that. I found the grid format fun and highly informative, and the list format less so. But I understand the spirit of the change and am open to hear other opinions. -- Fuzheado (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't think this page's structure (or even existence) is at all important. I'm fine with whatever people who do care decide to do. Ijon (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I really don't care one way or the other to be honest.... -- KTC (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Waldir: I was responding to the consensus on this talk page, the rough consensus of my fellow 100%ers when chatting idly about this at Wikimania, and the entirely reasonable concerns about enculturing a concept of dispiriting elitism which I wish us to reject. James F. (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all for the comments. If you wouldn't mind, I would really prefer if the time spent putting the page together and sourcing its content (which included work from lots of different editors) didn't go to waste. The page doesn't need to be publicized in any way, and any links to it across the Wikimedia wikis can be replaced to point to a separate page listing users by number of Wikimanias attended regardless of the sequence, that's all fine with me. Prior discussion already converged in a page renaming to remove any elitist hints from its title (which I'm sure were only included originally as tongue-in-cheek), and to be honest I don't see anything resembling a consensus to get rid of the table format in favor of a list.
Given the responses so far, I think it's fair if the table is restored, at least for the moment, and the list moved to a separate page ("List of Wikimedians by number of Wikimanias attended" seems like a good candidate, as suggested in the thread above -- let me know what you think).
If you have any suggestions regarding ways to make this page less elitist (maybe a different title, not using green/red color-coding in the table, etc.), those are perfectly good discussions to have. But outright omitting factual information isn't the right way to deal with those concerns, IMO. Cheers, Waldir (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I like the table! Apparently I missed a lot of back and forth, but I like what it looks like now. -- phoebe | talk 17:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Obituary: Ray[edit]

Ray Saintonge is the first person on this list to pass away. There was suggestion from some people to remove his entry from this list altogether, though some other form of memorial might be more appropriate. A cross symbol? Deryck C. 21:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Eventually all people will fall off the bottom of the list as the number of 'n' years grows (though I think the number of years this page tracks should slowly be expanded), but in the meantime I've added the † symbol for Ray. Wittylama (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Why not keep him in the N-2 section permanently? Legoktm (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, this is what happened until yesterday (only the "no" cells are counted as "minus"). Nemo 07:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)