2025 talk:Scholarships
Before you write here...
Before you write your message here, please check if you are raising a public enquiry related to the scholarship process or if you are raising a personal scholarship application concern. If you are raising a concern specifically about your own or for another person's scholarship application, do send an email message first to wikimania-scholarships
wikimedia.org . Thank you. -- Exec8 (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- اريد التقدم للمنحة Alhammadiahmed (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Clarify please: what VRT stands for?
Translating en-ja, there is a WMF jargon VRT. Could you clarify what the term means please? --Omotecho (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Omotecho VRT stands for Volunteer Response Team. Feel free to read more about them here;
If you need clarity on anything else feel free to reply to this response or open a new discussion.- Thank you
Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)- @Joris Darlington Quarshie, thank you so much for the crisp reply. You have expanded my view with those links, arigatow :) -- Omotecho (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Clarify please: what COT stands for?
In regards to en-ja translation, would you mind to point me to what COT or Core Organising Team stands for please? Thank you in advance for your one-cent forward :) -- Omotecho (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Omotecho COT stands for Core Organising Team which is the team in charge of managing a Wikimedia event.
- Thank you
Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Translation markup
Please take care of the translation syntax as it is once again done incorrectly. The external (as well as internal) links have to be hidden by <tvar> tags to allow translators only to translate the link text. Please apply the rules of mw:Help:Extension:Translate/Page translation administration when preparing pages for translation. –MrBenjo (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Answer limits
Is there a length limit to the answers or is my computer glitching?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @TonyTheTiger:, each answer text box has character limit, I dont know how much exactly. In the event it does not fit, please use a subpage of your meta wiki username for example: User:TonyTheTiger/2024_Activities, then place the URL/ website link on your text box. -- Exec8 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Embracing AI Tools for Clarity in Scholarship Applications
Dear Scholarship Committee Members,
I hope this message finds you well. I’m writing to share my perspective regarding the use of AI tools, such as ChatGPT, by applicants in preparing their scholarship applications.
As many applicants are non-native English speakers, tools like AI can play a significant role in refining grammar, enhancing clarity, and better structuring their statements. This ensures their genuine contributions and intentions are communicated effectively and comprehensibly. Importantly, using AI in this manner does not reduce the effort they’ve put into their application.
I want to emphasize that while applications that rely entirely on AI without any personal effort should not be encouraged, there is a clear distinction to be made. Applicants who use AI to improve grammar, clarify ideas, and organize their applications—while actively showcasing their personal achievements and including proper evidence—should not be penalized.
In fact, leveraging AI responsibly demonstrates adaptability and a commitment to presenting their best work. Rejecting such applications based on AI involvement might inadvertently discourage deserving candidates who have used these tools responsibly and authentically.
Note: I am drafting this message with the help of AI, as it has significantly helped me structure my thoughts more clearly and effectively. This personal experience underscores the value of AI in enabling clear communication.
I kindly request the committee to consider this perspective and support applicants in responsibly using AI for self-expression, provided they maintain authenticity and provide verifiable evidence of their contributions.
Thank you for your time and for fostering an inclusive and supportive environment for all applicants. -- Suyash.dwivedi (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Suyash.dwivedi (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Great points to be noted as AI has come to stay and to help those who cannot express themselves in English. AI is just a tool which helps people arrange their words in a way they understand and can easily contribute to the movement, taking note of the applicants contribution is also another area to be looked into. Dappasolomon001 (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, while I agree that AI can be useful to enhance the clarity of thought in a writer's essay, I am afraid that in the long period it could affect negatively anyone who choose not to use AI even if English is not their native language. I support the use of ChatGPT for people who feel like using it because otherwise they do not feel comfortable, but only as long as the presence of a typo or a slight lexical flaw in my writing does not make me look or sound unable to express myself with personal and effective communication when compared with AI generated text. OrbiliusMagister (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose There are multitude of issues around using AI to respond to applications. We agree that using AI to write entire answers are unacceptable. We also know there are copyright violations in the training data to make any minor usage of AI (clarification, organization) problematic. Opening up AI usage for scholarship applications for "minor usage" is difficult to draw the line between what is permitted and what is not, and no one on the review team can tell how much of the original text is changed. I also believe that AI usage creates an arms race and penalizes those who choose not to use AI, to the point that everyone feels compelled to use AI or risk losing points for not using it. It also creates an uneven playing field between those who can afford to pay to use paid-version of AI to create or copyedit a better application answer and those who cannot pay and have to use the free version. There are also country restrictions for certain AI tools, creating disparity between "haves" and "have nots". I do not think the answers are "authentic" if it's not written by the applicant. If I were to write an initial answer and have someone else (real person) changes the words or sentences for me, that's not my own writing! I believe the only permitted usage should be grammar and spell check just like in Microsoft Word, and that doesn't require AI. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- @Suyash.dwivedi: What prompt did you use to help you write the text you wrote? Leaderboard (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
...