From a point of view of GLAM partnership this was emphatically NOT a success. It was not a complete failure also, because brave Rohini persisted in the face of an unresponsive BNHS. In the end BNHS and Wikipedia got a better article on Humayun Abdulali and Rohini got some hard-won experience - that is all. But the potential for this project could have been so much greater. The experiences of Wikipedians-in-residence in the Smithsonian and the British Museum (and other initiatives) was so wonderful, so engaging to both sides and so fruitful that the lacklustre report in the link Pradeep mentions feels like ashes in one's mouth. BNHS has been for many years the iconic symbol of private wildlife research. It has a very long history, had some truly wonderful people in it including Salim Ali and Humayun Abdulali, has a very good library and a very good collection of skins, shells, eggs etc. It has a peer-reviewed scientific journal more than 100 years old which has high repute. It was the place where eminent scientists like Johnsingh, Ravi Sankaran and Bharat Bhushan, besides many others, began their careers or were encouraged. Whether it is mammals, birds, reptiles, marine life or insects; anywhere in India one can definitely say about BNHS - been there, done that! So one would expect BNHS to be open to the idea of helping Indians to learn more about wildlife, nature, environment and conservation? Wrong. Check the site of BNHS for stuff which educates or informs or which guides or helps and see the complete paucity of material. Its a nice enough looking website & tells you very much what the organisation, its goals and programmes, but there is zilch information about India's wildlife, from India's premier wildlife NGO. If you compare that with a comparable organisation in the USA and UK say Audobon or RSPB, you will find they have useful articles, knowledge material aside from what they are involved in. Compare Audobon which gives Tips on how to get nature to the classroom or taking schoolchildren outdoors, or RSPB which provides a complete bird list with short writeup. BNHS does not have an altruistic outlook towards IP and the resources they hold. The reason for that is not difficult to understand. BNHS publishes a variety of handbooks, coffee-table books etc and their employees derive additional income from their publication, sale of photographs they take on BNHS funded trips etc, Hardly any activity in BNHS comes without a pricetag for the participants. Standard copyright model is their bread and butter. No wonder, they are not interested very much in joining hands with Wikipedia - there is a direct conflict of interest, if Wikipedia develops pages on India's natural heritage well, the need/dependence for their handbooks reduces. This will affect sales in the long run and affect income of the organisation and its staff. So Rohini's valiant attempt was akin to trying to clap with one hand. You can't hear the clap because BNHS never showed any eagerness other than a bureaucratic acquiescence grudgingly obtained after much effort by Rohini. Imho, Rohini could probably have written the Abdulali article to the same quality even without the cooperation of BNHS. It would be my advice to GLAM enthusiasts who put in humungous amount of hours of drudgery work in GLAM projects to please not take up pilots with organisations which do not value the importance of Commons, common heritage and public domain. Ashwin Baindur On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Pradeep Mohandas <prad2609(a)yahoo.com>wrote;wrote: -- Warm regards, Ashwin Baindur ------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-in-mum mailing list Wikimedia-in-mum(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-mum