On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 4:10 PM, CherianTinu Abraham
<tinucherian(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Hi all,
As an active wikimedian from India, I am just sharing my personal take on
the whole thing
Firstly, my apologize for my late response to this thread, due to my other
pre-occupations. I needed to catch up with the thread before I responded.
As a manner of introductions I am one of the members of the current
Executive committee of the Wikimedia India chapter. I have also been active
in organizing the regular monthly meetups for Wikipedians in Bangalore and
the recent W10 event.
As a member of the team that worked to get the chapter formally
registered, for nearly two years (this has been attempted a few times
earlier unsuccessfully), I have no hesitation in saying that Achal has
played a key role in assisting and supporting the team in getting the
chapter formation going.
I was going through my email archives and I ran into the email he sent some
of us on 31-Mar-09 proposing the first meetup of the team. Please note we
are now formally a chapter as per the local laws from 02-Jan-2011. Achal has
been supportive and helpful through this journey and provided necessary
advise when sought. Thank you Achal.
There have been other comments on the clarity of roles and their tenure. As
a member of the community I do believe that there is opportunity for the
foundation to define some these more clearly to avoid misunderstandings of
this nature in the future. Having attended the chapter's meeting in Berlin
last year I am aware of the Movement roles initiative to bring further
clarity regarding various stakeholders and roles.
As far as the specific project for which the grant was offered, I do
believe the project would be of help and value, as would many other that
need to be done to catalyze the growth of wikipedia in the numerous Indian
languages.
Best regards
Arun
1) Achal as Fellow : Some of the folks commented that
it was inappropriate
for Achal Prabhala selected for this position, also being a member of the
Foundation Advisory Board. I think it is the designation as fellow that is
misleading in the first place...and unlike the Board of Trustees, AFAIK,
Advisory Board has no real powers but is yet another formal group of
volunteers. We already have a lot of Foundation employees who are former
volunteers and who got recruited to staff by becoming known for their
volunteer work. I was wondering why there was no hue & cry earlier ? If
somebody is doing good work within the scope of objectives of the
Foundation, let us appreciate that. Think of the transparency of the whole
stuff that whatever he is planning to do is well announced and even has an
open grants page which is out there for public viewing.
2) Achal & India : Achal was always a guiding force in the Wikimedia
movement in India, not necessarily as an Adv Board member. He was always
supportive and encouraging our various individual volunteer efforts in
India. His efforts and support behind the Wikimedia India chapter is
self explanatory in one of the mails that I had forwarded to the foundation
list earlier. MZMcBride laments "*Achal has a growing influence on
Wikimedia, particularly its new operations in India*" . With no disrespect
to MZMcBride, may I ask, "*So what ?*". If somebody is doing some good
work,
let them get due credit for this. What next ? Jimmy Wales has a growing
influence on Wikipedia and Wikimedia ? I would ask Achal to take this a
compliment :) Btw having known Achal personally for some time now, he is a
not a person who goes around and professes the good work he is doing and I
believe, that is the reason why he is not recognized for what he does.
3) Importance of documenting oral citations: Keegan & some others have
already done that earlier. Let me dare not to say that again and again. And
let us not jump into conclusions on things we don't really know and
understand.
Personal mudslinging is something that is uncalled for in a public list
like
this. If there is a problem or gap in the process of grant request and
approval, in general, let us discuss that which is more productive.
Regards
Tinu Cherian
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki(a)gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Wjhonson
<wjhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
You are mistaking the problem.
It's not that a piece of knowledge is not googleable.
It's that a piece of knowledge is not published whatsoever.
Never published. Anywhere. At any time. Ever.
That's quite a different animal.
All disapproval of the Fellowship process appointment in this case, I
fully
understand D. Gerard's (IMO, misworded) point
and what Wjohnson's point
is
as well. If we intend for the WMF to actually
spread free knowledge,
these
sort of documentaries are important. David's
point would ring true with
me
about the "teen en.wp" admins (to
paraphrase) if I assumed that they knew
of
the efforts since the fall of the Soviet Union to document Bulgarian folk
songs and stories. I own a few field recordings and have followed the
"west's" interest in this cultural documentation. I would expect a great
proportion of this mailing list to know of these studies, because this
isn't
run of the mill editing that is discussed here.
The point is that financing a grant to document oral history is
important.
Ask American musicologists what we would do
without Alan Lomax's
recordings
and the work of the Smithsonian in the 1920's and 1930's recording folk,
jazz, and blues. Don't knock it until you try it.
--
~Keegan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l