Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Fw: India Program: Community Monthly Report: Feb 2012
> > I am still not clear as a small wikipedian, I should contribute to > Foundation, Chapter, Community. > I would say since you are already contributing to Marathi wikipedia and its sister projects you continue contributing there. If interested you can contribute to other WMF wikis also (for example English wiki, metawiki, may be other language wikis also). Chapter and other organizational setup are subset of community. Contribute to if you are interested. According to me we have enough options available to contribute. Shiju (A Malayalam wikimedia projects volunteer) On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Mandar Kulkarni wrote: > +1 from my side for Sudhanwa's views. > > I am still not clear as a small wikipedian, I should contribute to > Foundation, Chapter, Community. > > With Regards, > > Mandar V. Kulkarni > http://mr.wikipedia.org > http://mr.wikisource.org > http://live.wikimedia.in > > - Forwarded Message - > *From:* Sudhanwa Jogalekar > *To:* Wikimedia India Community list > > *Sent:* Thursday, 8 March 2012, 2:05 > *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] India Program: Community Monthly > Report: Feb 2012 > > Hi, > > Let me take the focus of discussions back to the report/s where it all > started. > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Hisham wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 7, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Pradeep Mohandas wrote: > > > > > > In retrospect, I also understand the need for seperating the Foundation > > activities as well. I think it is best to either go for total seperation > of > > community, chapter and Office or have general statements. > > > > > > The work that India Program is doing is integrally embedded in community > > building. This means we work directly with interested community members > > across the world and with the Chapter. I don't think a total > separation is > > either practical or advisable. We should obviously avoid taking the > option > > of "general statements" - and we need to find a suitable island in > between. > > I was going through the report and also saw another page here: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Program/Outreach_Programs/Outreach_Sessions/Feb > that gives listing of outreach sessions by IP. > > Another page by chapter also shows outreach reports. It is on the main > page of wiki. > > IP and Chapter are having more or less similar functions. They do > similar outreach efforts and have same people in some functions. > > Somehow, the reports from IP as well has chapter has about 9 entries > each for outreach program and only 2 are common !! > > One of them is the now famous NITT academy and the other one is GNUnify. > I was surprised to see only the English academy entry in GNUnify that > was conducted by Ashwin and helped by IEP volunteers. The Marathi > academy conducted at the same lab immediately after the lunch break is > not mentioned at all. Also surprising was the entry where Moksh was > involved. Possibly, it was supported by some IP person. > > General observation is that the report from IP shows the listing where > only the IP, IEP people were involved and the chapter report mentions > otherwise. > > This clearly means that there is a disconnect. I dont see any of the > IEP/IP people joining the Pune community activities (except a few). In > fact, one of the outreach session (mentioned in the report) by the IEP > was not even mentioned on any of the lists. > > Possibly, there is some polarisation somewhere and personally I feel > that it could be in favour of IP; simply because volunteers become > paid activists there. > > Lets take a very much possible theoretical case(like the NITT, where > volunteers had bad experiences) where a volunteer goes for conducting > an academy and is not treated well and has bad facilities of > lodging/boarding/travel etc. And for the same academy, a person from > IP is also going and flies to/from the place and lives in a nice > hotel. In such case, where and how to compare the voluntary work v/s > paid staff work? The volunteer has spent his time and resouces for > hardly anything but the staff is being paid for the same activity as > part of the job. > > Ashwin has hinted about evaluating voluntary efforts. Is there any > method to do it? > > Community members are same for both- chapter as well as IP. However, > chapter is answerable to the community even when all the community > members are not necessarily chapter members. (just a technical point. > not to be emphasised), Whereas IP may not have any binding on anything > and still get all kind of funds from WMF. And also hire people from > the community for doing the same work people were earlier doing > voluntarily. Also remember that chapter and the community members do > their work voluntarily and not get paid for it. > > Well, just to clarify, I am not saying that community members, IP > staff and IEP volunteers are not doing work. They are really doing > fantastic work and that must to be appreciated. However, all those > efforts/work has
Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Fw: India Program: Community Monthly Report: Feb 2012
hi, You should contribute to Wikipedia and sister projects. You can contribute to any activity that you like in the community, chapter or office. Pradeep Handheld On 08/03/2012, Mandar Kulkarni wrote: > +1 from my side for Sudhanwa's views. > > I am still not clear as a small wikipedian, I should contribute to > Foundation, Chapter, Community. > With Regards, > > Mandar V. Kulkarni > http://mr.wikipedia.org > http://mr.wikisource.org > http://live.wikimedia.in > > - Forwarded Message - >>From: Sudhanwa Jogalekar >>To: Wikimedia India Community list >>Sent: Thursday, 8 March 2012, 2:05 >>Subject: Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] India Program: Community Monthly Report: >> Feb 2012 >> >>Hi, >> >>Let me take the focus of discussions back to the report/s where it all >> started. >> >> >>On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Hisham wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mar 7, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Pradeep Mohandas wrote: >>> >>> >>> In retrospect, I also understand the need for seperating the Foundation >>> activities as well. I think it is best to either go for total seperation >>> of >>> community, chapter and Office or have general statements. >>> >>> >>> The work that India Program is doing is integrally embedded in community >>> building. This means we work directly with interested community members >>> across the world and with the Chapter. I don't think a total separation >>> is >>> either practical or advisable. We should obviously avoid taking the >>> option >>> of "general statements" - and we need to find a suitable island in >>> between. >> >>I was going through the report and also saw another page here: >>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Program/Outreach_Programs/Outreach_Sessions/Feb >>that gives listing of outreach sessions by IP. >> >>Another page by chapter also shows outreach reports. It is on the main >>page of wiki. >> >>IP and Chapter are having more or less similar functions. They do >>similar outreach efforts and have same people in some functions. >> >>Somehow, the reports from IP as well has chapter has about 9 entries >>each for outreach program and only 2 are common !! >> >>One of them is the now famous NITT academy and the other one is GNUnify. >>I was surprised to see only the English academy entry in GNUnify that >>was conducted by Ashwin and helped by IEP volunteers. The Marathi >>academy conducted at the same lab immediately after the lunch break is >>not mentioned at all. Also surprising was the entry where Moksh was >>involved. Possibly, it was supported by some IP person. >> >>General observation is that the report from IP shows the listing where >>only the IP, IEP people were involved and the chapter report mentions >>otherwise. >> >>This clearly means that there is a disconnect. I dont see any of the >>IEP/IP people joining the Pune community activities (except a few). In >>fact, one of the outreach session (mentioned in the report) by the IEP >>was not even mentioned on any of the lists. >> >>Possibly, there is some polarisation somewhere and personally I feel >>that it could be in favour of IP; simply because volunteers become >>paid activists there. >> >>Lets take a very much possible theoretical case(like the NITT, where >>volunteers had bad experiences) where a volunteer goes for conducting >>an academy and is not treated well and has bad facilities of >>lodging/boarding/travel etc. And for the same academy, a person from >>IP is also going and flies to/from the place and lives in a nice >>hotel. In such case, where and how to compare the voluntary work v/s >>paid staff work? The volunteer has spent his time and resouces for >>hardly anything but the staff is being paid for the same activity as >>part of the job. >> >>Ashwin has hinted about evaluating voluntary efforts. Is there any >>method to do it? >> >>Community members are same for both- chapter as well as IP. However, >>chapter is answerable to the community even when all the community >>members are not necessarily chapter members. (just a technical point. >>not to be emphasised), Whereas IP may not have any binding on anything >>and still get all kind of funds from WMF. And also hire people from >>the community for doing the same work people were earlier doing >>voluntarily. Also remember that chapter and the community members do >>their work voluntarily and not get paid for it. >> >>Well, just to clarify, I am not saying that community members, IP >>staff and IEP volunteers are not doing work. They are really doing >>fantastic work and that must to be appreciated. However, all those >>efforts/work has to be taken in various perspectives mentioned in this >>thread. >> >>Best regards >>-Sudhanwa >> >> >>~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~! >>web: www.sudhanwa.com blog: www.sudhanwa.in >>Twitter: sudhanwa Check on FB, Linkedin for more. >> >>___ >>Wikimediaindia-l mailing list >>Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing pre
