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 <mvkulkarn...@yahoo.co.uk> 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 <sudhanwa....@gmail.com>
>>To: Wikimedia India Community list <wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>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 <his...@wikimedia.org> 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 preferences visit
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
>>
>>
>>


-- 
How Pradeep uses email - http://goo.gl/6v1I9

_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l

Reply via email to