[cr-india] furthering discussion on online repository

[Tripta B Chandola]

Apologies for the long mail to follow.
---

I am taking elements from discussions on the list and off the list to  
think aloud about the usages of an online repository. Besides the  
already stated advantages of shareable content and preserving the  
programs, sustaining an archives, an off list discussion/inputs from  
Ram has made me think about the issue of repository from the users  
point of view.

Who is the User? Who will be downloading and uploading content? Will  
a program produced in a different context interest 'communities' from  
a different region, different state, different cultural setting?

IMHO, these are positive anxieties. These questions instead of  
discouraging an initiative as such (though that was in the intention)  
should be constantly raised, asked by those involved, NGO's, groups,  
individuals, 'communities' to broaden one's perspective.

Considering these issues, I think that the advantages of having an  
online repository will be the following (at least in principal):

a) By allowing for a multi-nodal distributed, yet localized, system,  
this repository widens the category in which the producer is placed.

b) The producer then is not obliged to belong to a certain  
'community', a project, an organization, a group. An individual  
becomes a producer outside of these constraints. I, for instance,  
obsessively record sounds in/around/of different city spaces and I  
would find the opportunity to be able to  share that content either  
in its edited or non-edited form with other members, groups,  
individuals, very thrilling. It allows me the platform to reflect the  
multiple communities I am part of.

c) Mentioned in the earlier point but just reiterating, I think this  
kind of an initiative allows for production of content outside the  
working politics, agenda, of certain groups, organizations etc which  
overtly or covertly determine the program production processes.

d) If a substantial user base is created and sustained, this sort of  
an initiative opens up the possibility of new models for  
implementing, executing, doing CR.

e) It allows to foster new kinds of programming outside of the  
strictly NGO model discussing Health, Education, etc (as was raised  
during the forum).

Having listed the advantages, I want to draw attention to the  
limitations of such an initiative:

a) As we all have already witnessed, technological euphoria rarely  
leads to technological usage and access. Also, any new technological  
intervention, tool, platform comes with its logic and structure which  
it either imbibes from the context it is placed in or imposes on it.  
And access does not translate in usage.

So, in this situation, this new platform may create newer hierarchies  
of access and usage.

b) This platform can be sabotaged by certain individuals, groups,  
organizations, etc for their own self serving promotional needs.

c) The idea of access to anyone and everyone to essentially upload  
materials will open another can of worms ranging from issues of  
copyright infringement, political, cultural propaganda, slandering  
(individual and collective). Should this platform be moderated? Who  
decides on the terms of moderation, on the usage?

d) Lastly, will this be relevant to the users, the 'communities'?  
Will these groups working with low-tech sustainable solutions invest  
in  bandwidth, new technology, techniques to use this platform, to  
contribute to it? Will the access of those with limited skills,  
techniques and technologies be mitigated by new 'middle men' so to say.

Drawing from these celebrations and anxieties about the initiative, I  
put forward certain suggestions:

Ram made a very pertinent suggestion of an offline, state specific,  
repository. I think in our deliberations we should combine a variety  
of techniques, technologies, and approaches involving both new and  
old media. The emphasis should be on how this sense of an exchange  
network, a repository, can be modified to suit the local needs while  
at the same time maintaining the links with the larger networks.

I think, to begin with, we should emphasis on just sharing the  
databases (as I mentioned earlier) of the programs each organization,  
group etc has, terms of its usage, the person who can be contacted  
for these programs, etc. In what ways the exchange happens could be  
combination of informal, internet, postal connections.

There still remains the daunting issue of why should the local  
communities be interested in programs in a different language,  
emerging from different social, cultural contexts. There is no easy,  
straight forward answer or approach to this issue. For instance, I  
personally would be interested in hearing/listening into the formats,  
sounds of radio programs from different regions/Cr initiatives but  
does my interest or the interest of others like me is enough. Or does  
my background, my status, the available access, the knowledge of the  
technology does not qualify me, in the strict development parlance,  
to be a part of the Community Radio initiatives. I am not suggesting  
that this platform be promoted only for interest, research based  
indulgences and I have no answers, I am just thinking aloud and all  
of this brings us back to the basic question of

Which communities we are talking about? Are these limited to the  
rural-underdeveloped areas, or urbane-connected groups can also  
participate?


Having raised all of these issues, I am still optimistic about an  
exchange network, about a repository (online and offline) which will  
facilitate newer kinds of formats, programming, and content.

As evident from the discussions till now, there is lot of expertise  
in varied areas which can be optimized among this group.

Tripta