[cr-india] furthering discussion on online repository

[Surekha Sule]

I have been reading with great interest about this idea of "exchange" and "repository". Logically, it make sense that the resources should be shared rather than replicate the efforts. For instance, a programme on dowry is made by almost all CRs that I know. So on a common topic, if the basic research inputs are to be shared for the programme, at least that effort is saved. But the context, the content, the dialect, the style and presentation of the programme on the same issue of dowry will have to be different. So then what is the use of programme sharing? May be a novel approach can be observed and adopted but not entire programme produced say in Kutchi can be used in toto say in Kannada. And who will understand all these dialects which is what we all wish the programmes should be in to reach out to people. 
   
  So what is to be shared and by whom? Will the answer be that all those producing in Kutchi or all those in Kannada and so on... should share. Then Ram's idea of statewise repository may be right approach. So atleast a language homogeinty can narrow down for the selection. If someone observes a novel approach or some thing interesting about the programme to share, those observations may be put up on the common repository.
   
  Like Sajan, I have thought aloud only.
   
  Surekha Sule
  NIRD, Hyderabad
  9848997657
   
  

Tripta B Chandola <tripta at gmail.com> wrote:
  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
_______________________________________________
cr-india mailing list
cr-india at sarai.net
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india


 
---------------------------------
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/cr-india/attachments/20070217/c8c62729/attachment.htm