[cr-india] furthering discussion on online repository

[Vickram Crishna]

A mistake to think about our country only in terms of
states, I suspect.

What I see happening here, in this discussion, is the
realisation that a fuzzy desire to 'save' newbies the
trouble of making the same mistakes over again, and
also to learn from the successes, needs a methodology
of sharing if it is to be practical. 

Note that the internet has become such a repository,
reasonably effective for unilingual text, not so much
for any other kind of archived resource. This is
largely because of tagging, but to my mind (I am
unaware of any research on the subject, so can't
suggest any weightage for each proposition) also
because of referencing.

Being such a sarkari driven culture, we are possibly
lazy enough not to address the issues. I hear again
and again at meetings (of people like 'us') about
ICT4D, usually being taken (erroneously, especially by
those doling out the external resources) to mean
connectivity to the global Internet. 

Now here we are, passionate about the very first step
of electronic ICT (one-to-many, push), hungry to use
the technological capabilities of the third step
(many-to-many, pull). There are a plethora of
learnings in between these steps.

So, my two paise worth: yes, we need to be part of
creating a universally accessible repository. However,
we should not look too selfishly at husbanding such
resources within our own narrow conceptual definitions
of 'state', language', 'subject' or any other, but
merely keep our eyes (and minds) open for
possibilities (such as, for instance, but not
restricted to, tagging) of being able to rapidly
access any resource that will be useful, even for the
smallest or most humbly conceived community center.


--- Surekha Sule <surekha52 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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 
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> cr-india mailing list
> cr-india at sarai.net
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/cr-india
> 



		
___________________________________________________________ 
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship. 
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk