Hi Ravi,

Wish you a wonderful 2013!

Appreciate in you taking time to deeply engage with the write-up and for sharing your thoughts and queries. Some further thoughts and responses below.

1. Wiki-Panchayat is unnecessary.

//

Rationale: Keep four crabs in a box and each one will ensure that no one will escape. Where there is a community there is bound to be a dispute.

Objective: Instituting a community based conflict resolution body, especially to avoid edit wars. To be modelled on our good old Panchayt system.

//

First of all, I do not like the crab metaphor at all. The Wiki community is a lot more collaborative and productive one assuming good faith. Edit war is a minor problem which I hope every community is already addressing adequately. If not, there are successful models to emulate from English Wikipedia.


Even I used to not like the metaphor. But after being part of and engaging with the various communities for about a decade I have slowly come to appreciate the learning the metaphor gives to understand. It is that a Community means vibrancy, diversity and plurality. At the same time these qualities border-line with chaos, conflict and insularity. This is a major challenge for any community. The best way to deal with it is from within the community, which is the intent of the proposed Wiki-Panchayat. And yes if there are successful models from the En-Wiki definitely they could be adopted. Would appreciate if you could point me to these models. Still if the metaphor troubles you we can strike it off.

2. QJS can be seen as micromanaging.

Earlier this year, there was an attempt by some members of the Tamil Wikipedia to do strategic planning for Tamil Wikipedia. But, concerns about micromanaging were raised and the effort was dropped later. I am afraid that QJS may receive a similar response.


Firstly, it is important to clearly convey to the Community the intent of the QJS. Its primary intent is to celebrate the collective spirit like the 'fan clubs' we see across India. Once they get this then the rest will automatically happen. Secondly, definitely before we begin the concerns of the community should be taken on board about QJS. And as I stated in the write-up the modalities of QJS should be finalized in consultation with the respective language communities. Thus it is possible that the QJS of Tamil Wiki could be different from the QJS of Hindi Wiki. Lastly, in spite of all this, if some members still express concern, then let us do a trial for at least a year and then see. I am sure member will agree that it is better to try and fail than not try at all. Haven't we all believed that Earth is flat and considered sea voyage profane until we set-out! If documented, do pass on the concerns raised about Tamil Wikipedia strategic planning. It will be a useful doc. to further refine the QJS idea.
 

3. Many of your plans assume presence of enough core contributors within the state being able to spend ample time on offline activities. This is a chicken and egg problem. How would you address that?


Yes, you are right Ravi. This is a genuine concern and I do not have any ready-made answers. However, right now I am working with the tremendous good faith I have on the Core guys. There are also some ideas up my sleeve on how to enroll these members into spending time. But I would welcome suggestions and ideas on this.

4. Any word of technology partnerships / endeavours regarding Indic languages / Indic language Wikipedias?


The more the merrier. All strength to the tech collabs and further bettering of Wiki UI and fixing bugs. One thing to focus on would be to build local capacities through an active interface with the core tech team.
 

5.

//1) MOUs with Universities/Research Institutions; 2) Institute 5 Fellowships (quarterly) for Young Researcher in Residency Programme (YRRP) in each focussed language area with 15 new articles and 100 edits in respective language Wikipedia and 100 new key words as deliverables. 3) Faculty Engagement Programme (FEP), 2 in each language for six-month duration, whereby a faculty is provided support to mentor and manage at least 5 Young Researchers on an Indian topic; 4) Wiki-Young Researchers Workshop//


How will it be different from the India education program and how would you avoid known pit falls?


It is different from the IEP, but is based on some of the learnings of IEP.

Firstly, it targets researchers and not students. There are many benefits of working with Young Researchers (YR) than students. 1) YRs will be aware of Copyvios and referencing; 2) Enthusiastic about doing research as it will anyhow contribute to their own individual projects; 3) YRs are relatively more open to criticism/feedback; 4) Because of the institutional structure YRs will have closer interaction and monitoring by Faculty, which will result in quality content; 5) The writing standards would be relatively better; 6) YRs will be knowledgeable  (i.e. research preparedness) about their topics; 7) Will have more time at hand to research and write

Secondly, the scope of Copyvio majorly reduces when it comes to Indian Languages. Language issues will be relatively lesser as they will be using their MT.
 
Thirdly, from the very beginning the respective language community and Core members will be active stakeholders in the entire process. This will make a huge difference.

Fourthly, the focus is not disciplinary in the sense Wiki is not going to be an alternative to the TBs and Course Material. Wiki will be promoted as a learning and knowledge dissemination tool whereby these Knowledge Institutions/Researchers are making themselves socially relevant and societally connected. Simply put

Lastly, the scope is smaller but at the same time has the intent of focussed engagement. Would welcome ideas on how we can further strengthen this initiative.
 

6.

//5 WCL to mentor at least 5 GWLs = A base of 150 leaders (i.e. 150 potential editors); 2) Each WCL to organize 1 Perspective Building Programme (PBP) every week (avg 15 new members per event) = 750 PBPs; 3) Each WCL to organize 1 Wiki-Outreach and Orientation event every month (avg 10 new members per event) = 300 Wiki-Orientations to reach 3000 members (may result in 150 editors).//

The numbers are both ambitious and scary at the same time. I understand that a role like yours would need to analyse progress based on numbers. But, I would like to see the progress described in a qualitative way.


Looking back I feel the same, Ravi. Have I been scarily ambitious! But I feel that we should aim at least this much if we need to gain more momentum on the Indian wiki projects. I have put these milestones not because the 'role' demands it, but keeping in mind the A2K goals.

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by 'progress described in a qualitative way'?  I think the existing wiki structure already enables it.

Thanks and look forward to further feedback from you and others.