Dear Ravi, I was thinking of ignoring this vague insinuation of wrong-doing at first, but then two different people suggested that I respond. I could give a short answer: Yes, that account is mine, and no I am not suggesting that WMIN funding be stopped. Despite these discussions remind me of a quote often attributed to the Canadian-American labour union mediator Cyrus S. Ching, I must, it would seem, provide you a lengthier response. For the record, here is the complete set of tweets I've made about Wikimedia's funding process in India, including appreciation of the criticisms that CIS has been getting: https://storify.com/pranesh_prakash/wm-funding-in-india/ For the record, here is my response to Hari Prasad Nadig's question about whether my user account was created just for the purpose of those the Meta-Wiki discussions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013… For the record, I have been an editor on English Wikipedia since October 2004. For the record, I have been using the handle "the_solipsist" and its variants on the Internet since around 1997 or 1998. Ask around. Check on Freenode. If I had been attempting sock-puppetry, which seems to be the implication, I wouldn't use a handle that is readily linkable to me. For the record, on the talk page on the grant wiki, I have noted that you and others, have made good points where I feel you have. (In response to User:Prad2609's lengthy comment, to which you wrote, "1000+ likes. Brilliant and spot on analysis. Perfectly captures what is wrong with the whole model.", I wrote: "Very valid points. While I strongly disagree with the first (on wanting only 'natural'/'organic' growth) since that privileges the status quo and the elite, I would be very curious to see responses to the specific criticism of the Konkani Wikipedia".) For the record, I have never commented about the Wikimedia India chapter's grant proposal. Having placed all that on record, let me state that: * There are many points that have been made that I don't agree with, and I have in a very civil manner argued so. (One example is the Catch-22 of both arguing that CIS doesn't have community members, and then arguing that CIS is wrong in "poaching" community members.) * There are many fundamental points (such as on paid editing) that have been made that I feel apply equally to any applicant for a Wikimedia grant, whether it happens to be an organization with a proven track record of promoting free knowledge like CIS, or whether it happens to be a community-led organization like the Wikimedia India chapter. Some of the critiques in this regard (such as the thread berating CIS's efforts to extend Wikisource's corpus) are woefully misguided and seem to have been made solely to attack CIS, regardless of the merits of the work. * The more vitriol that a dedicated few pour on to these lists and wikis, the more difficult it becomes to separate the distasteful personal attacks against CIS staff and the organization from the useful institutional and programmatic critiques. I think there are people on this list who are currently more interested in "gotchas" and scoring bownie points against CIS than in genuinely improving the state of free and open knowledge in the world, despite the latter being their original aim and continuing to be their long-term aim. Should CIS get a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation? Is the proposal submitted by CIS ideal, does it allocate too much to salaries, does it focus on the wrong areas? I think all those are open to debate, and I see much fruitful discussions having occurred on this, and my colleagues at CIS engaging in this conversation in what I feel is an admirable manner. And as I noted in one of my tweets, I strongly welcome this debate. First, it forces CIS to reiterate its stand on transparency, to reflect hard about what the best forms of interventions would be for the Wikimedia community's efforts in India (and constantly learn and revise our understanding of this), to be accountable not only to the "donor" but to the community in a manner that is unprecedented. Second, It also forces the community to work towards meaningful metrics for evaluating the achievements of a WM grant, and to think about what the best uses of its monetary resources are. The problem of "credit" isn't going to disappear if the Wikimedia India chapter is provided a larger grant instead of CIS. I can confidently assert that CIS is as uninterested in taking credit for volunteers' work as the Wikimedia India chapter. The need is not for "credit", but for metrics of evaluation of achievements. There is an entire branch of organizational studies dedicated to precisely this. Saying that the "Wikimedia India chapter is the community" doesn't magically resolve these hard problems. Should the people on this list have their judgment so obscured by petty politicking that they see a question by me — as to whether Wikimedia should stop its funding activities (because that would give rise, if one goes by the averments by many people on this list, to issues of paid editing) — as a call to stop all funding to the Wikimedia India Chapter? To that, I would resolutely say, "No." As a strong believer in Wikipedia and the power of open collaborative communities, I greatly regret the state of affairs that exists currently within the Wikimedia India community. And unlike others, I wouldn't put the blame solely at CIS's feet. Nor will I give in to the convenient temptation to pin the blame solely on the trolls within the community — who most decidedly do exist. The truth is more complicated than such simplistic blame assignments. I do hope the community ­— of which several of the staff in CIS, myself included, are a part — finds itself able to be more productive in its discussions. But then, as Nietzsche observed, hope "prolongs the torments of man". Regards, Pranesh ravidreams at gmail.com (Ravishankar) [2014-05-17 16:20:58 +0530]:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 [resending] Dear Ravi, I was thinking of ignoring this vague insinuation of wrong-doing at first, but then two different people suggested that I respond. I could give a short answer: Yes, that account is mine, and no I am not suggesting that WMIN funding be stopped. Despite these discussions remind me of a quote often attributed to the Canadian-American labour union mediator Cyrus S. Ching, I must, it would seem, provide you a lengthier response. For the record, here is the complete set of tweets I've made about Wikimedia's funding process in India, including appreciation of the criticisms that CIS has been getting: https://storify.com/pranesh_prakash/wm-funding-in-india/ For the record, here is my response to Hari Prasad Nadig's question about whether my user account was created just for the purpose of those the Meta-Wiki discussions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013… For the record, I have been an editor on English Wikipedia since October 2004. For the record, I have been using the handle "the_solipsist" and its variants on the Internet since around 1997 or 1998. Ask around. Check on Freenode. If I had been attempting sock-puppetry, which seems to be the implication, I wouldn't use a handle that is readily linkable to me. For the record, on the talk page on the grant wiki, I have noted that you and others, have made good points where I feel you have. (In response to User:Prad2609's lengthy comment, to which you wrote, "1000+ likes. Brilliant and spot on analysis. Perfectly captures what is wrong with the whole model.", I wrote: "Very valid points. While I strongly disagree with the first (on wanting only 'natural'/'organic' growth) since that privileges the status quo and the elite, I would be very curious to see responses to the specific criticism of the Konkani Wikipedia".) For the record, I have never commented about the Wikimedia India chapter's grant proposal. Having placed all that on record, let me state that: * There are many points that have been made that I don't agree with, and I have in a very civil manner argued so. (One example is the Catch-22 of both arguing that CIS doesn't have community members, and then arguing that CIS is wrong in "poaching" community members.) * There are many fundamental points (such as on paid editing) that have been made that I feel apply equally to any applicant for a Wikimedia grant, whether it happens to be an organization with a proven track record of promoting free knowledge like CIS, or whether it happens to be a community-led organization like the Wikimedia India chapter. Some of the critiques in this regard (such as the thread berating CIS's efforts to extend Wikisource's corpus) are woefully misguided and seem to have been made solely to attack CIS, regardless of the merits of the work. * The more vitriol that a dedicated few pour on to these lists and wikis, the more difficult it becomes to separate the distasteful personal attacks against CIS staff and the organization from the useful institutional and programmatic critiques. I think there are people on this list who are currently more interested in "gotchas" and scoring bownie points against CIS than in genuinely improving the state of free and open knowledge in the world, despite the latter being their original aim and continuing to be their long-term aim. Should CIS get a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation? Is the proposal submitted by CIS ideal, does it allocate too much to salaries, does it focus on the wrong areas? I think all those are open to debate, and I see much fruitful discussions having occurred on this, and my colleagues at CIS engaging in this conversation in what I feel is an admirable manner. And as I noted in one of my tweets, I strongly welcome this debate. First, it forces CIS to reiterate its stand on transparency, to reflect hard about what the best forms of interventions would be for the Wikimedia community's efforts in India (and constantly learn and revise our understanding of this), to be accountable not only to the "donor" but to the community in a manner that is unprecedented. Second, It also forces the community to work towards meaningful metrics for evaluating the achievements of a WM grant, and to think about what the best uses of its monetary resources are. The problem of "credit" isn't going to disappear if the Wikimedia India chapter is provided a larger grant instead of CIS. I can confidently assert that CIS is as uninterested in taking credit for volunteers' work as the Wikimedia India chapter. The need is not for "credit", but for metrics of evaluation of achievements. There is an entire branch of organizational studies dedicated to precisely this. Saying that the "Wikimedia India chapter is the community" doesn't magically resolve these hard problems. Should the people on this list have their judgment so obscured by petty politicking that they see a question by me — as to whether Wikimedia should stop its funding activities (because that would give rise, if one goes by the averments by many people on this list, to issues of paid editing) — as a call to stop all funding to the Wikimedia India Chapter? To that, I would resolutely say, "No." As a strong believer in Wikipedia and the power of open collaborative communities, I greatly regret the state of affairs that exists currently within the Wikimedia India community. And unlike others, I wouldn't put the blame solely at CIS's feet. Nor will I give in to the convenient temptation to pin the blame solely on the trolls within the community — who most decidedly do exist. The truth is more complicated than such simplistic blame assignments. I do hope the community ­— of which several of the staff in CIS, myself included, are a part — finds itself able to be more productive in its discussions. But then, as Nietzsche observed, hope "prolongs the torments of man". Regards, Pranesh ravidreams at gmail.com (Ravishankar) [2014-05-17 16:20:58 +0530]: - -- Pranesh Prakash Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org - ------------------- Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash