Events Blog

In recent times, there has been an upsurge in the use of ICTs to provide information to people and to elicit participation. Individuals, corporate organisations, NGOs, civil society organisations, collectives, municipalities, political parties and politicians have been using the internet and other mediums to communicate with people. The round table was organised primarily to discuss two issues:

1. What is the effectiveness of the initiatives introduced in recent times?
2. How do we move forward in terms of partnerships/collaborations in the areas of data gathering, sharing, dissemination and architecture of information?

Given the constraints of time, however, we were only able to discuss a few issues with respect to efficacy of initiatives, rather than come up with a concrete action plan on how to measure effectiveness of many of the existing initiatives. This remains an agenda for subsequent meetings.

This round table was the first meeting of its kind. It brought together participants from diverse backgrounds to discuss key issues involved in leveraging ICTs towards various ends, and to collaborate with each other on ongoing initiatives. Participants included researchers, persons who have developed information platforms and databases, individuals working in the area of leveraging technology for streamlining processes in society and people who have been studying usage patterns of social media tools. Most of the participants were using ICTs to improve information access related to health issues, education, budgets, development of rural areas and recently, elections and governance. In the subsequent sections, I will briefly elaborate on some of the key themes around which discussions took place during the round table.

Building on Ideas: In the morning and pre-lunch sessions, one issue that featured prominently was the importance of developing ideas rather than trying to work out a perfect model that we believe will solve what we perceive to be people’s problems. Two of the participants explained that they started implementing ideas as they came to them, rather than trying to come up with a framework that they thought would work for the masses. They worked towards evolving their ideas, exploring what works and what does not. One of them further pointed out that such evolution cannot be observed as it happens; it only becomes apparent in hindsight. Hence, discussions such as the current round table are useful.

It is also important to note that we are still in a nascent stage of understanding how ICTs can impact people’s lives and deploying them accordingly. As a result, many efforts are likely to be in the stage of trial and error.

Key areas of interest and concern: Based on the input from participants in the morning session, we arrived at a list of areas that require more understanding and discussion.

1. Information gathering, dissemination, access – including information architecture, technology design: Here, three issues were discussed:
• Who are we talking about when we refer to information access? It was pointed out that information is crucial particularly for people who do not have computers and for whom internet is not a priority. The intensity with which they seek information is remarkable. One of the participants argued that we undervalue the potential of information to make a difference to people’s lives.
• How do we deliver information? Providing information is not enough.
• Representativeness of the information for those who it is provided for.

Another issue that was referred to was whether language is a problem, i.e., most information is available only in English. One of the participants suggested that this is not the case because Google has found that a very small percentage of the population actually refers to material on the web in languages other than English.

2. Community mobilization: During the deliberations, we referred to the problem of replication of initiatives. Two observers of social media pointed out that replication happens because people are trying to create their own unique communities around their initiatives. This is an important insight for future efforts and also indicates the need to share databases and information that individuals and organisations have compiled. They also suggested that it is important to discover existing communities and spaces where conversations around issues of governance, education, health and development are taking place. This helps to plug into existing resource pools and to extend outreach.
   

3. Citizens’ participation: Initiatives that work and why they succeed - We briefly discussed the Jaagore campaign and India Vote Report, which were launched before the 2009 national elections in India to enable people to register on the electoral rolls and to report irregularities during elections respectively. Some people found it difficult to register themselves on the Jaagore website and some had difficulties in finding the local offices where they needed to follow-up with the process. It was also pointed out that Vote Report did not connect with the end user because it would have been easier to report irregularities and anomalies via SMS rather than trying to report them by logging on to the site. If one looks at the case of the Online Complaint Management System (OCMS) developed by Praja, the availability of the telephone hotline service through which citizens could register their complaints helped in widening usage. Thus, it appears that two issues are pertinent:
• Whether the initiative connects with the people who are likely to use it;
• Simplicity of design/system that enables more users.
  

Target Audience: One of the participants pointed out that some initiatives do not work because they are targeted towards the wrong audiences. For example, when it comes to voting and elections, poor groups are the ones who go out and vote in large numbers. Hence, information systems need to be tailored to provide them with the data that they need most. Access also has to be configured accordingly. In some instances, the target is too broad to reach out effectively.

It appears that there is a need to develop strategies on how platforms and databases that have been created to enhance access to information can be made known among the masses and how people can be made aware to use them. It is equally important to understand what constitutes ‘information’ and for whom. Here, the other issue to explore is how information links back to the people for who it is provided.

4. Technology: In this area, a key concern was the high costs involved in developing technologies and whether we could learn from each other’s experience of developing technologies instead of reinventing the wheel. We also discussed whether open source software helps to reduce costs of development. The other issue with respect to open source is whether there is enough assistance and support available to resolve problems that may crop up during use of technology from time to time.

Sharing of Data: Discussions also veered around the issue of whether appropriate technology and applications could be created to help with sharing existing databases and information pools. We did not discuss this issue in depth, but it remains relevant for subsequent meetings.

5. Back end integration: According to some of the participants, one of major problems is the interface between government and citizens, which remains weak. Technology can be used to enhance the interactions. Participants also pointed out the difficulty in obtaining data from government bodies that is important to create the interface between government and citizens. A participant involved with the Jaagore campaign referred to the problem of back-end integration during their efforts to help citizens register themselves with the election commission (EC) offices. A participant from Google similarly reported that they faced problems in obtaining election results from the EC’s offices as a result of which, they had to rely on their partners for this information. Here too, we could not deliberate on how to resolve this problem, but this could be a major theme for a subsequent meeting.
   

6. Performance (monitoring, evaluation): One of the themes that participants zeroed in on was the evaluation of the performance of elected representatives and making this evaluation available for people to see. Here, the debate was around the problem of evaluation being carried out according to the criteria we set which may not seem relevant to other sections of society. One of the suggestions that came up was to develop a matrix for evaluation and put out information accordingly. People can then use it to make their own judgments.
   

In the post-lunch session, some of the participants shared their experiences with implementation and also the work they and their organisations are currently engaged with. Towards the end of the round table, each one of the participants explained their respective projects and how they may wish to collaborate with other participants (who were present) in their initiatives. An e-group called “CIS-Info-Access” has been created to take these conversations and collaborations further. 

Evaluation of the Round Table and Way Forward:

When invitations were sent out to people to participate in the round table, many of the invitees expressed a genuine and enthusiastic interest in being part of this effort. As mentioned above, one of the reasons for this enthusiasm was because this was the first meeting of its kind, bringing together individuals from the fields of technology, research and implementation. We invited a total of 35 people out of which 27 finally attended the meeting. The diversity of the participants was an asset in that a variety of issues were brought to the table. The drawback was that there was not enough time to discuss some of the pertinent issues in depth. Future meetings can be tailored to discuss one or two specific themes such as back-end integration and sharing of information, technology issues, ideas for mobilising citizens and communities, etc.

The possibilities of collaboration between participants in this meeting are immense and we hope that some of the synergies will materialise into concrete outcomes. Further, a few participants have expressed an interest in organising similar meetings in their cities/towns, perhaps focusing on a few issues instead of bringing people together under a broad theme. Of some of the issues discussed, participants have indicated that back-end integration with government and ideating on different ways of disseminating data can be further deliberated on in future. One of the participants also suggested that there is a need to make ‘data’ more relevant to people’s lives.

While the meeting was fruitful in many respects, one issue needs to be underlined. This concerns the imagination of internet and ICTs as mediums that can resolve all existing problems with respect to citizen-government interface, streamlining of processes and provision of information. Such an overarching imagination of technology overlooks the cultural, economic, social and political specificities of communities and contexts. Technology can also have negative implications in some circumstances. It also needs to be reinforced that technology is embedded in society and culture. Therefore we need to view technology as one of the avenues among others available which will facilitate interactions between people and their governments and the state. Democratisation is more likely to be realised through such a perspective.

Iran Elections and the Twitter Revolution …

Memes – how and why do some memes become popular on Twitter?

FaceBook – privacy, community, locality, socializing?

Blogs – once, we thought they would revolutionize the world, but how are blogs now placed vis-à-vis twitter and facebook?

Many questions abound concerning the phenomenon called 'social media', particularly in the wake of the protests taking place in Iran and the ways in which information has reached out to the world about what is going on in the country. The panel discussion on social media, organised by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) on 19 June 2009, aimed to understand how mobilisations take place through social media and how memes are engineered and spread across communities. We invited Dina Mehta and Peter Griffin to join us as panellists at the event and share their experiences.

Dina and Peter set up the tsunami help blog in December 2004 (http://tsunamihelp.blogspot.com) which for the first time demonstrated the importance of social media tools in coordinating local efforts and disseminating information in the region. What caused them to become involved through this medium? Both Dina and Peter used discussion forums and email during the formative years of the internet in India. 'The sheer miracle of chat', as Peter puts it, also allowed them to connect with people. When the tsunami struck, they became nodes through which action was mobilised and information was spread. It still remains to be explored how nodes develop in different circumstances, how spaces of conversations develop and what causes some individuals to enter the space of social media and inhabit them in significant ways, to the extent of becoming nodes for coordination and mobilisation.

So, what is social media? Dina says she does not like the term. But, since it is used so commonly, she follows the tide. For Dina and Peter, social media is a set of tools which can be mobilised for various purposes – for a call to action, response to a crisis, and persuading people to support a cause, among many other things. What is curious however is that the use of social media becomes more marked and prominent during moments of crisis. This observation led one audience member to ask whether social media is mirroring some of the behaviours of mainstream media. Dina pointed out that social media does not exist in opposition to mainstream media – both complement each other. Social media becomes more powerful during moments of crisis due to some of the following factors:

1. Powerful search functions;
2. Tools for aggregating content which helps in picking up the noise;
3. Hash (#) tags which make it easy to search and to connect and contribute to ongoing conversations and mobilizations. 

These help to amplify what is going on. Dina also referred to the simplicity of social media tools which enables diverse individuals to participate in their own ways. She cited the recent example of showing solidarity with the Iranian revolutionaries by adding the colour green to one’s Twitter image. 'I only had to click to indicate whether I wanted to show support in this way and a program automatically applied the green colour to my twitter image without my having to do anything. I don’t have to write code to participate in this medium. I can be anyone,' she added.

What is also unique is that unlike newspapers and early television, interactions via social media tend to be two-way. For instance, blogs have made it possible for individuals to become publishers of their own materials whether it is diary-like entries or filter blogging. Moreover, in the case of the protests following the Iran elections, people used their mobile phones to capture images, make videos and post these on the internet for others to see.

Individuals from the audience raised questions about how they and their organisations could use social media tools effectively to raise funds and to communicate their causes/issues to other people. To this, both Dina and Peter suggested that it is important to find the spaces where conversations about issues are already taking place and to participate in them. They also stated that credibility is built over time through acts of giving to different communities that develop around various issues. Dina also emphasised the need to recognise target audiences, identify the mediums they use regularly and accordingly develop strategies concerning the use of social media. If the outreach group is more tuned into radio, it is more effective to reach out to them in this way. Dina mentioned that the mobile phone is a powerful medium that is often neglected because of the publicity that the internet tends to receive. She said that in South East Asian countries, people have better mobile phone connectivity, and often, political activism has taken place by spreading messages through mobile phones. One of the participants questioned the feasibility of moving from an existing yahoogroup to start a new discussion group; to which another audience member responded that it is preferable to stay with existing mediums used rather than to switch. Discussion forums require more participation and if the goal is only to send out announcements, a yahoogroup serves the purpose.

The issue of arm-chair activism was also raised – whether social media is in fact leading people to participate in issues only through clicking ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Peter stated that this is true, but the ease of transmitting information to others enhances the possibility of moving beyond arm-chair activism. 'For instance, I am concerned about eve teasing and harassment of women in public spaces, but I may not have the time to participate in an intervention or gathering on a particular day. However, I forward the email/invitation to my friends who are concerned similarly and they may choose to participate on-site,' he explained.

The lack of connectivity to the internet and therefore to social media was referred to in the discussions. An audience member pointed out that according to a recent study, only 10% of the people in India are connected to the internet. Peter immediately remarked that the figure of 10% translated into 10 million people which is still a large number that can be reached out to. Similarly, it was pointed out that English is still the predominant language of the web and therefore social media can be exclusive. In this respect, the issues are developing technologies for facilitating the use of scripts, the extent to which the masses use languages other than English on the internet and also whether people in fact use the internet and other communication technologies as a means to learn English. In this context, a participant drew our attention to a twitter community of approximately 800 people who tweet regularly in Malayalam.

The discussion brought up some interesting nuanced perspectives on social media that users and novices may not have thought about. Questions still remain about the efficacy of social media, the nature and characteristics of communities that are formed around use of social media, distinctions between networks and communities, etc. Over time, these questions will be answered as usage increases and trends are studied in all their complex aspects.

ನಮ್ಮದೇ ಸಮುದಾಯದವರನ್ನು ತಲುಪುವುದು ತುಂಬ ಕಷ್ಟ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ನಿಜವಾದ ಸಂಗತಿ. ನಾವೆಲ್ಲ ಬೆಳೆದು ಬಂದ ಜಗತ್ತು ಈಗ ನಮ್ಮನ್ನೆಲ್ಲ ಹತ್ತಿರ ತಂದಿರುವ ಅದೇ ಭಾಷೆಯ ಸುತ್ತ ಪೋಣಿಸಿದ್ದು. ಹೀಗಾಗಿಯೇ ನಾವುಗಳು ಇಲ್ಲಿದ್ದೇವೆ, ನಮ್ಮ ಕೆಲಸಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸುವ ಭಾಷೆ ಬೇರೆಯದ್ದಾದರೇನು, ನಮ್ಮ ಭಾಷೆಯ ನಂಟು ಬಿಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ! ಸೂಕ್ಷ್ಮ ರೇಖೆಯಂತಿರುವ ಈ "ಭಾಷೆ" ಎಂಬ ಬಂಧ ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಆಸಕ್ತಿ, ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಗಳ ಬುತ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟಿ ತರುವ ನಮ್ಮನ್ನೆಲ್ಲ ಅದು ಹೇಗೆ ಹಿಡಿದಿಟ್ಟಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದು ಒಮ್ಮೊಮ್ಮೆ ಆಶ್ಚರ್ಯ ಹುಟ್ಟಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.
ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ದಿನದಂದು ಕಂಡುಬಂದ ಮುಖಗಳು ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯ ಲೆಕ್ಕದಲ್ಲಿ ನಮಗೆ ಕೊಂಚ ಬೇಸರ ಮೂಡಿಸಿದರೂ, ಆ ದಿನ "ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ ಹಾಗು ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಕುರಿತ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ"ಯ ಸುತ್ತ ಒಂದು ಉತ್ತಮ ಚರ್ಚೆ ನಡೆದದ್ದು ಖುಷಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿತು. ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಇದ್ದದ್ದು ಹೀಗೆ ಬರೆಯಲು ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಬಳಸುವುದು ಹೇಗೆ? ಮತ್ತು ತದನಂತರ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ಟಿನಿಂದ ಹೊರಗೆ, ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯಿಲ್ಲದೆಡೆಗೆ ಅದನ್ನು ವಿಸ್ತರಿಸುವುದು ಹೇಗೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದರ ಸುತ್ತ. ಚರ್ಚೆ ನಡೆದದ್ದು ಭಾನುವಾರ ೨೯, ೨೦೦೯, ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಎಂಡ್ ಸೊಸೈಟಿ, ಕನ್ನಿಂಗ್ಹಾಮ್ ರೋಡಿನಲ್ಲಿ.

ಅಂದು ನಾವು ಕನ್ನಿಂಗ್ಹಾಮ್ ರೋಡಿಗೆ ಹೊರಟು ನಿಂತಾಗ ನಮಗದು 'ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಭಾನುವಾರ'. ಆದರೂ ಎಷ್ಟು ಜನ ಬರುತ್ತಾರೋ, ಯಾರು ಯಾರು ಬರುವರು ಎಂಬ ಕುತೂಹಲ ನಮಗೆ! ನಾವುಗಳು ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಆಮಂತ್ರಣ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿದ್ದೇ ಕೊಂಚ ತಡವಾಗಿ! ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಲು ಒಂದು ವಾರ ಕೂಡ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಸೇರಿಕೊಂಡಂತೆ ಮೂರು ದಿನ ರಜೆ ಬೇರೆ - ಯುಗಾದಿ, ಶನಿವಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಭಾನುವಾರ!

ಆದರೆ ಆ ಭಾನುವಾರ ವಿಶೇಷ ದಿನವೆನಿಸಿದ್ದು ಹೌದು. ನಮ್ಮ ನೆಚ್ಚಿನ ವಿಷಯಗಳು - ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ, ಕನ್ನಡ ಇವುಗಳೊಡನೆ - ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲ ಕೂಡ ಬೆರೆತದ್ದಲ್ಲದೆ ಅವುಗಳ ಕುರಿತು ಉತ್ತಮ ಚರ್ಚೆ ನಡೆದದ್ದು ನಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲರ ಮನಸ್ಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಅಚ್ಚಾಗಿ ಉಳಿಯುವ ನಿಮಿಷಗಳು.

ಮೊದಲ ಅವಧಿ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶಗಳು ಹಾಗು ಅದರ ಸುತ್ತ ಇರುವ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಕುರಿತು ಬರೆಯುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾತುಕತೆ ಎಂಬುದಾಗಿತ್ತು ನಮ್ಮ ಉದ್ದೇಶ. ನಾನು ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಒಂದು ಪುಟ್ಟ ಪೀಠಿಕೆಯ ನಂತರ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತ ಗೆಳೆಯರಾದ ಇಸ್ಮಾಯಿಲ್ ಚರ್ಚೆ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಿಸಿದರು, ಚರ್ಚೆ ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶಗಳ ಕುರಿತು ಹೇಗೆ ಬರೆಯುವುದು ಎಂಬುದರ ಸುತ್ತ ನಡೆಯಿತು. ಹಲವು ವಿಷಯಗಳು ಚರ್ಚೆಗೆ ಬಂದವು. ತೀರ ಗ್ರಾಂಥಿಕವಾದ ಅನುವಾದ ಮಾಡಬೇಕಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂಬ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ಇಸ್ಮಾಯಿಲ್ ಕೂಡಲೆ ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾಪಿಸಿದರು. ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಬಳಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಕೆಲವು ಪದಗಳು ಅವು ಇದ್ದಂತೆಯೇ ಬಳಸಬಹುದು ಎಂಬ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ಮುಂದಿಟ್ಟರು. ಅತಿಯಾದ ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತ ಬಳಸಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಪದಗಳನ್ನು ಅನುವಾದ ಮಾಡುವ, ಹೊಸ ಹೊಸ ಪದಗಳನ್ನು ರಚಿಸುವ ಮನೋಭಾವ ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಿದರು. ಅದೇ ಸಮಯ ಹಳೆಗನ್ನಡ ಬಳಸಿಯೂ ಹೀಗೆಯೇ ಮಾಡಲಾಗುತ್ತಿರುವ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು extreme ಕುರಿತು ಗಮನ ಸೆಳೆಯುವ ಎಂದಿದ್ದೆ - ಅಷ್ಟರೊಳಗೆ ಚರ್ಚೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತಷ್ಟು ದನಿ, ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಗಳು ಬೆರೆತು ಮಾತುಕತೆ ಮುನ್ನಡೆದು ಹೋಗಿತ್ತು. ಒಟ್ಟಾರೆ, ಪರ್ಯಾಯ ಪದಗಳಿಲ್ಲದ ಸಮಯ, ಗೊಂದಲ ಮೂಡಿಸುವಂತಹ ಪದಗಳಿರುವ ಸಮಯ, ಆಗಲೇ ಬಳಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಇಂಗ್ಲೀಷ್ ಪದಗಳನ್ನೇ ಬಳಸುವುದು ಎಂಬ ವಿಷಯಕ್ಕೆ ಬೆಂಬಲ ಸಿಕ್ತು. ಚರ್ಚೆ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಸಮಯ ಕಳೆದ ಚುನಾವಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿಜೆಪಿಯ "Feel Good Factor" ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕೆ ಅನುವಾದಗೊಳ್ಳುವಾಗ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಏನೆಲ್ಲ ಅನಾಹುತಕ್ಕೀಡುಮಾಡಿತ್ತು, ಏನೆಲ್ಲ ಗೊಂದಲ ಹುಟ್ಟುಹಾಕಿತ್ತು ಎಂಬ ವಿಷಯ ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾಪವಾಯಿತು. ಓದುಗರಿಗೆ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ಅರ್ಥವಾಗದೇ ಇದ್ದದ್ದಷ್ಟೇ ಅಲ್ಲ, ಆಗ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರು ಬರೆದ ವಿಷಯ ಓದುಗರಿಗೆ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ತಲುಪದೇ ಹೋಗಿತ್ತು ಕೂಡ. ಈ ವಿಷಯ ಈಗ ನಗಣ್ಯವೆನಿಸಬಹುದು, ಆದರೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತಲುಪಿಸುವಾಗ ಈ ಚಿಕ್ಕ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಯೂ ಪ್ರಮುಖ ವಿಷಯವಾಗಬಹುದು. 

ನಂತರ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಕುರಿತು ಬರೆಯುವಾಗ ಮತ್ತೆ ಮತ್ತೆ ಎದುರಾಗುವ ತೊಂದರೆಗಳು, ಬರೆಯುವ ಉತ್ಸಾಹವನ್ನೇ ಹೋಗಲಾಡಿಸುವಂತಹ ತೊಂದರೆಗಳು - ಈ ಕುರಿತು ಚರ್ಚೆ ಮುಂದುವರೆಯಿತು.

ಇಸ್ಮಾಯಿಲ್ ಹಾಕಿದ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ: "ಪ್ರೊಜೆಕ್ಟರನ್ನು ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಏನಂತ ಕರೆಯುತ್ತೀರಿ?" ಬರವಣಿಗೆಯ ಮೂಲ ಉದ್ದೇಶದ ಕುರಿತು ಗಮನ ಹರಿಸಬೇಕಾದ ಅವಶ್ಯಕತೆ, ಭಾಷೆಯನ್ನು 'ಶುದ್ಧ'ವಾಗಿಟ್ಟುಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದಕ್ಕಿಂತ ಮುಖ್ಯವಾದದ್ದು ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಿತ್ತು.

ನಡುವೆ ಕೆಲವು ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶಗಳ ಕುರಿತು, ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡವನ್ನು ಬಳಸುವ, ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಅದನ್ನು ಬಳಸುವ ಕುರಿತು ಚರ್ಚೆ ನಡೆಯಿತು.

ನಾಗೇಶ ಹೆಗಡೆಯವರು ಮಧ್ಯಾಹ್ನದ ಅವಧಿಗೆ ಜೊತೆಗೂಡಿದರು, ಚರ್ಚೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲ್ಗೊಂಡರು. ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಹಾಗು ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ ಬರಹಗಳನ್ನು ಚರ್ಚಿಸುವಾಗ ನಾಗೇಶ ಹೆಗಡೆಯವರ ಹೆಸರಿಲ್ಲದೆ ನಡೆಯದು. ಸ್ವತಃ ಅವರೇ ಚರ್ಚೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದ್ದು ಒಂದು ಅಪೂರ್ವ ಕ್ಷಣ.

ಕನ್ನಡ ಪ್ರಭದ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಾಹಕ ಸಂಪಾದಕರಾದ ರವಿ ಹೆಗಡೆ ಕೂಡ ಎರಡನೇ ಅವಧಿಯ ಚರ್ಚೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲ್ಗೊಂಡರು. ಎರಡನೆಯ ಅವಧಿ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಪರಿಸರದ ಸುತ್ತ ಬರೆಯುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾತುಕತೆಯಿಂದ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭವಾದದ್ದು. ಅಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಚರ್ಚೆ ಡೇಟ ಸೆಂಟರುಗಳು ಗ್ಲೋಬಲ್ ವಾರ್ಮಿಂಗಿಗೆ ಎಷ್ಟು ಕಾಣಿಕೆ ನೀಡುತ್ತಿದೆ ಎನ್ನುವಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಗೂಗಲ್ ವರೆಗೂ ಮುಟ್ಟಿತು. ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲ ಬಳಸುವವರ ಪ್ರೈವೆಸಿಗಿರುವ ತೊಂದರೆಗಳ ಕುರಿತು ಚರ್ಚೆ ನಡೆಯಿತು. ಆ ನಂತರ ಆರ್ ಟಿ ಐ (ರೈಟ್ ಟು ಇನ್ಫರ್ಮೇಶನ್ ಆಕ್ಟ್) ಕುರಿತ ಚರ್ಚೆ ನಡೆಯಿತು. ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಆರ್ ಟಿ ಐ ಕುರಿತ ಮಾಹಿತಿ, ಸಹಾಯ ಪುಟಗಳ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿರುವ ಕುರಿತು ಚರ್ಚೆ ನಡೆಯಿತು. ತದನಂತರ ಸ್ವತ್ರಂತ್ರ ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶಗಳಾಗಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಿರುವ ಪರ್ಯಾಯ ಆಯ್ಕೆಗಳ ಕುರಿತು ಮಾತುಕತೆ ನಡೆಯಿತು. ಗ್ನು/ಲಿನಕ್ಸ್ ಹಾಗು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡದ ಸುತ್ತ ಲಭ್ಯವಿರುವ ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶಗಳು, ಪದ್ಮ (ಕನ್ವರ್ಶನ್ ಮಾಡಲು ಬಳಸಬಹುದಾದ ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶ) ಹಾಗು ಉದಯೋನ್ಮುಖ ಬರಹಗಾರರಿಗೆ, ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರಿಗೆ ಉಪಯೋಗವಾಗಬಹುದಾದ ಕೆಲವು ಪ್ಲಗಿನ್ನುಗಳು - ಇವುಗಳ ಕುರಿತು ಚರ್ಚೆ ನಡೆಯಿತು. ಕೊನೆಗೆ ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರನ್ನು ಪ್ಲಾನೆಟೋರಿಯಂನಂತೆಯೇ ಮಾಡಿಬಿಡುವ ಸ್ಟೆಲೇರಿಯಂ ಎಂಬ ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶದ ಕುರಿತು ಚರ್ಚೆ ನಡೆಯಿತು - ಒಂದು ದೃಶ್ಯಾವಳಿ ಕೂಡ ಇತ್ತು (ಸ್ಟೆಲೇರಿಯಂ ಒಂದು 'ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ' ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶ). 

ಚರ್ಚೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಾಗೇಶ ಹೆಗಡೆಯವರು ಹಲವು ಪ್ರಮುಖ ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನು ಮುಂದಿಟ್ಟರು. ಬರವಣಿಗೆ ಹೊಸ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಬರುತ್ತಿರಬೇಕು, ಹೊಸ ನೆಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕಂಡುಕೊಂಡು ಮುಂದುವರೆಯುತ್ತಿರಬೇಕು, ಹಳತನ್ನು ಅಥವ ಮತ್ತೊಬ್ಬರ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ ಶೈಲಿಯನ್ನು ನಕಲು ಮಾಡುವಂತಿರಬಾರದು ಎಂಬುದರ ಕುರಿತು ಅವರು ಹೇಳಿದ ಮಾತುಗಳು ನನ್ನ ನೆನಪಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಅಚ್ಚುಳಿದದ್ದು. ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬರೆಯುವುದಷ್ಟೇ ಅಲ್ಲ, ಅದರ ಬಳಕೆ (ಹೇಗೆ, ಎಲ್ಲೆಲ್ಲಿ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ), ಅದರಿಂದಾಗುವ ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆಗಳು, ತೊಡರುಗಳು - ಈ ಕುರಿತು ಬರೆಯುವುದು ಕೂಡ ಅಷ್ಟೇ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಎಂದರು.  ರವಿ ಹೆಗಡೆಯವರು ಬ್ಲಾಗುಗಳು ಸಾಂಪ್ರದಾಯಿಕ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮ ಮುಟ್ಟುವ ಎಷ್ಟೋ ಓದುಗರನ್ನು ಮುಟ್ಟುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂಬುದರ ಕುರಿತು ತಿಳಿಸುತ್ತ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆಯುವವರು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಸಾಂಪ್ರದಾಯಿಕ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳಲ್ಲಿ, ಟಿವಿ, ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿಗಳಲ್ಲೂ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಹಾಗು ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ ವಿಷಯಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬರೆದು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು ಎಂದರು. ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದ ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯ ಬಳಸಿ ಹೇಗೆ ಸಮುದಾಯ ಹೊಸ ಹೆಜ್ಜೆಗಳನ್ನಿಟ್ಟು ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗಳನ್ನು ತರಬಹುದು, ಇಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಿಸಿ ಹೊರನಡೆದು ಹೇಗೆ ರಾಜ್ಯದ ಎಲ್ಲ ಭಾಗಗಳನ್ನು ಮುಟ್ಟಬಹುದು ಎಂಬುದರ ಕುರಿತು ಸಹ ಚರ್ಚೆ ನಡೆಯಿತು. ಈ ರೀತಿಯ ಸಮುದಾಯ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಗಳು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ದೂರ ಅನಿಸಲಿಲ್ಲ ನಮಗೆ - ಅಂದು ಜೊತೆಗೂಡಿದ್ದ ನಮ್ಮಲ್ಲಿ ಹಲವರಿಗೆ ಇತರರ ಪರಿಚಯವಾದದ್ದು ಕೂಡ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದ ಮೂಲಕವೇ...  'ನಮ್ಮ ಭಾಷೆ' ಎಂಬ ಒಂದು ಆಸಕ್ತಿಯ ಸುತ್ತ ಹೆಣೆದು.
ಅಲ್ಲದೆ ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಹಲವು ಸಮುದಾಯ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಗಳು ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಗೊಂಡು ಹೊರಗಿನ ಜನರಿಗೂ ತಲುಪುತ್ತಿರುವುದು.

ಚರ್ಚೆ ಅನೌಪಚಾರಿಕವಾಗಿ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭವಾದದ್ದಲ್ಲದೆ ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ಮುಗಿದದ್ದು ನಮಗೆಲ್ಲ ಒಂದು ರೀತಿಯ ಆಶ್ಚರ್ಯ, ಖುಷಿ ತಂದಿತು. ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮಗಳು, ಮಾತುಕತೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಎಂದಿನಂತೆ ಕೆಲವರ ಮಾತು - ಇನ್ನುಳಿದವರು ಕುಳಿತು ಕೇಳಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದು ಎಂಬಂತೆ. ಆದರೆ ಈ ದಿನದ ಮಾತುಕತೆ ವಿಭಿನ್ನವಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ತಮ್ಮ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ ಮಂಡಿಸುವ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ ನೀಡಿತು. ಅಲ್ಲದೆ, ನಮ್ಮ ಮನಸ್ಸಿನ ಮುಂದೆ ಹಾದೂ ಹೋಗಿರದಂತಹ ಕೆಲವು ವಿಷಯಗಳು ಮತ್ತೊಬ್ಬರ ಮಾತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಕೇಳಿಬಂದಾಗ ಉಪಯೋಗವಾಗುವ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆಗಳು ಇಲ್ಲಿದ್ದವು. ಇದನ್ನೆಲ್ಲ ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗಿಸಿದ ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಎಂಡ್ ಸೊಸೈಟಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಎಷ್ಟು ಥ್ಯಾಂಕ್ಸ್ ಹೇಳಿದರೂ ಸಾಲದು. ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ನಡೆಸಲು ಜಾಗ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಲ್ಲದೆ ಮಧ್ಯಾಹ್ನದ ಊಟ, ಬೆಳಗಿನ ಕಾಫಿ ಮುಂತಾದವುಗಳನ್ನೂ ಅವರೇ ವಹಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದರು! ಇಷ್ಟೆಲ್ಲ ಪ್ರೋತ್ಸಾಹ ನೀಡುವುದಲ್ಲದೆ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ಮುಕ್ತ, ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ ಹಾಗು ಸಾಂಪ್ರದಾಯಿಕವಲ್ಲದಂತೆ ನಡೆಸುವಲ್ಲಿ ಇವರ ಸಹಕಾರ ಮರೆಯಲಾಗದ್ದು. ಒಂದು ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾದದ್ದು ಇವರಿಂದಲೇ.

ಅಂದು ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿ ಚರ್ಚೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲ್ಗೊಂಡ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ವಂದನೆಗಳು, ಅಭಿನಂದನೆಗಳು. ಮುಂದೊಮ್ಮೆ, ಮತ್ತೊಮ್ಮೆ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ಇಟ್ಟುಕೊಂಡಲ್ಲಿ ಇಲ್ಲೇ ಅದರ ಕುರಿತು ಬರೆದು ನಿಮಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸುತ್ತೇವೆ. ಈ ಬಾರಿ ಕಾರಣಾಂತರಗಳಿಂದ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಲಾಗದವರು ಆಗ ಪಾಲ್ಗೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದು. ನವ ಚಿಗುರಾಗಿ ಹಳೆ (ಬೀರ್ ಅಲ್ಲ) ಬೇರಿನ ನಂಟು ಬಿಡದೆ ಹೊಸತನ್ನು ಕಾಣುತ್ತ ಹೊಸ ಹೆಜ್ಜೆ ಇಡೋಣ, ಒಟ್ಟಾಗಿ!

-- Hari Prasad Nadig

Hari Prasad Nadig is an independent software developer and consultant specialising in GNU/Linux and web based development. He is a sysop and bureaucrat at Kannada Wikipedia, and was also an active editor starting from its initial version in September 2004. In 2005, he started Sampada, a community of Kannada speaking people; he is also the founding member of Sampada Foundation.

We had a great meet-up yesterday at the offices of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore (thanks so much to Sunil, Pranesh,  Sanchia, and Deepika for making it possible!)  It was a very diverse group, with participants from Indian and international NGOs, techies from Yahoo!, and even a radio producer and film-maker.

We started out by dissecting this Pink Chaddis campaign, a very popular women’s rights campaign organized through Facebook that had just organized a big action on Valentines’ Day.  (I’ll be posting on the campaign a little later - it’s a great one.)

However, when we went about creating a definition for digital activism, the discussion became more theoretical.  Although DigiActive is optimistic about the possibility of digital tools to empower those fighting injustice, this meet-up group decided that digital activism was value neutral and that it simply mapped onto the existing goals and motives within a society.  It is a technique that can be used for constructive or destructive ends.

At the end of the event, some participants came up to me to make sure my feelings weren’t hurt by the disagreement, but I assured them I was really happy with the result.  Only if digital activism is debated and dissected will we be able to understand and use it well.