Centre for Internet and Society

ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಬಳಕೆಯಿಂದ ನಮ್ಮ ಭಾಷೆ ಮತ್ತು ಶೈಲಿ ಸುಧಾರಣೆಯಾಗುತ್ತದೆ - ಡಾ. ಯು.ಬಿ. ಪವನಜ

pavanaja — 2016-06-18T18:21:44Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS-A2K) has ongoing partnership with SDM College, Ujire. Students of Masters in Communication and Journalism will be writing articles in Kannada Wikipedia. This academic year’s programme was inaugurated on August 12. It was followed by hands-on workshop. Mangalorean.com, a Karnataka portal has reported this on August 13, 2015.

This was published online by mangalorean.com on August 13, 2015.

ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ

ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕಾಲಕ್ಕೂ ಲಭ್ಯ ಇರುವ ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ ಹಾಗೂ ಮುಕ್ತ ವೀಶ್ವಕೋಶವಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದನ್ನು ಯಾರು ಬೇಕಾದರೂ ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರವಾಗಿ ಬಳಸಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ಪ್ರಜಾವಾಣಿ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಯ ಅಂಕಣಕಾರ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಡಾ. ಯು.ಬಿ. ಪವನಜ ಹೇಳಿದರು.

ಉಜಿರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಎಸ್.ಡಿ.ಎಮ್. ಸ್ವಾಯತ್ತ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಗುರುವಾರ ಪತ್ರಿಕೋದ್ಯಮ ವಿಭಾಗದ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳಿಗೆ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಿ ಅವರು ಮಾತನಾಡಿದರು.

ಗೂಗಲ್‍ನಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಮಾತ್ರ ಅದು ಸೂಚಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಘಟಿಸಿದ ತಕ್ಷಣ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಅದು ನವೀಕರಣ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ.

2001ರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಮೇರಿಕಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಗೊಂಡ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಪ್ರಪಂಚನದ 290 ಭಾಷೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಲಭ್ಯ ಇದೆ. 2003ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭವಾಗಿದೆ. ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳು ಸಂಶೋಧನಾ ಪ್ರವೃತ್ತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಕೌಶಲ ಬೆಳೆಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಸಲಹೆ ನೀಡಿದ ಅವರು ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಬಳಕೆಯಿಂದ ನಮ್ಮ ಭಾಷೆ ಮತ್ತು ಶೈಲಿ ಸುಧಾರಣೆಯಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಕ್ರೋಢೀಕರಣ ಮತ್ತು ಉಲ್ಲೇಖವೂ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಎಂದು ಅವರು ಹೇಳಿದರು.

ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರು ನಿರಂತರ ಅಧ್ಯಯನಶೀಲರಾಗಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸಬೇಕು. ಭಾಷೆ ಬಳಸಿದಾಗ ಅದು ಬೆಳೆಯುತ್ತದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ನಮ್ಮ ಸಂಸ್ಕøತಿ ಉಳಿಯುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಅವರು ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಪಟ್ಟರು.

ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ಪತ್ರಿಕೋದ್ಯಮ ವಿಭಾಗದ ಮುಖ್ಯಸ್ಥ ಪ್ರೊ. ಭಾಸ್ಕರ ಹೆಗ್ಡೆ ಉಪಸ್ಥಿತರಿದ್ದರು.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/mangalorean-dotcom-august-13-2015

ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ kannada ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ : ಈಗ ಆನ್ ಲೈನ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ 6 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳು ಮುಕ್ತ…ಮುಕ್ತ…….

praskrishna — 2014-07-18T05:19:32Z

ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯದ ಮೂರು ದಶಕಗಳ ಶ್ರಮದ ಫಲವಾಗಿರುವ ` ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ’ ಇನ್ನು ಮುಂದೆ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದಲ್ಲೇ ಉಚಿತವಾಗಿ ವೀಕ್ಷಿಸಬಹುದು. ಹೌದು, ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯ ಈ ಮಹತ್ವಾಕಾಂಕ್ಷಿ ಯೋಜನೆಯನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾ ಈಗ ಆನ್ ಲೈನ್ ಮೂಲಕವು ಲಭಿಸುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಿದೆ.

Read the original published in JustKannada website on July 15, 2014 here.

ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯದ ಕುವೆಂಪು ಕನ್ನಡ ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಂಗಳವಾರ ನಡೆದ ಸಮಾರಂಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಕುಲಪತಿ ಪ್ರೊ.ಕೆ.ಎಸ್.ರಂಗಪ್ಪ ಅವರು ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರ್ ಬಟನ್ ಒತ್ತುವ ಮೂಲಕ ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಚಾಲನೆ ನೀಡಿದರು.

ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಸೊಸೈಟಿ (ಸಿಐಎಸ್) ಸ್ವಯಂ ಸೇವಾ ಸಂಘಟನೆ ಮುಕ್ತ ಪರವಾನಗಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ ಆರು ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಮೊದಲ ಹಂತದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಒದಗಿಸಲಿದೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರ್ ತಜ್ಞ ಯು.ಬಿ.ಪವನಜ ಸಹ ಸಾಥ್ ನೀಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಈ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದ ಪ್ರೊ.ಕೆ.ಎಸ್.ರಂಗಪ್ಪ, 1978-1980ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಪಿಎಚ್ಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ವೇಳೆ ಐಐಎಸ್ಸಿ ಗ್ರಂಥಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಸೀಮಿತ ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳನ್ನು ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಮಾಡಬೇಕಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಈಗಿನದ್ದು ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಯುಗ. ಎಲ್ಲವನ್ನೂ ಬೆರಳ ತುದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಡೆಯುವ ಅವಕಾಶಗಳು ಲಭ್ಯವಿವೆ. ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಜ್ಞಾನವೂ ಮುಕ್ತವಾಗಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗಲಿ ಎನ್ನುವ ಸದಾಶಯ ಇಟ್ಟುಕೊಂಡು ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಗುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಒಪಿದ್ದೇವೆ. ವಿವಿ ಶತಮಾನೋತ್ಸವದ ಹೊಸ್ತಿಲಲ್ಲಿದೆ. ಇದರ ನೆನಪಿಗಾಗಿ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಷಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಮೂಲಕ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ಅಳವಡಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದರಿಂದ ನಮ್ಮ ಹಿರಿಮೆಯೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಲಿದೆ. ಇದರಿಂದ ವಿವಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಹೊರೆಯಾಗದು. . ಬದಲಿಗೆ ಓದುಗರ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿ. ವಿವಿ ಗೌರವವೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿದರು

ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಮೊದಲ ಆರು ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಆನ್ ಲೈನ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪಡೆಯಲು ಅನುಮತಿ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಉಳಿಕೆ ಸಂಪುಟ ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಷಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಳವಡಿಸಲು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯದ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರಾಧ್ಯಾಪಕರೊಂದಿಗೆ ಚರ್ಚಿಸಿ ಅನುಮತಿ ಕೊಡುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು.

ಯುಬಿ ಪವನಜ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ, ` ` ಭಾರತದ ಯಾವುದೇ ಭಾಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗದಷ್ಟು ಕೆಲಸ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗಿದೆ. ಆ ಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ಒಂದು ಕಡೆ ಇರಿಸಿದರೆ ಕೆಲವರಿಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸಿಗಬಹುದು. ಅದನ್ನೇ ಇಂಟರ್ ನೆಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಪುನರ್ ನವೀಕರಣಗೊಳಿಸಿದರೆ ಅದರ ಮೌಲ್ಯವೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಲಿದೆ. ಜನರಿಗೂ ಉಪಯೋಗವಾಗಲಿದೆ. ಈಗ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ವಿಷಯಗಳ ಭಾಷೆಯೂ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನವೇ ಆಗಿದೆ. ಅದರಲ್ಲೂ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಕ್ಕಳಿಗೆ ಪಠ್ಯವನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವ ವಿಷಯವೂ ಇಂಟರ್ ನೆಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಭಾಷೆ ಉಳಿಯುತ್ತದೆಯೇ ಎನ್ನುವ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಸದಾ ಇದ್ದೇ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಕನ್ನಡ ಭಾಷೆ ಮಿಳಿತವಾದರೆ ಅದು ಜಾಗತಿಕ ಮಟ್ಟದಲ್ಲೂ ಗಮನ ಸೆಳೆಯಲಿದೆ. ಅಂಥ ಕೆಲಸ ಈಗ ಸದ್ದಿಲ್ಲದೇ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದೆ ಎಂದರು.

ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕ ಆರ್.ರಾಮಕೃಷ್ಣ, ಪ್ರಾಸ್ತಾವಿಕವಾಗಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ,. ಶತಮಾನದ ಆರಂಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಎಸ್.ಜೆ.ನರಸಿಂಹಾಚಾರ್ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ರೂಪಿಸುವುದನ್ನು ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾಪಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ಕುವೆಂಪು ಅವರು ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿ ಕುಲಪತಿಯಾದಾಗ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಚಾಲನೆ ರೊರೆಯಿತು. ಬಳಿಕ ದೇಜಗೌ ಕುಲಪತಿಯಾಗಿ ಬರುತ್ತಲೇ ಇನ್ನಷ್ಟು ಶಕ್ತಿ ತುಂಬಿದರು. ಅದೂ ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆಯೂ ಆಯಿತು. ಜೆ.ಶಶಿಧರಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಡಿ ರೂಪವನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯಿತು. ಬಹಳಷ್ಟು ವಿದ್ವಾಂಸರು ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ರೂಪಿಸುವ ಹಿಂದೆ ಇದ್ದಾರೆ. ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಭಾಷೆಯಲ್ಲೂ 14 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಬಂದಿಲ್ಲ. ಎಲ್ಲವೂ ಈಗ ಸಿಡಿ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಲಭ್ಯ. ಮುಂದುವರೆದ ಭಾಗವಾಗಿ ಮುಕ್ತ ಪರವಾನಿಗೆಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವುದು ವಿವಿ ಹಿರಿಮೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿಸಿದೆ. ಜತೆಗೆ 30 ವಿಷಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳಲ್ಲಿ 5 ಪೂರ್ಣಗೊಂಡಿವೆ. ಇನ್ನಷ್ಟು ವಿಷಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳು ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆ ಹಂತದಲ್ಲಿವೆ.` ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರು.

ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಸೊಸೈಟಿಯ(ಸಿಐಎಸ್) ತೇಜಸ್ ಜೈನ್ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ, ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಸೇರಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಾಕಿದರೆ ಇದರಿಂದ ಪುಸ್ತಕ ವ್ಯಾಪಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಧಕ್ಕೆಯಾಗಬಹುದು ಎನ್ನುವ ಆತಂಕ ಬಹುತೇಕರಲ್ಲಿದೆ. ಇಂಥ ಅನುಮಾನ ಬೇಡ. ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಓದುವವರು ಇದ್ದೇ ಇದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದ ಲಭ್ಯತೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಓದುಗರನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಇಂಥ ಸವಾಲುಗಳನ್ನು ಎದುರಿಸಿ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಅಪ್ಡೇಟ್ ಮಾಡಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ ಎಂದು ವಿವರಿಸಿದರು.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/just-kannada-july-15-2014-wikipedia-kannada-vishwakosha-mysore-university-free-internet-kannada-department

ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ:ಸಂಪಾದನೋತ್ಸವಗಳು/ಸಂಪಾದನೋತ್ಸವ ತುಮಕೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯ ೨೦೧೮

Admin — 2018-08-11T01:32:00Z

CIS-A2K team held a workshop in Tumakur University on 25 July 2018.

Read the full details on Wikipedia page

ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ವಿವರ

ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹೊಸಬರು: ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಪರಿಚಯ, ಖಾತೆ ತೆರೆಯುವುದು, ವಿಕಿ ಸಂಪಾದನೆ ಕಲಿಯುವುದು ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಕ್ಕೆ ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ ಲೇಖನಗಳನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸುವುದು.

ದಿನಾಂಕ ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ಥಳ

ದಿನಾಂಕ: ಜುಲೈ ೨೫, ೨೦೧೮, ಬುಧವಾರ
ಸಮಯ: ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ ೯:೩೦ ರಿಂದ ಸಾಯಂಕಾಲ ೫:೩೦ರ ತನಕ
ಸ್ಥಳ:ತುಮಕೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾಲಯ ಪದವಿ ಕಾಲೇಜು ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ ವಿಭಾಗ, ಗೂಗ್ಲ್ ಮ್ಯಾಪ್

ಸಂಪನ್ಮೂಲ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳು

ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದವರು

--Mangalapandith (ಚರ್ಚೆ) ೦೭:೪೪, ೨೫ ಜುಲೈ ೨೦೧೮ (UTC)
--Vanitha YH (ಚರ್ಚೆ) ೦೭:೪೭, ೨೫ ಜುಲೈ ೨೦೧೮ (UTC)
--Mdshreedevidevaraju (ಚರ್ಚೆ) ೦೭:೪೭, ೨೫ ಜುಲೈ ೨೦೧೮ (UTC)
--Shashikalashivanna1 (ಚರ್ಚೆ) ೦೭:೪೮, ೨೫ ಜುಲೈ ೨೦೧೮ (UTC)
--Varshitha govindaraju (ಚರ್ಚೆ) ೦೭:೪೯, ೨೫ ಜುಲೈ ೨೦೧೮ (UTC)
--Soumya ravish (ಚರ್ಚೆ) ೦೭:೪೯, ೨೫ ಜುಲೈ ೨೦೧೮ (UTC)
--Ganmanj (ಚರ್ಚೆ) ೦೭:೫೦, ೨೫ ಜುಲೈ ೨೦೧೮ (UTC)
--Sowmyalatha.s (ಚರ್ಚೆ) ೦೭:೫೨, ೨೫ ಜುಲೈ ೨೦೧೮ (UTC)
--Bindu Umesh (ಚರ್ಚೆ) ೦೭:೫೩, ೨೫ ಜುಲೈ ೨೦೧೮ (UTC)
--Shashirekha V N (ಚರ್ಚೆ) ೦೭:೫೪, ೨೫ ಜುಲೈ ೨೦೧೮ (UTC)
--Girish.Nagappa (ಚರ್ಚೆ) ೦೮:೪೪, ೨೫ ಜುಲೈ ೨೦೧೮ (UTC)
--Lokeshbag (ಚರ್ಚೆ) ೦೮:೪೮, ೨೫ ಜುಲೈ ೨೦೧೮ (UTC)

ವರದಿ

ತುಮಕೂರು ಸಂಪಾದನೋತ್ಸವ/ಕಾರ್ಯಾಗಾರ ೨೫ರಂದು ನಡೆಯಿತು. ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ತುಂಬಾ ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿ ನಡೆಯಿತು. ಹೊಸ ೧೨ ಸದಸ್ಯರು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಖಾತೆ ಸೃಷ್ಠಿಸಿದರು. ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ೧೦ ಜನ ಹುಡುಗಿಯರು ಮತ್ತು ೨ ಹುಡುಗರು ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ಇವರು ತುಮಕೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದಯಾಲಯದ ಭೌತಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ ವಿಭಾಗದ ಪದವಿ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳು. ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದವರಲ್ಲಿ ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ಆಸಕ್ತಿಯಿಂದ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದರು. ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದವರಿಗೆ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದ ತಳಮಟ್ಟದ ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಸಿಕೊಟ್ಟೆವು. ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಅಲ್ಲದೇ ವಿಕಿಮೀಡಿಯ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಬಗ್ಗೆಯೂ ತಿಳಿಸಿಕೊಟ್ಟೆವು. ಅದಲ್ಲದೇ ವಿಕಿಯ ಇತರ ಪ್ರಾಜೆಕ್ಟುಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆಯೂ ಹೇಳಿದೆವು. ಸಮುದಾಯದಿಂದ ಲೋಕೇಶ ಕುಂಚಡ್ಕರು ಭಾಗವಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದವರು ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳಾಗಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ಅವರಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ ಪಠ್ಯ ಲೇಖನಗಳು ಯೋಜನೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿ ಈ ಯೋಜನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸುವಂತೆ ಕೇಳಿಕೊಂಡೆವು. --ಗೋಪಾಲಕೃಷ್ಣ (ಚರ್ಚೆ) ೧೭:೦೪, ೨೯ ಜುಲೈ ೨೦೧೮ (UTC) ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ dashboard link ಇಲ್ಲಿದೆ.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tumakur%20university-workshop

ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ತರಬೇತಿ ೨೦೧೮ @ ರಾಂಚಿ

Vikas Hegde — 2018-07-04T17:02:46Z

ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯನ್ನರಾದ ವಿಕಾಸ್ ಹೆಗಡೆ ಅವರು Wiki Advanced Training 2018ರ ತಮ್ಮ ಅನುಭವ ಮತ್ತು ಕಲಿತ ವಿಚಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಈ ಬ್ಲಾಗಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಈ ಬಾರಿ ಜಾರ್ಖಂಡ್ ರಾಜ್ಯದ ’ರಾಂಚಿ’ ನಗರದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾದ ’ಮುಂದುವರೆದ ತರಬೇತಿ ಕಾರ್ಯಾಗಾರ’ವನ್ನು (Wikipedia Advanced Training, 2018) ಆಯೋಜಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು. ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾ ಒಂದು ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶವಾಗಿದ್ದು ನಾನು ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತುಂಬುವ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಹಲವು ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾ ಬಂದಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ವಿಕಿಗೆ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತುಂಬಿಸಲು ಬೇಸಿಕ್ ಮಟ್ಟದ ಎಡಿಟಿಂಗ್ ತಿಳುವಳಿಕೆ ಸಾಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಹಾಗೇ ಮುಂದುವರೆಯುತ್ತಾ ಹೋದಂತೆ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಕಲಿಯಲು ಮತ್ತು ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಬಹಳಷ್ಟಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಉತ್ತಮ ಗುಣಮಟ್ಟದ ಲೇಖನಗಳನ್ನು, ಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸಲು ಹಲವು ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನು ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಂಡು ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ತಕ್ಕುದಾಗಿ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ತುಂಬಿಸಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಅನೇಕ ವಿಷಯಗಳಿಗೆ ಒಂದು ಮಟ್ಟದ ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ಜ್ಞಾನ ಅಥವಾ ಅದನ್ನು ಅರ್ಥಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಆಸಕ್ತಿ ಅಗತ್ಯ.

ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ತರಬೇತಿ, ಸಮುದಾಯ ಕಟ್ಟುವಿಕೆ ಮುಂತಾದ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ಬೆಂಬಲಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಅಂಡ್ ಸೊಸೈಟಿ-A2K ವಿಭಾಗವು ಈ ಮುಂದುವರೆದ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ತರಬೇತಿ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹಿಂದಿನ ತಿಂಗಳು ಘೋಷಣೆ ಮಾಡಿತ್ತು. ಇದು ಮೂರು ದಿನಗಳ ಕಾಲ ನಡೆಯುವ ತರಬೇತಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಭಾರತೀಯ ಭಾಷೆಗಳ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯರನ್ನ ಆಹ್ವಾನಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಹಿಂದೆ ಕೆಲಬಾರಿ ಬೇರೆಬೇರೆ ಸ್ಥಳಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಮುಂದುವರೆದ ತರಬೇತಿಗಳು ನಡೆದಿದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ನನಗೆ ಹೋಗಲು ಆಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಈ ಬಾರಿ ತಾರೀಖುಗಳು ಹೊಂದಾಣಿಕೆಯಾಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದುದರಿಂದ ನಾನು ಕೂಡ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದೆ. ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ಆಯ್ಕೆಗೆ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾಗೆ ನಾವು ಮಾಡಿದ ಕೆಲಸಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಕೆಲವು ಮಾನದಂಡಗಳಿದ್ದವು. ಕನ್ನಡ ಸಮುದಾಯದಿಂದ ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಮಲ್ಲಿಕಾರ್ಜುನ್ ಆಯ್ಕೆಯಾಗಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ಕೆಲದಿನಗಳ ನಂತರ ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು.

ಈ ಬಾರಿ ಈ ತರಬೇತಿಯನ್ನು ’ರಾಂಚಿ’ಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆಸಲು ಕಾರಣವಿತ್ತು. ಮೊದಲನೆಯದಾಗಿ, ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಬಹಳ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿ, ಭಾರತದ ಉತ್ತಮ ವಿಕಿಮೀಡಿಯನ್ ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದ ’ಗಂಗಾಧರ ಭದಾನಿ’ಯವರು ರಾಂಚಿಯವರಾಗಿದ್ದು ಈ ವರ್ಷ ಜನವರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಧನರಾಗಿದ್ದರು. ಅವರ ಗೌರವಾರ್ಥವಾಗಿ ರಾಂಚಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಯೋಜನೆಯಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಎರಡನೆಯದಾಗಿ ಭಾರತದ ಪೂರ್ವಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಕಿಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಡೆಸುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶವೂ ಇತ್ತು. ಜೂನ್ ೨೮ನೇ ತಾರೀಖು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿಂದ ಹೊರಟು ರಾಂಚಿಯನ್ನು ತಲುಪಿದೆವು. ವಿಮಾನ ನಿಲ್ದಾಣದಿಂದ ಎಂಟು ಕಿಮೀ ದೂರದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ’ಲೇ ಲ್ಯಾಕ್ ಸರೋವರ್ ಪೋರ್ಟಿಕೊ’ ಹೋಟೆಲ್ ತಲುಪಿದೆವು. ತಮಿಳು, ತೆಲುಗು, ಮಲಯಾಳಂ, ಬೆಂಗಾಳಿ, ಹಿಂದಿ, ಮರಾಠಿ, ಪಂಜಾಬಿ, ಗುಜರಾತಿ, ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತ, ಒಡಿಯಾ, ಇಂಗ್ಲೀಷ್ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯನ್ನರೂ ಸೇರಿ ಒಟ್ಟು ಮೂವತ್ತು ಜನ ಬಂದಿದ್ದರು. ಅಂದು ಸಂಜೆ ಪೂರ್ವಭಾವಿ ಸೆಶನ್ ಇತ್ತು. ಪರಸ್ಪರ ಪರಿಚಯ, ತರಬೇತಿ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ, ಕಾರ್ಯಸೂಚಿ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಡಲಾಯಿತು.

ಮಾರನೆಯ ದಿನ ಬೆಳಗ್ಗೆ ಹತ್ತು ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಶುರುವಾದ ತರಬೇತಿಯು ನಡುವಿನ ಚಹಾ ವಿರಾಮ ಮತ್ತು ಊಟದ ವಿರಾಮದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಸಂಜೆಯವರೆಗೂ ನಡೆಯಿತು. ವಿಕಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಹಲವು ವಿಷಯಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ, ಟೂಲ್ ಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿಕೊಡಲಾಯಿತು. ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಭಾಷೆಯ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯನ್ನರು ಅವರ ಭಾಷೆಯ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ, ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ, ಅನುಭವಗಳನ್ನು ಹಂಚಿಕೊಂಡರು. ಹಿರಿಯ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯನ್ನರಾಗಿದ್ದ ಗಂಗಾಧರ ಬದಾನಿಯವರ ಕುಟುಂಬವನ್ನು ಸಂಜೆ ಆಹ್ವಾನಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಭದಾನಿಯವರ ಸ್ಮರಣಾರ್ಥವಾಗಿ ಒಂದು ಚಿಕ್ಕ ಸಭೆ ನಡೆಸಿ ಗೌರವ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಇಂಗ್ಲೀಷ್ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರು ಮಾಡಿದ ಎಡಿಟ್ ಎಣಿಕೆ ಎರಡೂವರೆ ಲಕ್ಷಕ್ಕೂ ಮೀರಿದ್ದು ಆ ವಯಸ್ಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ ಕಾಣಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅನೇಕ ಕಿರಿಯ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯನ್ನರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಪ್ರೋತ್ಸಾಹಗಳನ್ನು ನೆನಪಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲಾಯಿತು.

ಮೊದಲ ದಿನದ ತರಬೇತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಮಯದ ಅಭಾವದಿಂದ ಎರಡ್ಮೂರು ವಿಷಯಗಳು ಬಿಟ್ಟುಹೋದದ್ದರಿಂದ ಅನಂತರದ ದಿನ ಬೆಳಗ್ಗೆ ಒಂಬತ್ತು ಗಂಟೆಗೇ ಸೇರಿದೆವು. ಅಂದು ಕೂಡ ಹಲವು ತರಬೇತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸೆಶನ್ ಗಳು ನಡೆದವು. ಆಯಾ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯನ್ನರು ತಮ್ಮ ಭಾಷೆಯ ವಿಕಿಗಾಗಿ ಮುಂದೆ ಯಾವ ರೀತಿ ಯೋಜನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಹಮ್ಮಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಬಯಸುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಪ್ರೆಸೆಂಟ್ ಮಾಡಲು ಹೇಳಲಾಯಿತು. ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಹಾಕಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದಾದ ಯೋಜನೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಾವು ಪ್ರೆಸೆಂಟ್ ಮಾಡಿದೆವು. ಕೆಲವು hands on activityಗಳು ನಡೆದವು.

ಕೊನೆಯ ದಿನದ ತರಬೇತಿ ಅರ್ಧ ದಿನಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸೀಮಿತವಾಗಿದ್ದು ಒಂದೆರಡು ವಿಷಯಗಳ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ನಡೆಯಿತು. ಎರಡು ದಿನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದ ತರಬೇತಿಯ ವಿಷಯಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮೆಲುಕು, ಬೇಕಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಮಾಹಿತಿ, ಮುಂದಿನ ಯೋಜನೆಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾತುಕತೆ, ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ, ಹಿನ್ನುಣಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲಾಯಿತು.

ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ರಾಜ್ಯಗಳಿಂದ ಬಂದಿದ್ದ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯನ್ನರು ಮಧ್ಯಾಹ್ನ ವಾಪಸ್ ಹೊರಟರು. ನಾವು ಕೂಡ ಎರಡು ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಅಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಹೊರಟು ನಾಲ್ಕೂ ಇಪ್ಪತ್ತರ ವಿಮಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಜೆ ಆರೂವರೆ ವೇಳೆಗೆ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ವಿಮಾನ ನಿಲ್ದಾಣ ತಲುಪಿದೆವು. ಭಾರತದ ವಿವಿಧ ಭಾಗಗಳ, ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಭಾಷೆಗಳ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯರೊಡನೆ ಸಂವಾದ, ಹಲವು ಹೊಸ ವಿಷಯಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು, ಕಲಿತುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು, ತೆಲುಗು, ತಮಿಳಿನ ಹಿರಿಯ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯನ್ನರ ಭೇಟಿಗಳು ಒಟ್ಟಾರೆ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಅನುಭವ, ಖುಷಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿತು. ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಮೀಡಿಯ ಯೋಜನೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಲು ಈ ತರಬೇತಿ ಶಿಬಿರವು ಉತ್ಸಾಹ ತುಂಬಿತು.

Link to Vikas Hegde's blogpost

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cb5cbfc95cbfcaaca1cbfcaf-ca4cb0cacca4cbf-ce8ce6ce7cee-cb0cbec82c9acbf-1

Can Wikipedia revive dying Indian languages?

subha — 2016-02-29T14:54:10Z

Yes, by encouraging content and involvement, Wikipedia language communities keep languages relevant.

The article originally published in the Hoot on February 19, 2016 was also mirrored by Pratham Books on February 22, 2016

As the world gets ready to celebrate International Mother Language Day on Feb 21, it is important ask whether Wikipedia, the free, multi-lingual online encyclopaedia that turned 15 last month, can play a role in helping not just to save some Indian languages from irrelevance but to inject new energy into them.

Indian languages that made an early entry to the Wiki-world back in 2002 - Assamese, Malayalam, Odia and Punjabi - are helping scale up the representation of Indian languages on the Internet. More languages started being added after these initial ones. Today, there are 23 South Asian language Wikipedia projects including the 20 languages listed in the 8^th schedule of the Constitution of India.

Many might not have noticed that the “en” in Wikipedia's URL en.wikipedia.org denotes that the language code of English can be replaced with “or” to visit Odia Wikipedia or “kn” for Kannada Wikipedia.

But the Indian language Wikipedias have a long way to go as compared to many other world languages. There lies a huge gap in the access to knowledge on the Internet. Of 1.26 billion people, only about 15-18% are connected online and that too largely from mobile devices.

Most Wikipedia projects in Indian languages are fairly small but are active and playing an important role. For example, the Tamil and Malayalam Wikipedia communities have played a central part in implementing Wikipedia basics learning in the state-run school syllabus along with many other free software and free knowledge projects to help students learn.

Many Indian languages are in the pipeline to become active Wikipedia projects under the scope of Incubator Wikipedia. Maithili Wikipedia and Goan Konkani Wikipedia are two that have gone live in recent years. There are many more to come and it is certain they will help to ensure that languages do not fade or become irrelevant.

Dying Indian languages mapped over map. Source: UNESCO Interactive Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger

According to UNESCO, 197 of a total of 1652 Indian languages are dying. Given that there is more and more encyclopedic content in Indian languages, Wikipedia will definitely save some from extinction by bringing more content in varied subject areas, bringing readers to Wikipedia, and attracting more contributors to bring information online in the respective language.

Two other ways that it help keep them alive is, first, the fact that the media uses freely-licensed content from Wikipedia and refers to citations on Wikipedia and secondly, the fact that more Wikipedia content also means more digital activism. Often languages become extinct because of verbal-only usage. That’s where language digital activism can help to keep going. Hebrew, for instance, has risen like a phoenix for this reason.

Apart from Wikipedia, there are many other sister projects (also known as Wikimedia projects) such as Wiktionary, a multilingual dictionary, Wikisource, a free library, Wikimedia Commons, the world’s largest media repository of freely-licensed multimedia files, and Wikidata, a big data project that connects all the Wikimedia projects.

The English Wikipedia has crossed the 5 million article mark. With a population of over 354 million online users, India still has a long way to go in increasing Indian language content on the web. The Government of India's new campaign Digital India aims at digital literacy and the availability of digital resources/services in Indian languages. This is closely aligned with the Wikimedia movement's goal to provide free access to the sum of all human knowledge.

In addition to Wikipedia, many other open educational resources and free knowledge projects that are not already a part of the Digital India campaign signal the need for the government campaign to be more collaborative and open.

Community-government collaborations like the NROER project to make NCERT books under Creative Commons licences and the IT@School project in Kerala to provide education using free and open tools, have gained massive traction and helped more Indian language content come online.

Many of the Malayalam Wikipedia editors in Kerala have worked with the IT@School project to help school children edit and enhance Wikipedia articles and digitise old public domain text. The Wikipedia Education Programme, a global pedagogic programme running in over 87 countries to use Wikipedia as a tool for academic assignment and assessment, has been able to bring a paradigm shift in several languages such as Arabic and Spanish.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-hoot-feburay-19-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-can-wikipedia-revive-dying-indian-languages

Can Judges Order ISPs to Block Websites for Copyright Infringement? (Part 3)

ananth — 2014-02-14T05:13:36Z

In a three-part study, Ananth Padmanabhan examines the "John Doe" orders that courts have passed against ISPs, which entertainment companies have used to block dozens, if not hundreds, of websites. In this, the third and concluding part, he looks at the Indian law in the Copyright Act and the Information Technology Act, and concludes that both those laws restrain courts and private companies from ordering an ISP to block a website for copyright infringement.

In the third part of his study, Ananth Padmanabhan looks into the fair use provisions recently introduced in respect of mere conduit intermediaries by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, and concludes that there is no scope for any general, or specific, access blocking orders at the behest of the plaintiff in a civil suit, in India. He also argues that the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 do not in any manner permit the Government to override the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended) while facilitating the denial of access to websites on grounds of copyright infringement, because the Copyright Act, 1957, is a complete code by itself.

Fair Use Provisions Introduced by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012

In 2010, the controversial Copyright (Amendment) Bill came up for deliberation before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development headed by Mr. Oscar Fernandes. While a major part of the discussion on this amendment revolved around the altered royalty structure and rights allocation between music composers and lyricists on the one hand and film producers on the other, it can be safely stated that this is the most significant amendment to the Copyright Act, 1957 for more than this one reason. The amendment seeks to reform the Copyright Board, bring in a scheme of statutory licenses, expand the scope of performers’ rights and introduce anti-circumvention measures to check copyright piracy. As part of its ambitious objective, the amendment also attempts a new fair use model to protect intermediaries and file-sharing websites.

The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, which gives expression to this fair use model through Sections 52(1)(b) and (c), reads thus:

52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright. - (1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:

(a) to (ad) - *****

(b) the transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public;

(c) transient or incidental storage of a work or performance for the purpose of providing electronic links, access or integration, where such links, access or integration has not been expressly prohibited by the right holder, unless the person responsible is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing that such storage is of an infringing copy:

Provided that if the person responsible for the storage of the copy has received a written complaint from the owner of copyright in the work, complaining that such transient or incidental storage is an infringement, such person responsible for the storage shall refrain from facilitating such access for a period of twenty-one days or till he receives an order from the competent court refraining from facilitating access and in case no such order is received before the expiry of such period of twenty-one days, he may continue to provide the facility of such access;

From a plain reading, it is clear that two important exceptions are carved out: one, in respect of the technical process of electronic transmission and the other, in respect of providing electronic links, access or integration. The material distinction between these exceptions is the presence of a take-down proviso in respect of the latter kind of activity, ie. when providing electronic links, access or integration. This window of opportunity is not provided to the copyright owner when the third party is an ISP involved in the pure technical process of electronic transmission of data.

In R.K. Productions, the court was not informed of the introduction of these provisions vide the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, despite the hearing happening on a date subsequent to the amendment coming into force. This probably influenced the outcome as well, since the court held that ISPs were liable to block access to infringing content, once the specific webpage was brought to the notice of the concerned ISP. Newly introduced Section 52(1)(b) however makes it abundantly clear that ISPs cannot, in any manner, be held liable when they are acting as mere conduit pipes for the transmission of information. This legal position is also materially different from jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom where, the ISPs though not liable for copyright infringement, are statutorily mandated to lend all possible assistance such as take-down or blocking of access upon notice of infringement being furnished to them. This dichotomy between liability for infringement on the one hand and a general duty to assist in the prevention of infringement on the other is explained clearly by the Chancery Division in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. British Telecommunications Plc.[1]

In Newzbin2, the Chancery Division took note of the safe harbour provisions created by the E-Commerce Directive,[2] particularly Articles 12 to 14 that dealt with acting as a “mere conduit”, caching and hosting respectively. The interesting feature with the “mere conduit” exception, which in all other respects is akin to the exception contained in Section 52(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, is the additional presence of Article 12(3). This provision clarifies that the “mere conduit” exception shall not stand in the way of a court or administrative authority requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement. Article 18 of this Directive also casts an obligation upon Member States to ensure that court actions available under national law permit the rapid adoption of measures, including interim measures, designed to terminate any alleged infringement and to prevent any further impairment of the interests involved. Similarly, the court looked into the Information Society Directive,[3]

Article 8(3) of which provides that “Member States shall ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right.” This Directive was transposed into the domestic law in UK by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, SI 2003/2498, resulting in the insertion of Section 97A in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This provision empowers the court to grant an injunction against a service provider who has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright, such as where the service provider is given sufficient notice of the infringement. Finally, the Chancery Division also took note of the Enforcement Directive,[4]

Article 11 of which provided that Member States shall ensure that copyright owners are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right. This entire legislative scheme compelled the court in Newzbin2 to conclude that an order of injunction could be granted against ISPs who are “mere conduits”, restraining them from providing access to websites that indulged in mass copyright infringement. The court reasoned that the language used in Section 97A did not require knowledge of any particular infringement but only a more general kind of knowledge about certain persons using the ISPs’ services to infringe copyright. Thus, it is seen that in the United Kingdom, though a “mere conduit” activity is not infringement at all, the concerned ISP can be directed by the court to block access to a website that hosts infringing content on the basis of the above legislative scheme. The enquiry should therefore be directed towards whether India has a similar scheme for copyright enforcement.

The Information Technology Act – An Inapplicable Scheme for Website Blocking

The Information Technology Act, 2000[5]read with certain recently framed guidelines provides for a duty that could be thrust upon even “mere conduit” ISPs to disable access to copyrighted works. This is due to the presence of Section 79(2)(c) of this Act, which makes it clear that an intermediary shall be exempt from liability only where the intermediary observes due diligence as well as complies with the other guidelines framed by the Central Government in this behalf. Moreover, Section 79(3) provides that the intermediary shall not be entitled to the benefit of the exemption in Section 79(1) in a situation where the intermediary, upon receiving actual knowledge that any information, data, or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit an unlawful act, fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner. In pursuance of Section 79(2)(c), the Central Government has also framed the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, which came into effect on 11.04.2011. Rule 4 of these Rules, when read along with Rule 2(d), casts obligation on an intermediary on whose computer system, copyright infringing content has been stored, hosted or published, to disable such information within thirty six hours from when it is brought to actual knowledge of the existence of such content by any affected person.

One way of understanding and interpreting in harmonious fashion, the provisions of the IT Act and the Rules therein and the recent amendments to the Copyright Act, is to contend that the issue of infringement of copyright by “mere conduit” ISPs is governed by Section 52(1)(b), which completely absolves them of any liability, while that of enforcement of copyright through the medium of such ISPs is governed by the IT Act. This bifurcation suffers from the difficulty that Section 79 of the IT Act is not an enforcement provision. It is a provision meant to exempt intermediaries from certain kinds of liability, in the same way as Section 52 of the Copyright Act. This provision, read with Section 81, makes it clear that the IT Act does not speak to liability for copyright infringement. From this, it has to necessarily follow that all issues pertaining to liability for such infringement have to be decided by the provisions of the Copyright Act. Therefore, the scheme in the IT Act read with the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules cannot confer additional liability for copyright infringement on ISPs where the Copyright Act exempts them from liability. More to the point, the intermediary cannot be liable for copyright infringement in the event of non-compliance with Section 79(3) or Rule 4 of the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules read with Section 79(1)(c) of the IT Act. Rule 4 of the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules, 2011, to the extent that it renders intermediaries outside the protective ambit of Section 79(1) upon failure to disable access to copyrighted content, is of no relevance as “mere conduits” have already been exempted from liability under Section 52(1)(b). Moreover, since these provisions in the IT Act do not deal with enforcement measures such as injunction orders from the court to disable access to infringing content in particular or infringing websites in general, it would be wrong to contend that the scheme in India is similar to the one in the United Kingdom where the issue of infringement has been divorced from that of enforcement.

To conclude, Section 52(1)(b) is a blanket “mere conduit” exemption from liability for copyright infringement that stands uninfluenced by the presence of Section 79 of the IT Act or the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules. In the absence of a legislative scheme for enforcement in India akin to Section 97A of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Indian Courts cannot grant an injunction directing such “mere conduit” ISPs to block access to websites in general or infringing content in particular and any such action is not even maintainable in law post the insertion of Section 52(1)(b). The decision to the contrary in the R.K.Productions case is incorrect.

[1]. [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch.). Hereinafter referred to as Newzbin2.

[2]. European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (8 June 2000). This Directive was transposed into the domestic law in UK by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2013.

[3]. European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (22 May 2001).

[4]. European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (29 April 2004). This Directive was transposed into the UK domestic law primarily by the Intellectual Property (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1028.

[5]. Hereinafter referred to as the IT Act.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-3

Can Judges Order ISPs to Block Websites for Copyright Infringement? (Part 2)

ananth — 2014-03-06T16:48:18Z

In a three-part study, Ananth Padmanabhan examines the "John Doe" orders that courts have passed against ISPs, which entertainment companies have used to block dozens, if not hundreds, of websites. In this, the second part, he looks at the law laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court on secondary and contributory copyright infringement, and finds that those wouldn't allow Indian courts to grant "John Doe" orders against ISPs.

In the second part of his study, Ananth Padmanabhan proceeds to examine applying a general theory of secondary or contributory copyright infringement against ISPs. He traces the basis for holding a third party liable as a contributory by closely examining the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in Sony Corp. v Universal City Studios[1] and MGM Studios, Inc. v Grokster, Ltd.[2] and concludes that this basis does not hold good in the case of a mere conduit intermediary such as an ISP.

[1]. 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Hereinafter referred to as Betamax.

[2]. 545 U.S. 913 (2005). Hereinafter referred to as Grokster.

Primary and Secondary Infringement

Liability for copyright infringement can either be primary or secondary in character. In the case of ISPs, liability as primary infringers does not arise at all, and it is in their capacity as conduit pipes facilitating the transmission of information that they could be held secondarily liable. Even in such cases, the contention of copyright owners is that once the ISP is notified of infringing content, it has the primary responsibility of preventing access to such content. This contention is essentially rooted in a theory of secondary infringement based on knowledge and awareness, and the means to prevent further infringement.

The controversy around a suitable model of secondary infringement is reflected in two judicial pronouncements – separated by a gap of more than two decades – delivered by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Sony Corp. v Universal City Studios,[3] the US Supreme Court held that the manufacturers of home video recording devices known in the market as Betamax would not be liable to copyright owners for secondary infringement since the technology was capable of substantially non-infringing and legitimate purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court even observed that these time-shifting devices would actually enhance television viewership and hence find favour with majority of the copyright holders too. The majority did concede that in an appropriate situation, liability for secondary infringement of copyright could well arise. In the words of the Court, “vicarious liability is imposed in virtually all areas of the law, and the concept of contributory infringement is merely a species of the broader problem of identifying the circumstances in which it is just to hold one individual accountable for the actions of another”. However, if vicarious liability had to be imposed on the manufactures of the time-shifting devices, it had to rest on the fact that they sold equipment with constructive knowledge of the fact that their customers may use that equipment to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material. In the view of the Court, there was no precedent in the law of copyright for the imposition of vicarious liability merely on the showing of such fact.

Notes of dissent were struck by Justice Blackmun, who wrote an opinion on behalf of himself and three other judges. The learned Judge noted that there was no private use exemption in favour of making of copies of a copyrighted work and hence, unauthorised time-shifting would amount to copyright infringement. He also concluded that there was no fair use in such activity that would exempt it from the purview of infringement. The dissent held the manufacturer liable as a contributory infringer and reasoned that the test for contributory infringement would only be whether the contributory infringer had reason to know or believe that infringement would take place and not whether he actually knew of the same. Off-the-air recording was not only a foreseeable use for the Betamax, but also its intended use, for which Sony would be liable for copyright infringement.

This dissent has considerably influenced the seemingly contrarian position taken by the majority in the subsequent decision, MGM Studios, Inc. v Grokster, Ltd.[4] This case called into question the liability of websites that facilitated peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing. Re-formulating the test for copyright infringement, the US Supreme Court held that ‘one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties’. In re-drawing the boundaries of contributory infringement, the Court observed that contributory infringement is committed by any person who intentionally induces or encourages direct infringement, and vicarious infringement is committed by those who profit from direct infringement while declining to exercise their right to limit or stop it. When an article of commerce was good for nothing else but infringement, there was no legitimate public interest in its unlicensed availability and there would be no injustice in presuming or imputing intent to infringe in such cases. This doctrine would at the same time absolve the equivocal conduct of selling an item with substantial lawful as well as unlawful uses and would limit the liability to instances of more acute fault than the mere understanding that some of the products shall be misused, thus ensuring that innovation and commerce are not unreasonably hindered.

The Court distinguished the case at hand from Betamax, and noted that there was evidence here of active steps taken by the respondents to encourage direct copyright infringement, such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use. This evidence revealed an affirmative intent that the product be used to infringe, and an active encouragement of infringement. Without reversing the decision in Betamax, but holding that it was misinterpreted by the lower court, the Court observed that Betamax was not an authority for the proposition that whenever a product was capable of substantial lawful use, the producer could never be held liable as a contributory for the use of such product for infringing activity by third parties. In the view of the Court, Betamax did not displace other theories of secondary liability. This other theory of secondary liability applicable to the case at hand was held to be the inducement rule, as per which any person who distributed a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as evidenced by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, would be liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties. However, the Court clarified that mere knowledge of infringing potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough under this rule to subject a distributor to liability. Similarly, ordinary acts incident to product distribution, such as offering customers technical support or product updates, support liability etc. would not by themselves attract the operation of this rule. The inducement rule, instead, premised liability on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct, and thus did nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful promise.

These seemingly divergent views on secondary infringement expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court are of significant relevance for India, due to the peculiar language used in the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.[4]

Section 51 of the Act, which defines infringement, bifurcates the two types of infringement – ie. primary and secondary infringement – without indicating so in as many words. While Section 51(a)(i) speaks to primary infringers, 51(a)(ii) and 51(b) renders certain conduct to be secondary infringement. Even here, there is an important distinction between 51(a)(ii) and 51(b). The former exempts the alleged infringer from liability if he could establish that he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that the communication to the public, facilitated through the use of his “place”, would amount to copyright infringement. The latter on the other hand permits no such exception. Thus, any person, who makes for sale or hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or distributes for the purpose of trade, or publicly exhibits by way of trade, or imports into India, any infringing copies of a work, shall be liable for infringement, without any specific mens rea required to attract such liability. It is in the context of the former provision, ie. 51(a)(ii) that the liability of certain file-sharing websites for copyright infringement has arisen.[5]

Mere Conduit ISPs – Secondary Infringement Absent

In MySpace, the Delhi High Court examined the liability for secondary infringement on the part of a website that provides a platform for file-sharing. While holding the website liable, the Single Judge considered material certain facts such as the revenue model of the defendant, which depended largely on advertisements displayed on the webpages, and automatically generated advertisements that would come up for a few seconds before the infringing video clips started playing. Shockingly, the Court even considered relevant the fact that the defendant did provide for safeguards such as hash block filters, take down stay down functionality, and rights management tools operational through fingerprinting technology, to prevent or curb infringing activities being carried on in their website. This, in the view of the Court, made it evident that the defendant had a reasonable apprehension or belief that the acts which were being carried on in the website could infringe someone else’s copyright including that of the plaintiff. The logic employed by the Court to attribute liability for secondary infringement on file-sharing websites is befuddling and reveals complete disregard for the degree of regulatory authority available on the internet even where the space, i.e., the website, is supposedly “under the control” of a person. However, a critical examination of this decision is not relevant in understanding the liability of mere conduit ISPs. This is for the reason that none of the factual considerations relied on by the Single Judge to justify imposition of liability on a file-sharing website under Section 51(a)(ii) arise when the defendant is an ISP that only provides the path for content-neutral transmission of data.

This was completely ignored by the Madras High Court in R.K.Productions v. B.S.N.L.,[6] where the producers of the Tamil film “3”, which enjoyed considerable pre-release buzz due to its song “Kolaveri Di”, sought an omnibus order of injunction against all websites that host torrents or links facilitating access to, or download of, this film. Though this was worded as a John Doe plaint by branding the infringers as unknown administrators of different torrent sites and so on, the real idea was to look to the resources and wherewithal of the known defendants, ie. the ISPs, to block access to the content hosted by the unknown defendants.

This prompted the ISPs to file applications under Or. VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit against them was barred by law. The Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissed these applications for rejection of the plaint, after accepting the contention that the ISPs are necessary parties to the suit as the act of piracy occurs through the channel or network provided by them. The High Court heavily, and incorrectly, relied on MySpace without appreciating the distinction between a mere conduit ISP and a file-sharing website such as MySpace or YouTube, as regards their respective roles and responsibilities, the differing degrees of regulatory control over content enjoyed by them, and most importantly, the recognition and formalisation of these distinctions in the Copyright Act, 1957, vide the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.

[3]. 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Hereinafter referred to as Betamax.

[4]. 545 U.S. 913 (2005). Hereinafter referred to as Grokster.

[5]. Hereinafter the Act.

[6]. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. v MySpace Inc., MIPR 2011 (2) 303 (hereinafter referred to as MySpace). This decision of the Delhi High Court has been rightly criticised. See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/super-cassettes-v-my-space (last accessed on 24.03.2013).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-2

Can Judges Order ISPs to Block Websites for Copyright Infringement? (Part 1)

ananth — 2014-01-31T06:00:47Z

In a three-part study, Ananth Padmanabhan examines the "John Doe" orders that courts have passed against ISPs, which entertainment companies have used to block dozens, if not hundreds, of websites. In this part, he looks at the theory behind John Doe orders and finds that it would be wrong for Indian courts to grant "John Doe" orders against ISPs.

The Madras High Court, in its 2012 order in R.K.Productions v. B.S.N.L.,[1] has affirmed the possibility of a suit against internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to certain webpages upon notification by the copyright owner. Though this appears to be a reasonable order at first glance, keeping in mind the fact that access to identified copyrighted works alone is targeted and not websites in their entirety, the legal basis for the same is highly questionable. In this two-part study, Ananth Padmanabhan explores the legal sanctity of these orders, especially post the coming into force of the Copyright Amendment, 2012. The first part of this study explores the genesis of John Doe orders and proceeds to examine the conceptual problems arising from tagging along website blocking orders within the broad sweep of John Doe action. This part concludes that website blocking orders against ISPs stand separately from, and cannot be justified in the same manner as, John Doe orders.

[1]. (2012) 5 LW 626. Hereinafter referred to as R.K. Productions.

John Doe Orders and their Conceptual Understanding

The concept of John Doe Orders in ex parte proceedings for copyright infringement came in due to the peculiar character of copyright piracy. Orders of this nature were being passed in jurisdictions across the world till they were, probably for the first time, passed in India in 2003. Since then, such orders have become a somewhat regular feature. In short, such orders permit the plaintiff to enforce an injunction order against unidentified / unnamed defendants, ‘John Doe’ being a generic name for such defendants. To understand the nature and mechanism of such enforcement and the various guidelines governing such orders, exploring the genesis of these orders is imperative.

In Billy Joel v Various John Does,[2] one of the earliest instances of a John Doe order, the plaintiff who was a musician and a successful recording artist, found to his annoyance that his success had spawned an underground industry that capitalised on his popularity through the sale of merchandise, usually T-shirts bearing his picture and name. These sales were carried on by unauthorised persons who showed up at his concerts with the merchandise and sold them outside the concert halls where he was performing. The plaintiff had in fact granted his recording company the exclusive right to market such merchandise, and the company was doing so inside the concert halls. Obviously, the presence of the unauthorised vendors outside the concert halls hurt the company’s sales and the plaintiff’s revenue share. This compelled him to approach the district court in Wisconsin seeking injunctive relief against various "John Does" or unidentified defendants who were carrying on the unauthorised sale of merchandise. The order was specifically sought seeking an ex parte temporary restraining order prohibiting certain unnamed persons from selling merchandise bearing the plaintiff’s name or likeness outside the Milwaukee Arena where he was scheduled to perform on that day. Thus, the order sought was confined to one particular instance and the situation demanded expedient preventive action since the concert was on the very same day.

The district court, while finding the propriety of an order against unidentified defendants "troubling", still went ahead and passed the order sought for. The court felt that the problem of the defendants’ identities would be met if the copies of the summons, complaint, and restraining order itself were to be served on all persons from whom merchandise connected with the plaintiff was seized on the night of the concert. Additionally, the court clarified that all these parties would be entitled to have their names added as parties to the cause title and even otherwise, to contest the seizures. The plaintiff had also furnished a bond to cover damages that may arise due to the awarding of such relief. The court applied the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium – where there is a wrong done, there has to be a remedy in law – while granting this relief. This is clear from the last paragraph of the judgement where the Court says : "Were the injunction to be denied, plaintiffs would be without any legal means to prevent what is clearly a blatant infringement of their valid property rights. While the proposed remedy is novel, that in itself should not weigh against its adoption by this court. A court of equity is free to fashion whatever remedies will adequately protect the rights of the parties before it."

Subsequently, various courts in the United States have granted such relief. However, most such instances of judicial intervention in cases of piracy have confined themselves to specific instances of piracy as opposed to orders of wider applicability extending to more than one instance of apprehended or real piracy. For instance, in Brockum Intern., Inc. v Various John Does,[3] the plaintiff sought a nation-wide order prohibiting the same activity in other cities visited by the popular rock band, The Who, on its national tour. The court declined to do so.

The Metallica Order

In New Zealand, the High Court has specifically applied the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium while justifying the issuance of John Doe Orders. In Tony Blain Pty.Limited v Splain and other Persons Unknown,[4] the court likened this kind of relief sought against unidentified defendants, to an order in the nature of Anton Piller remedy. The court stated that both these orders involved a common feature, being an intrusion into the privacy of the defendants. However, such an intrusion would be justified applying the maxim of ubi jus ibi remedium. According to the court, "in circumstances where it is plain that persons are infringing proprietary interests which the law recognises, or deceiving the public by way of trade in a manner which may indirectly affect the commercial interests of others, the law should, if it reasonably can, provide a remedy". Emphasising on the conduct-centric nature of these reliefs, the court held that John and Jane Does will be known by their works.

However, in its attempt to bring in some safeguards before passing such an order, the court held that it would be better in the future to bring such applications a little in advance so that amicus curiae could be appointed to represent the view point of the John and Jane Does. Further, the court observed that it was important to build into the procedure appropriate protections, including means of informing persons served with orders for injunction in clear language and simple terms what their remedies were. These remedies, in turn, would include a right to apply to the court within twenty four hours for a review of the order and a right to claim damages in an appropriate case, not merely on the basis of the usual undertaking to be given by plaintiffs, but also on the basis of the tort of misfeasance of public office. It will also be necessary for the plaintiff to file before the court, a full report verified by affidavit, of the process of execution of the particular orders.

It is thus seen that the High Court, though keen to do justice by providing a remedy that is effective enough to protect the plaintiff’s rights, also tried to mitigate the harshness of the measures proposed by bringing in some safeguards. This decision gave birth to the Metallica Order in New Zealand, the New Zealander’s equivalent of a John Doe Order. It has to be added that the nature of the order passed by the High Court in this case is very detailed and can be used as precedent, even for the requisite format, by all courts that pass similar orders.[5]

John Doe Orders in India

The decision in Tej Television Ltd. v Rajan Mandal,[6] will have to find first mention since these kind of orders against unidentified defendants hit the shores of the Indian legal landscape through this decision. Here, the plaintiff owned the Ten Sports television channel and had procured the broadcasting rights to several important sporting events including the 2002 Football World Cup matches. Being a paid channel, the cable operators had to part with royalty to the plaintiff for airing the programs broadcasted on this channel. To the plaintiff’s consternation, many local cable operators were airing these sporting events without taking licenses from the plaintiff / its authorised marketing agency. This resulted in the channel approaching the Delhi High Court and seeking, for the first time, a John Doe order against unidentified defendants. The channel had some evidence of unauthorised broadcasting of the initial matches by certain cable operators and apprehended that this conduct by more operators would not only result in revenue loss but also cause the 1377 cable operators, who had taken licenses from the plaintiff, to re-think the very necessity of doing so when they could air the sporting events in an unauthorised manner without any fear of liability. Another concern was the ease with which those who carried on the practise of unauthorised transmission could destroy any evidence of such conduct. The prayer sought by the plaintiff was an ex parte order against six named cable operators and “John Doe” orders against a further fourteen unnamed persons who, the plaintiff claimed, were wrongfully transmitting the Ten Sports channel. The order against unidentified defendants was sought to be justified on two broad grounds: (i) Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which gives courts the inherent power to evolve a fair and reasonable procedure for meeting exigent situations, and (ii) international practise in the form of John Doe orders issued by courts in various countries including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.

The High Court refused to grant a John Doe order on the facts and circumstances of this case but also clarified that in an appropriate situation, courts could well award a John Doe order even in India. The court granted relief to the plaintiff by appointing a Court Commissioner who was authorised to visit the premises of various cable operators, and search, make an inventory, and take into custody all equipment / wires used for the broadcast of the plaintiff’s channel. The court empowered the Commissioner to take the assistance of technical experts and police officials in carrying out this order, and directed him to prepare a report after gathering evidence of cable piracy in the form of video recordings and photographs. The court also considered itself at liberty, on the basis of this report, to issue notices to all alleged violators, and after the hearing, to initiate civil and criminal action against them in accordance with law. The Court Commissioner was also empowered to issue warnings to such prospective violators though there was no mention of any contempt proceedings against the violators for ignoring the warning given by the Commissioner. Upon close examination, this order was nothing but a mild modification of the power vested in the court under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the CPC.

Final and Interim John Doe Orders

The Delhi High Court has, in some subsequent decisions, considered the possibility of a John Doe order without expressly granting the same. In Ardath Tobacco Co. Ltd. v Munna Bhai & Ors.,[7] the plaintiff was the proprietor of a tobacco brand, “State Express 555”. Aggrieved by the conduct of the defendants who were distributing "Peacock" cigarettes in packaging and trade dress that bore deceptive similarity to that of the plaintiff’s brand, the plaintiff sought a John Doe order against all such distributors including unidentified ones. From the report, it appears that an ex parte order appointing Court Commissioners, similar to the order in Tej Television, was awarded by the High Court initially. In the final order, the court was constrained to confine the order of permanent injunction to the named defendants since the plaintiff had failed to identify any John Does and add them to the array of parties for the purpose of securing injunctive relief. The same was again found to be the case in 3M Company v A. Patel,[8] where the final order of injunction was granted only against the 2 identified defendants.

Thus, in these cases, a distinction seems to be made between the interim orders that may be passed against the unidentified defendants, and the final relief granted by the court. The principle that emerges from these decisions is that orders against unidentified defendants can only go to the extent of collecting evidence against them through search of their premises by the Court Commissioner, or with the assistance of the Station House Officer (S.H.O) as was directed in ESPN Software India Private Ltd. v Tudu Enterprises.[9] No final relief can be granted against any person who is unnamed in the array of parties as a defendant. The purpose of an Ashok Kumar order (as such orders are branded in India) is only to bring such persons on record.

John Doe Orders – Procedure and Guidelines

Recently, the Delhi High Court has enunciated, with sufficient clarity, the procedure to be followed while granting interim orders against unidentified defendants. In Luxottica S.R.L v Mr. Munny & Ors.,[10] the plaintiff which owned the popular trade mark "Ray Ban" in respect of sunglasses, sought John Doe orders from the Delhi High Court with the aim of tacking rampant piracy and counterfeiting of its products. Surprisingly, there was no exigent necessity cited by the plaintiff for justifying the grant of such an order, unlike in Billy Joel, Metallica, Brockum, or Tej Television. Piracy had been going on in the past, and it continues to occur – that was broadly the case of the plaintiff here. Despite this, the Delhi High Court went on to issue an order of ex parte injunction restraining third parties from carrying on such counterfeiting activities. Extending the powers of the Court Commissioner, the High Court held:

The Commissioners are also authorized to visit any other premises/warehouse/store where they may have reason to suspect and/or information be received that counterfeit optical sunglasses bearing the Plaintiffs trademark RAY BAN are being stored/sold/offered for sale and thereafter. In respect of such Ashok Kumar Defendants, upon the seizure of any infringing/counterfeit products, the Commissioners shall forthwith serve such Ashok Kumar Defendants with a complete set of papers and a copy of the notice and summons. The Commissioners will seize and make an inventory of all the infringing goods including packaging material, cartons, stationery, literature, dyes, blocks, moulds, etc. bearing the impugned RAY BAN trademark and sign all books of accounts including ledgers, cash books, purchase and sale records etc., and return the seized goods on suprdari to such Ashok Kumar defendants and obtain undertakings from each of them that they will produce the seized goods as and when directed by the court.

The object behind this order seems to be the prevention of any destruction of the evidence. In consonance with this object, the High Court has even made provision for return of the seized material to the unnamed defendants during the pendency of this order, and given them the option of approaching the court and vacating the ex parte order of injunction issued against them. This Luxottica decision can be considered as India’s equivalent of the Metallica Order, as it gives a clear roadmap for courts that pass such orders in the future. Considering that John Doe orders have attracted criticism on the ground that they make serious inroads into the rights of the defendant, these safeguards specifically articulated by the Court do go some way in addressing these concerns and mitigating the hardship caused to the defendants.

Website Blocking Orders

An extension of the John Doe orders discussed above is the recent spate of decisions from various High Courts blocking access to certain websites that upload, or permit the uploading of, copyrighted content such as sound recordings and cinematograph films, without authorisation from the copyright owner. The relief granted is either movie-specific but against unknown persons, or website-specific.

To give a sample of the movie-specific relief: For the foregoing reasons, defendants and other unnamed and undisclosed persons, are restrained from copying, recording or allowing camcording or communicating or making available or distributing, or duplicating, or displaying, or releasing, or showing, or uploading, or downloading, or exhibiting, or playing, and/or defraying the movie ‘DON2’ in any manner without a proper license from the plaintiff or in any other manner which would violate/infringe the plaintiff?s copyright in the said cinematograph film ‘DON2’ through different mediums like CD, DVD, Blue- ray disc, VCD, Cable TV, DTH, Internet services, MMS, Pen drives, Hard drives, Tapes, CAS or in any other like manner.[11]

Similarly, in R.K.Productions Pvt. Ltd. v B.S.N.L. & Ors.[12]an order of the above nature has been passed in respect of the Tamil film "3". There are a few more that have already been passed by the Delhi and Madras High Courts, indicating that these kind of protective orders under Or.XXXIX R.1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are well going to be the order of the day, especially when it comes to online piracy of copyrighted content.

The Indian Music Industry and a sound recording label have also approached the Calcutta High Court and obtained an order of the second kind, ie. a direction to the known defendants who are Internet Service Providers (ISPs), to block access to various websites listed in the Schedule to the Plaint, which are used exclusively for providing unauthorised access to copyrighted sound and video recordings. The order[13] is extracted below:

This is an application by the plaintiffs in aid of a suit complaining of copyright infringement. The plaintiff no. 1 and the members of the plaintiff no. 2 are the copyright owners of Hindi film songs. It is argued that the website mentioned in the prayers are posting and playing the songs, without any copyright or licence. This application is made ex parte on the apprehension that if notice of this application was served on the website they would shift their service to a different website.

In those circumstances, I pass an order of injunction in terms of prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion till further orders. I direct the respondent ISPs to indicate to the plaintiff the address of the website owner/operator referred to in the prayers.

I also make it clear that the above order of blocking should be confined to the above website only and should not otherwise interfere with internet service.

The last part of the last sentence extracted above has been emphasised as this is precisely what is happening as a consequence of the dual kind of orders discussed in this section. Though the first kind of order is, on its own terms, confined to only the film that is the subject matter of the suit, ISPs have used it to block access to entire websites in contravention of all recognised principles of network neutrality. Even in the case of the second kind of orders, there is absolutely no transparency as to how ISPs have been interpreting the order, and what websites are being targeted by them under the garb of such an order.[14] It is a well-established maxim that courts and judicial orders cannot be used as a vehicle for oppression, harassment, or to perpetrate abuse of power. This is precisely what has been witnessed since the last year in relation to the website blocking, and film-access blocking, orders passed by different courts. It is felt that legislative intervention is absolutely necessary in this field without any further delay to lay down parameters for exercise of judicial power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which power can otherwise be construed in any manner by any Court with little checks and balances on the possibility of such exercise of power.[15]

Conceptual Differences between John Doe and Website Blocking Orders

The most crucial point of distinction between these two types of orders is that while John Doe orders speak to the primary infringer, website blocking orders impose onerous responsibility on the ISP. John Doe orders as used in India thus far have served the purpose of a blanket search and seize mandate to gather evidence of direct infringement. As seen above, the final relief in the suit is granted only against those John Does who are subsequently identified and arrayed as parties to the main suit.[16] Website blocking orders, on the other hand, amount to granting the final relief at the interim stage itself, as access is blocked to web links hosted by unknown persons by taking recourse to the ISP.

Moreover, there is a vital difference between holding primary infringers liable and making mere conduits, such as ISPs. parties to a civil suit. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium is clearly applicable in the former case, because the remedy is fashioned to bring on board the primary infringer and then afford him an opportunity of hearing before confirming the ex parte order against him. In the case of website blocking orders, the court straightaway directs the ISP to block access to the content, and the third party infringer is really a non-entity in the whole process as the attempt is not to bring him on board or to gather evidence. Hence, it is impermissible for an Indian court to grant an ex parte order directing the denial of access to a website or webpage by taking umbrage under its power to grant a John Doe order. However, Indian courts have done so, and the recent decision of the Madras High Court in R.K.Productions v. B.S.N.L.[17] has also affirmed the legality of such action. The court has judicially created a responsibility on ISPs that is akin to the take-down requirements thrust upon file-sharing websites, and which kicks in upon notice of infringing content given to the ISP by the copyright owner. This decision deserves serious critical evaluation, and an understanding of the different types of liability for copyright infringement is material for the same.

[2]. 499 F.Supp. 791 (1980). Hereinafter referred to as Billy Joel.

[3]. 551 F.Supp. 1054 (D.C.Wis.,1982). Hereinafter referred to as Brockum.

[4]. [1994] F.S.R. 497. Hereinafter referred to as Metallica. The plaintiff here was the exclusive authorised merchandiser for Metallica and Sir Paul McCartney, and the piracy alleged was similar to the one in Billy Joel’s case. Here too, the order was sought in respect of a specific concert to be held in Auckland within the next few days. The plaintiff innovatively sought an order by virtue of which certain solicitors named in the plaintiff’s application would, due to their status as officers of the court, be authorised to accost bootleggers at the concert venues and require them to provide their current addresses and evidence of identity, and these bootleggers would have to surrender up to these named solicitors all merchandise including T-shirts, head-bands, badges, or programmes in their possession or control.

[5]. See Bloomsbury Publishing Group Limited v News Group Newspapers Ltd. [2003] 3 All E.R. 736.

[6]. [2003] F.S.R. 22. Hereinafter referred to as Tej Television.

[7]. 2009 (39) PTC 208 (Del).

[8]. Order dated 15.01.2009 in C.S. (O.S.) 1771 / 2006, reported as MANU/DE/1991/2009.

[9]. MANU/DE/1061/2011.

[10]. Order dated 25.09.2009 in C.S. (O.S.) 1846 / 2009, available at http://courtnic.nic.in/dhcorder/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=173895&yr=2009 (last accessed on 24.03.2013)

[11]. Order of the Delhi High Court dated 19.12.2011 in I.A. No.20510/2011 in C.S.(O.S.) No. 3207/2011 (Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt Ltd v Multivision Network & Ors.), available at http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=269404&yr=2011 (last accessed on 24.03.2013)

[12]. Order of the Madras High Court dated 29.03.2012 in O.A.No. 230 of 2012 in C.S.No. 208 of 2012, the link to which is provided at http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/search?q=madras+high+court+first+john+doe (last accessed on 24.03.2013)

[13]. Order of the Calcutta High Court dated 27.01.2012 in GA No. 187 of 2012 in CS No. 23 of 2012 (Sagarika Music Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Dishnet Wireless Ltd. & Ors.), available at http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/147345981/ (last accessed on 24.03.2013)

[14]. The prayers sought in some of these civil suits are in complete contravention of the salutary principle in Or.VII, R.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that “every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims”.

[15]. The website blocking order dated 29.01.2013 passed by a District Court in Dabra near Gwalior in respect of websites that posted content related to the Indian Institute of Planning and Management, a Business School, and the subsequent unblocking order by the same Court dated 28.02.2013 have again brought back the spotlight on the legality of such orders passed by the judiciary. See http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/unblock-urls-about-iipm-court/articleshow/18743461.cms (last accessed on 24.03.2013).

[16]. Ardath Tobacco Co. Ltd. v Munna Bhai & Ors., 2009 (39) PTC 208 (Del); 3M Company v A. Patel, MANU/DE/1991/2009.

[17]. (2012) 5 LW 626. Hereinafter referred to as R.K.Productions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-1

Campaign for relicensing copyrighted books under Creative Commons licenses

Pavan Santhosh S. & Subhashish Panigrahi — 2016-09-20T12:43:29Z

This campaign was started on June 19 and copyright migration process is complete for 17 books so far. Once the copyright migration is over the books—ranging from historical figures and popular personalities to regional history—are going to be digitised on Wikisource.

List of books and their authors

Author: Gadam Gopala Swamy
Book: Paschima Godavari Jillalo Mahatmuni Sancharam, a historical account on Gandhi's travels and the way he spread his ideology in and around this area.
Significance: This can be used in improving articles related to the history of villages of the West Godavari district. Swamy is going to publish his magnum opus on the national movement in West Godavari along with another biographical work about the notable people of the district.

"I dedicate these works to all the people of the West Godavari district. All my efforts will be useful even if one person [from West Godavari] reads these works, learns what their ancestors lived for and died for [in the national independence movement] and tries to be responsibly contribute to the society. I find this could only be possible through placing it in digital platform like Wikisource."
- Dr. Gadam Gopala Swamy, historian, former professor

Author: Kanuri Badarinadh (Historian, Novelist and Journalist)
Books: Biographies, short biographies like Tanuku Talukulu, Yarra Narayana Swamy Jeevitha Charitra, Local Histories like Panara Vishayamu, Maa doothikapuramu, collection of articles on historical, cultural, social and art like Kasyapa Vyasalu, Antharvani, Badareenadheeyam, Lochoopu, Annavi anukonnavi, Vyasa Badarikam, historical fiction like Kavi garu, Koutilyuni Nireekshanam.
Priority: These Books can be used as resources to create articles about notable personalities of West Godavari district, several important persons and events in Andhra pradesh politics and history. Can improve articles related to West Godavari district, especially about the history sections in the village articles.

“I don't want these works to be in bookshelf and get wasted by termites. My wish as an author and researcher is to make these works available to future historians who can make use of it, so that our people get to know the local history”
- Kanuri Badarinadh, historian, novelist and journalist. Badarinadh has donated some of his books.

Author: Katta Srinivasa Rao, historian, Wikipedian and poet
Book: Ganapeswaralayam, a historical account of temples of historical importance that were built in Kusumanchi of Khammam district in Telangana. These temples flourished under the Kakatiya dynasty’s reign.
Priority: Katta Sriniavasa Rao is one of the first line Telangana historians who are working to rebuild Telangana’s History. This work is result of his research. It contains valuable content about Ganapeswara Temple and gives a glimpse of the sculpture, history and society under Kakatiya dynasty in Khammam.

Author: Vemuri Venkateswara Rao
Book: Ramanujan Nundi atu itu, a book about mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan and his works in mathematics
Priority: Like many other Indian languages, Telugu also has a lower number of books related to science and mathematics especially in the contemporary context. This book is about Ramanujan Numbers, formulas and a few more works. It also has description about contemporary mathematics built upon Ramanujan's work. This can be used to improve mathematics related articles in Telugu Wikipedia.

Author: Yasaswi Sateesh Kumar
Books: Okkamata, contains brief poetic pen portraits that explains about contemporary Telugu poets, Tellakagitam is anthology of Telugu poet Yasaswi’s poetry.
Priority: Photos of many contemporary Telugu poets and brief descriptions about them are now under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. These can be used in Wikipedia articles about notable poets.

Author: Emma Rauschenbusch Clough
Translator: Vivina Murthy
Book: Cheppulu Kuduthu Kuduthu is a translation of Emma Rauschenbusch Clough’s English book “While sewing sandals”. The English book was released in 1899 and is in Public Domain. The Telugu book was translated by Vivina Murthy and was published in 2007 by Manasu Foundation. As the translator had rights on his translated work, he released it under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license to make it freely available to all on our request.
Priority: Historical record especially about Christianity in coastal Andhra Pradesh, dalits in 19th century.

Author: Gurajada Apparao
Book: Gurujadalu is a compilation of all the works Gurajada Apparao -- he is considered as one of the greatest literary figures of modern Telugu literature. The book was edited and published by the efforts of Manasu Foundation and its associates. Apparao’s works are under Public Domain already as per the Indian Copyright Law,. But the critical introduction and some of the translations included in the book were copyrighted by Manasu foundation which they released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. This move will help digitize them on Wikisource and make them freely available to Telugu people.
Priority: Even Though some of the works of Apparao got digitized on Wikisource, this can showcase his complete literary journey with bringing a vast set of reading for the Telugu readers.

All of these books were released or agreed to be released under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license in June and July 2016. Some of these books were digitized on Wikisource, and the proofreading is going on currently. Some of the the remaining books being scanned and some are uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. The ones that have been uploaded on Commons are being indexed and digitized on Wikisource.

The news about all of these license migrated books was shared with the [Telugu Wikimedia] community, and also personally with some of the community members like Rajasekhar, Sri Ramamurthy, Gullapalli Nageswara Rao, Bhaskara Naidu, and a few others who supported in various stages of digitization like indexing, proofreading, etc.

"I wish this contribution will go forward in the same way and help making Telugu Wikisource number one in entire Indic Wikisources. I will support this work wherever you need and please ask my help whenever necessary. Definitely we can collaborate."
- User:Rajasekhar1961, Telugu Wikimedian

The list of the books can also be located on the Telugu Wikisource.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/campaign-for-relicensing-copyrighted-books-under-creative-commons-licenses

Calling Out the BSA on Its BS

pranesh — 2011-09-14T18:16:51Z

The Business Software Alliance (BSA) is trying to pull wool over government officials' eyes by equating software piracy with tax losses. Pranesh Prakash points out how that argument lacks cogency, and that tax losses would be better averted if BSA's constituent companies just decided to pay full taxes in India.

In the past we have covered the Business Software Alliance's lack of rigour in their piracy statistics, and disconnect from their constituent members when it comes to opposing free and open source software. In reaction to the criticism they have received over the years, BSA has finally stopped equating lack of sales with losses. But now, they have started equating software piracy with tax losses.

How IDC thinks tax works

In a report prepared by International Data Corporation (IDC) for the Business Software Alliance (BSA), they note:

Substantial value in form of potential industry and tax revenues is lost to software piracy: The situation in India is not healthy with a software piracy rate of 65% in 2009 (more than six out of ten PC software programs installed in 2009 were not paid for). Only one-third of the overall PC software revenues are captured by the industry incumbents and the rest are lost to software piracy. Most of the unlicensed software use occurs in otherwise legal businesses installing the programs on more PCs than allowed by the licenses they have paid for. Consequently, in 2009, the state exchequer tax receipts loss was roughly US$866 million at the current piracy and employment levels, as the industry lost its otherwise legitimate share of revenues to piracy.

For this to be true, there must be two assumptions that are satisfied. First, those who are pirating software must not spend the money that they save by doing so on any other taxable activity. Second, the companies that would get the money if the software weren't pirated must pay the Indian government taxes. As we'll see, neither of these two assumptions are warranted.

The BSA-IDC report reasons as follows: Pirates don't pay taxes on the illegal software that they sell, so that is tax evasion and consequently a tax loss. It states:

Higher demand for legal software will result in higher flow of license volume through the supply chain, resulting in increase in volume of business transactions. Each transaction adds a certain percentage of the deal or value added to the state exchequer's coffers in the form of indirect tax revenue[...] Increase in demand will also result in increased employment. Consequently, revenues from direct taxes will be increased for the government, as employees join newly created high-paying jobs.

How tax actually works

That reasoning is flawed. The majority of software piracy in India happens through two methods: violation of software licence terms by using the software on more computers than it is licensed for; and pre-loading of illegal software by computer sellers. Those 'computer seller' pirates do not sell the software separately, but bundle it with the computer as an additional service. In other words, they don't charge for it in the first place. So, quite clearly, there is no tax evasion.

Despite there being no tax evasion, there is the possibility of tax loss for the state. That would happen when instead of doing taxable activity A with with their money, they do non-taxable activity B. Putting money in special government bonds instead of spending it on software, for instance, is one such instance. However, that is a strange, unwarranted assumption. People don't always put the money that they don't spend on software into government bonds. It is a much more reasonable assumption that people would spend that money on other consumables, like food or other such tangible commodities.

Lastly, there is the unwarranted assumption that increase in demand for legal software increases employment. In fact, it is a much more reasonable assumption that increase in piracy increases employment in case of developing countries. Printing ("DTP") shops use pirated versions of Photoshop, CorelDraw and InDesign, computer education centres use pirated versions of Microsoft Windows, offices use pirated versions of Microsoft Word and Excel. If these didn't teach their employees the use of pirated software, millions of people would lose their jobs. All of these employees pay direct taxes. There is no analysis in the BSA-IDC report that accounts for this, treating all these millions of people as non-existent for purposes of their analysis.

Increasing tax: Make MNC software companies pay full taxes

Thus, there is no real tax loss to the government if the money that would have been spent on commercial software was instead spent on some other commodity. Indeed, there might even be an increase in tax collection because software companies, including leading ones such as Microsoft, are much more likely to avoid taxes than companies that deal in tangible commodities. There are well-known routes of decreasing tax liability for intangible goods such as software. Software companies normally state that they license software instead of selling it (as this suits them on issues such as customs duties), but when it comes to income tax, they try to paint the transaction as a sale of a product. (Microsoft, for instance claims that its earnings in India are 'business income' and not 'royalties' and hence is exempt under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the USA.) A company that deals with tangible commodities has no such 'licensing vs. sale' loop-hole that they can try to exploit. Further, many software companies are located in special economic zones that are "software exporting zones", and hence get large tax deductions.

In India, for instance, Microsoft is resisting payment of income tax for by routing all licensing to distributors in India through a shell company in Singapore and holding that Microsoft India had no income tax liabilities. Microsoft has been fined Rs. 2 crore because it tried to separate the importing of software into India from the (more valuable) granting of licences to customers and pay only nominal customs duties on the former and under-declaring the value of the latter as zero. From nine Microsoft dealers a total of Rs 255 crore was collected as tax. Of the roughly Rs. 4000 crores loss that the BSA-IDC report claims, around 6% is realizable from just a single tax (customs duties) from 9 companies dealing in the products of one company. If we multiply this by all taxes (income tax included) amongst all the dealers of all the constituent companies of BSA, then the Indian government might recover more from taxes than is supposedly lost to piracy!

Elsewhere around the globe, the 'Double Irish' arrangement, the 'Dutch Sandwich' route and other such are used by MNC software companies to evade taxes. Just as there are tax havens, there are some IPR havens that cater to companies selling/licensing software and other such intangible commodities.

If only these software companies were to stop evading taxes in the countries in which they sell software, then the government's tax collections would automatically increase.

Final idiocies, and conclusion

In the BSA-IDC report, they write: "Assessing the relationship between software piracy rates and UN Human Development Index (a measure of average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development) suggests that countries with greater rates of software piracy tend to have lower levels of economic development. This further strengthens the hypothesis that IP rights (IPR) enforcement increases economic activity.".

This is as sensible as saying "countries with greater rates of industrial espionage (such as France, Germany, and USA) tend to have higher levels of economic development" strengthens the hypothesis that industrial espionage increases economic development. While it is empirically true that most countries with greater rates of software piracy have lower levels of economic development, it is equally true that countries with lower levels of economic development (being countries with poorer populations) have more software piracy. It is equally true that software piracy decreases if the cost of software decreases, as shown by the more carefully-conducted analysis in the Media Piracy in Emerging Economies report.

To use greater software piracy and lower economic development as evidence of the causal link between IPR enforcement and economic activity is to betray absolute ignorance about both economics and logic.

The startlingly poor level of analysis of the BSA-IDC report leaves no question that the conclusions were arrived at independently of the analysis. Such misleading analysis is worse than trash: it is downright dangerous as an instrument of policy setting.

To increase tax receipts, the government may as well start by making BSA's constituent companies pay all the taxes they owe.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/calling-out-the-bsa-on-bs

Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest

sinha — 2015-06-24T16:11:07Z

We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest (“Global Congress”), being hosted at New Delhi from December 15 to 17, 2015.

The theme for this year’s Congress will be “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting applications to participate in the Congress, including session participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for panels and workshops.

The application form is available now at [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.

Deadlines

August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).

November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper submissions will close on November 1st.

Application Information

For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in the form.

For applications to attend sessions: Applications to attend sessions as discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or any other relevant information provided by the applicant.

Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing countries.

Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property policy can best serve the public interest.

The fourth edition of the Global Congress brings research, civil society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes. The 4^th edition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.

The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices; second, the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda; and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects of IP policy and practice.

Participation Opportunities

Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions, cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.

The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development. Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual interest.

The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress.

Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the aforementioned sessions.

The application form for participation is available now at http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or questions, you may contact global-congress@cis-india.org.

Organisation

The 4^th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and Public Interest, is being organised in cooperation with National Law University, Delhi, by the American Assembly at Columbia University, the Centre for Internet and Society, Open A.I.R., and the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University Washington College of Law.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/call-for-participation-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest

Call for joining the Free Knowledge movement #Wikipedia #Wikimedia

bhuvana — 2019-08-20T07:15:30Z

Every little drop makes a Mighty ocean! Join us in this Free Knowledge movement where your contributions will be used world-wide.

Access to Knowledge team of the Centre for Internet and Society is the partner of the Wikimedia Foundations and the Wikimedia movement. Our work is to support Wikipedia/ Wikimedia projects in India. We conduct and support a series of skill building initiative such as workshops, meetups, photo walks, contest, edit-a-thon etc. We also attend to build sustainable partnerships with institutions, organizations, groups and communities which support the Wikimedia communities to build and improve the content in Wikipedia and other projects.

Are you an individual or do you represent any organisation, institution, groups or enterprises? You can actually help the ‘Free Knowledge’ movement by donating photos, media, content or archives. Let us tell you how.

Wikipedia is a widely read website in the current world. According to Alexa’s rating, Wikipedia is the 5th most highly rated in the world. Also certainly we can say that after searching your query on Google (or any other search engine you use) you should have found Wikipedia as a preferable suggestion or result. We find it astonishing that all content of Wikipedia and its sister projects are created, modified and maintained by volunteers, here we need your support. There are many articles on Wikipedia which are being read by thousands of people but do not have relevant images. The problem is simple there is not any free image available. On Wikimedia/Wikipedia we take copyright very seriously and cannot use any content unless it is on public domain/ under free license/ copyright owner donates it under free license.

For example, there is an article on 2019 Kerala floods which is read by 2000 unique readers at this moment but we do not have sufficient photo coverage. Similarly, we have an article on a famous writer say, Ruskin Bond here also we do not have many photos on him or his works.

Wikimedia community is an independent community. Community decides by itself the content, its style including the media files to be included after detailed instructions. Although we cannot instruct the community we can provide resources which will definitely be of help for the free knowledge movement.

This article is an open call to “YOU” to support the free knowledge movement and Wikimedia movement by donating useful content. The content might be video, useful photos, database and audio. The content you are donating must be under Creative Commons Share-like content. You must have the copyright of the content under CC licenses,a CC license is used when an author wants to give other people the right to share, use, and build upon the work that they (the author) have created. Attributions will be given under every file details.

Think of a world where your content can also be part of the larger free knowledge movement?

This is the overall idea in a nutshell. We are eager to discuss every aspect of the process and your questions in detail. Please feel free to contact Tito Dutta(tito@cis-india.org). Let's schedule a call or meet in person.

[Currently the A2K is conducting a content donation drive and awareness campaign. This blog post was written as a part of this initiative ]

ಭಾಷಣದಿಂದ ಭಾಷೆ ಉಳಿಯಲ್ಲ, ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲೇ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಿಗುವುದು ಅಗತ್ಯ: ಪವನಜ

praskrishna — 2014-12-06T02:30:29Z

Media coverage of Kannada Wikipedia presentation at Mysuru on November 23, 2014.

The article was published in Just Kannada on November 23, 2014.

ಮೈಸೂರು, ನ.23 : ಧ್ವಜ ಹಾರಿಸಿ ಭಾಷಣ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ಕನ್ನಡ ಭಾಷೆ ಉಳಿಯುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಬದಲಿಗೆ ಕನ್ನಡಲ್ಲೇ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳು ಸಿಗುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡುವುದು ಅಗತ್ಯವಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಭಾರತೀಯ ಭಾಷೆಗಳು, ಸಮಾಜ ಮತ್ತು ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲ ಕೇಂದ್ರದ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥಾಪಕ ಡಾ.ಯು.ಬಿ.ಪವನಜ ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು.

ವಿಸ್ಮಯ ಫೌಂಡೇಶನ್ ಭಾನುವಾರ ಕುವೆಂಪುನಗರದ ಉದಯರವಿ ರಸ್ತೆ ಕಲಾಸುರುಚಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಯೋಜಿಸಿದ್ದ ಕನ್ನಡ ರಾಜ್ಯೋತ್ಸವ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ `ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯ: ಒಂದು ಪರಿಚಯ’ ಕುರಿತು ಮಾತನಾಡಿದರು.
ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿನಾಶದ ಹಾದಿಯತ್ತ ಸಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಇಂದು ಕೇವಲ ಕಥೆ, ಕಾದಂಬರಿಗಳಿಂದ ಮಾತ್ರ ಕನ್ನಡ ಉಳಿಯುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದಂತಹ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನಗಳನ್ನು ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಕನ್ನಡ ರಾಜ್ಯೋತ್ಸವ, ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ದಿನಾಚರಣೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಧ್ವಜ ಹಾರಿಸಿ, ಭಾಷಣ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ಕನ್ನಡ ಉಳಿಯುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಬದಲಾಗಿ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳು ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲೇ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿದರೆ ಕನ್ನಡ ಉಳಿಯುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರು. ದೇಶ-ವಿದೇಶಗಳ ಭಾಷೆ, ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿದು ಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ನಮ್ಮಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಇದೆ. ಕನ್ನಡಿಗರು ಕನ್ನಡ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಾಗಿ ಹುಡುಕಾಟ ನಡೆಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಹುಡುಕುವ ಮುನ್ನವೇ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಒದಗಿಸಿದರೆ ಕನ್ನಡ ಉಳಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು.

ಭಾರತೀಯ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯದಲ್ಲಿ 20ಕ್ಕೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಭಾಷೆಗಳಿವೆ. ತಿಂಗಳಿಗೆ 50 ಕೋಟಿ ಹೊಸ ವೀಕ್ಷಕರು ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ಏಳು ಸಾವಿರ ಸಂಪಾದಕರಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಇದೇ ಮಾದರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಜೂ.2003ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯ ಆರಂಭಗೊಂಡಿದ್ದು, ಅಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಇಲ್ಲಿಯವರೆಗೆ 18 ಸಾವಿರ ಲೇಖನಗಳು, 622 ಸಂಪಾದಕರು ಇದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ 22 ಮಂದಿ ಸಕ್ರಿಯ ಸಂಪಾದಕರು ಹಾಗೂ ನಾಲ್ಕು ಮಂದಿ ಅತಿ ಸಕ್ರಿಯ ಸಂಪಾದಕರಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ತಿಂಗಳಿಗೆ 18.50 ಲಕ್ಷ ಜನ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯ ಪುಟ ವೀಕ್ಷಣೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಿದರು.

ನಾವಷ್ಟೇ ಅಲ್ಲ ಲಕ್ಷಾಂತರ ಮಂದಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ(ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯ, ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲ)ಕ್ಕೆ ಹೊಂದಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಕನ್ನಡ ಕಲಿಯುವವರಿಗೆ, ಭಾಷಾಭಿಮಾನಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹುಡುಕುವವರಿಗೆ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು. ಜನರಿಂದ ಜನರಿಗಾಗಿ ಜನರೇ ನಡೆಸುವ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಕ್ಕೆ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಅಳವಡಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಎಂದ ಅವರು, ಕನ್ನಡ ಭಾಷೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿ, ಸಂಸ್ಕಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಅನ್ಯರಿಗೂ ಪರಿಚಯಿಸುವ ನಿಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯವನ್ನು ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಿ ಎಂದು ಸಲಹೆ ನೀಡಿದರು.

ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿ ಕುವೆಂಪು ಕನ್ನಡ ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ನಿವೃತ್ತ ಪ್ರಾಧ್ಯಾಪಕ ಪ್ರೊ.ಆರ್ವಿಯಸ್ ಸುಂದರಂ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ, ಒಂದು ಸಾವಿರ ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ಒಂದು ವರ್ಷವೂ ಎಡಬಿಡದೆ ಬರೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವ, ಕಲಿಯುತ್ತಿರುವ ಭಾಷೆ ಕನ್ನಡ. ಕನ್ನಡ ಭಾಷೆಗೆ ತನ್ನದೇ ಆದ ಇತಿಹಾಸ, ಪರಂಪರೆ ಇದೆ. ಒಂದೊಂದು ಶತಮಾನದವರೆಗೂ ಕನ್ನಡ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಅವಿಚ್ಛಿನ್ನವಾಗಿ ಇದೆ. ಇಂತಹ ಭಾಷೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಿರಂತರವಾಗಿ ಪ್ರಚಾರ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು. ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ಆಯಾಯ ಪ್ರದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ನೆಲೆಸಿರುವವರು ಅಲ್ಲಿನ ಸ್ಥಳೀಯ ಭಾಷೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕಲಿತುಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಮನವಿ ಮಾಡಿದರು.

ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ನಿವೃತ್ತ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಾಹಕ ಸಂಪಾದಕ ಡಾ.ಹಾ.ತಿ.ಕೃಷ್ಣೇಗೌಡ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷತೆ ವಹಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ವಿಸ್ಮಯ ಫೌಂಡೇಶನ್ ಸಂಸ್ಥಾಪಕ ಸೋಮಶೇಖರ್ ಇದ್ದರು.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/just-kannada-november-23-2014-kannada-wikipedia-presentation-coverage

ಬೆಳ್ತಂಗಡಿ:ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕಾಲಕ್ಕೂ ಲಭ್ಯ ಇರುವ ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ ಹಾಗೂ ಮುಕ್ತ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾ-ಪವನಜ

pavanaja — 2015-09-06T12:09:51Z

Read the online entry published by SahilOnline on August 14, 2015.

ಬೆಳ್ತಂಗಡಿ: ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕಾಲಕ್ಕೂ ಲಭ್ಯ ಇರುವ ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ ಹಾಗೂ ಮುಕ್ತ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶವಾಗಿದೆ. ಉಪಯುಕ್ತ ಬರವಣಿಗೆಗಳ ಕೋಶವನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿದ ಇದನ್ನು ಯಾರು ಬೇಕಾದರೂ ಮುಕ್ತವಾಗಿ ಬಳಸಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ಪತ್ರಿಕಾ ಅಂಕಣಕಾರ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಡಾ. ಯು. ಬಿ. ಪವನಜ ಹೇಳಿದರು.
ಅವರು ಗುರುವಾರ ಉಜಿರೆ ಎಸ್.ಡಿ.ಎಮ್. ಸ್ವಾಯತ್ತ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಪತ್ರಿಕೋದ್ಯಮ ವಿಭಾಗದ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳಿಗೆ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದರು.

2001ರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಮೇರಿಕಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಗೊಂಡ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಪ್ರಪಂಚದ 290 ಭಾಷೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಲಭ್ಯ ಇದೆ. ದೇಶದ 20 ಭಾಷೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಲೇಖನಗಳನ್ನು ಒಳಗೊಂಡಿದೆ. 2003ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭವಾಗಿದೆ. ಕೇವಲ 20 ಸಾವಿರ ಲೇಖನಗಳು ಇದೆ. ಬೇರೆ ಭಾಷೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಹೋಲಿಸಿದರೆ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಅನ್ನಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಬುದ್ಧತೆಯ ಬರವಣಿಗೆ ಶೈಲಿಯನ್ನು ಸುಧಾರಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಇದೊಂದು ಸುಲಭದ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮ. ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳು ಸಂಶೋಧನಾ ಪ್ರವೃತ್ತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಕೌಶಲ ಬೆಳೆಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು ಎಂದರು.

ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಬಳಕೆಯಿಂದ ನಮ್ಮ ಭಾಷೆ ಮತ್ತು ಶೈಲಿ ಸುಧಾರಣೆಯಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಕ್ರೋಢೀಕರಣ ಮತ್ತು ಉಲ್ಲೇಖವೂ ಅಗತ್ಯ. ಗೂಗಲ್‍ನಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಮಾತ್ರ ಅದು ಸೂಚಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಘಟಿಸಿದ ತಕ್ಷಣ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಅದು ನವೀಕರಣ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರು ನಿರಂತರ ಅಧ್ಯಯನಶೀಲರಾಗಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸಬೇಕು. ಭಾಷೆ ಬಳಸಿದಾಗ ಅದು ಬೆಳೆಯುತ್ತದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ನಮ್ಮ ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿ ಉಳಿಯುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರು.

ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ಪತ್ರಿಕೋದ್ಯಮ ವಿಭಾಗದ ಮುಖ್ಯಸ್ಥ ಪ್ರೊ. ಭಾಸ್ಕರ ಹೆಗ್ಡೆ ಉಪಸ್ಥಿತರಿದ್ದರು. ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳಾದ ಅರಹಂತ ಸ್ವಾಗತಿಸಿ, ಚೇತನ್ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಿದರು.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/sahil-online-august-14-2015

ಪ್ರಶಾಂತವನ

praskrishna — 2016-03-20T04:32:04Z

ಮಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಸಂತ ಅಲೋಷಿಯಸ್ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ಎರಿಕ್ ಮೆಥಾಯಿಸ್ ಸಭಾಂಗಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ೧೩ನೇ ವರ್ಷಾಚರಣೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಒಂದು ವರದಿ

The blog post was published in Prashasti Prashantavanam on February 21, 2016.

ಲಾಸ್ಯ ಶೆಟ್ಟಿಯವರ ನಿರೂಪಣೆಯ ವರ್ಷಾಚರಣಾ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ಶುರುವಾದದ್ದು "ಹೊಸ ಹಾದಿಯನು ಹಿಡಿದು ನಡೆಯಣ್ಣ ಮುಂದೆ.." ಎಂಬ ರೋಹಿತ್ , ಗೋಪಾಲಕೃಷ್ಣ ಮತ್ತು ತಂಡದವರಿಂದ. ಮುಂದುವರಿಯುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಮುಂಚೆ ವೇದಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಅಲಂಕರಿಸಿದ ಗಣ್ಯರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಒಂದೆರಡು ನುಡಿಗಳನ್ನಾದರೂ ಹೇಳಲೇಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತೆ.ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿ ಬಳಸುವವರಿಗೆಲ್ಲಾ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿನ ಕೆ.ಪಿ.ರಾವ್ ಕೀಲಿಮಣೆಯ ಪರಿಚಯವಿದ್ದೇ ಇರುತ್ತೆ. ಕನ್ನಡವೊಂದೇ ಅಲ್ಲದೇ ಅನೇಕ ಭಾರತೀಯ ಭಾಷೆಗಳ ಭಾರತೀಯ ಭಾಷೆಗಳ ಲಿಪಿಗಳನ್ನು ಗಣಕಕ್ಕೆ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿದ ಗಣಕ ವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿ ನಾಡೋಜ ಕೆ.ಪಿ ರಾವ್ ಅವರು ಇಂದಿನ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಅತಿಥಿ.ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ಮತ್ತೊಬ್ಬ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಅತಿಥಿ ಶ್ರೀ ವಸಂತಕುಮಾರ ಪೆರ್ಲ. ಇವರು ಮಂಗಳೂರು ಆಕಾಶವಾಣಿ ನಿಲಯ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರು ಮತ್ತು ಕನ್ನಡ ಪದಗಳ ಸೃಷ್ಠಿಗಾಗಿ ಪದಾರ್ಥಚಿಂತಾಮಣಿಯಂತಹ ಮುಖಹೊತ್ತಿಗೆಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ತೊಡಗಿಸಿಕೊಂಡವರು. ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ಮೂರನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಅತಿಥಿ ಪಿಲಿಕುಳ ನಿಸರ್ಗಧಾಮದ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿ ,ಮಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಹಿಂದಿನ ಪ್ರಭಾರಿ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಾಗಿದ್ದ S.A ಪ್ರಭಾಕರ ಶರ್ಮ ಅವರು, ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷತೆ ವಹಿಸಿದ್ದು ಸಂತ ಅಲೋಷಿಯಸ್ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ಪ್ರಾಂಶುಪಾಲರಾದ ರೆ| ಫಾ| ಸ್ವೀಬರ್ಟ್ ಡಿ’ಸಿಲ್ವ ಅವರು. ಇದಲ್ಲದೇ ವೇದಿಕೆಯನ್ನಲಕಂರಿಸಿದ ಗಣ್ಯರೆಂದರೆ ಸಂತ ಅಲೋಷಿಯಸ್ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ಬಿ.ಸಿ.ಎ ವಿಭಾಗದ ಮುಖ್ಯಸ್ಥರಾದ ಡಾ| ರವೀಂದ್ರಸ್ವಾಮಿ ಅವರು, ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಭಾಗದ ಮುಖ್ಯಸ್ಥರಾದ ಡಾ| ಸರಸ್ವತಿ ಅವರು ಮತ್ತು ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥಾಪಕರಾದ ಡಾ| ಯು.ಬಿ.ಪವನಜ ಮತ್ತು ಹದಿಮೂರನೆಯ ವರ್ಷಾಚರಣೆಯ ಸಂಚಾಲಕರಾದ ಡಾ| ವಿಶ್ವನಾಥ ಬದಿಕಾನ ಅವರು.

ಶ್ರೀ ವಿಶ್ವನಾಥ ಬದಿಕಾನ ಅವರ ಸ್ವಾಗತ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಾಸ್ತಾವಿಕ ನಂತರ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ಉದ್ಘಾಟನೆಯಾಗಿದ್ದು ನಾಡೋಜ ಕೆ.ಪಿ.ರಾವ್ ಅವರಿಂದ. ನಂತರ ಕೆ.ಪಿ.ರಾವ್ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಸನ್ಮಾನ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ. ಸನ್ಮಾನ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ನಂತರ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದ ರೆವರೆಂಡ್ ಫಾದರ್ ಡಿಸಿಲ್ವ ಅವರು ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ಇತಿಹಾಸದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ, ಕನ್ನಡ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ಕೊಡುಗೆಗಳ ನಡೆ, ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವ ಕೆಲಸಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆಯೂ ತಮ್ಮ ಮೆಚ್ಚುಗೆಯ ನುಡಿಗಳನ್ನು ವ್ಯಕ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದರು.

ನಂತರ ಕೆ.ಪಿ.ರಾವ್ ಅವರು ಎರಡು ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಉತ್ತರ ಹುಡುಕುವಂತಹ ಹಾದಿಯಲ್ಲಿನ ಶುಭನುಡಿಗಳು ನೆರೆದವರ ಗಮನ ಸೆಳೆಯುವಂತಿದ್ದವು.

ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಏಕೆ ಬೇಕು ? ಅನ್ನುವ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆ ಮೂರು ಉತ್ತರ ಹುಡುಕುವ ಹಾದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಗಿದ ಅವರ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯದಲ್ಲಿ ೧.ಕನ್ನಡ ಲಿಪಿ ಮಾತ್ರ ಬಲ್ಲವರಿಗೆ ಜಗದ ಜ್ಞಾನ ತಿಳಿಸಿಕೊಡಬಲ್ಲ ಸುಲಭದ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ೨. ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ವಿಷಯಗಳು ,ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿ,ಭಾಷಾ ಸೊಗಡು ಬೇರೆ ಭಾಷೆಯ ವಿಕಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅಷ್ಟು ಸಮಂಜಸವಾಗಿ/ಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಮೂಡಿಬರಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ.

೩. ಯಾರಿಗಾದರೂ ಗೌರವ ಕೊಡಲು ಬಳಸಬಹುದಾದ ರು,ರಿಗೆ(ರಾಯರು,ರಾಯರಿಗೆ) ಯಂತಹ ಭಾಷಾ ವೈಶಿಷ್ಟ್ಯವನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿದ ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕೆ ತನ್ನದೇ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯವಿರಬೇಕಾದ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿದೆ.

ಮುಂದುವರಿಸಿದ ಅವರು ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕೆ ಭಾಷಾಂತರದ ಬದಲು ರೂಪಾಂತರ ಮಾಡುವ ಅಗತ್ಯದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾಪಿಸಿದರು.ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಮೂಲಕವಾದರು ಕನ್ನಡ ಪದಬಳಕೆಯಲ್ಲೊಂದು ಸಮಾನತೆ ಬರಲೆಂಬ ಆಶಯವನ್ನೂ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದರು.

ನಂತರ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಅತಿಥಿಗಳಾದ ವಸಂತಕುಮಾರ್ ಪೆರ್ಲ ಅವರು ಶಿಲಾಲೇಖ--> ತಾಮ್ರ ಪಟ-->ತಾಳೆಗರಿ-->ಪುಸ್ತಕದ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಈಗ Digitial ಅವತರಣಿಕೆಯಾಗಿ ಬೆಳೆದು ಬಂದ ಪರಿಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು. ಕರಾವಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಹವ್ಯಕ, ಬ್ಯಾರಿ,ತುಳು,ಕೊಂಕಣಿ, ಮಲೆಯಾಳಂ,ಮರಾಠ,ಕರಾಡ, ಬೆಸ್ತರ ಹಲವು ಉಪಭಾಷೆಗಳ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಭಾಷಾ ಸೊಗಡನ್ನು, ನಮ್ಮ ರೀತಿ ರಿವಾಜುಗಳನ್ನು ದಾಖಲಿಸಿಡುವ,ವಿಕಿ ಮೂಲಕ ಸಂರಕ್ಷಿಸುವ ಅಗತ್ಯದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು.

ನಂತರದ ಶುಭನುಡಿಗಳು ಪಿಲಿಕುಳದ ಶಿವರಾಮಕಾರಂತ ನಿಸರ್ಗಧಾಮದ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಾದ S.Aಪ್ರಭಾಕರ ಶರ್ಮ ಅವರಿಂದ. ತದನಂತರ ಡಾ| ಯು.ಬಿ ಪವನಜ ತಮ್ಮ ತೈವಾನ್ ಪ್ರವಾಸದ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಪೂರ್ಣ ಚೈನೀಸಿನ windows ನೋಡಿ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲೂ ಈ ರೀತಿ ಮಾಡಬಾರದೇಕೆ ಎಂದು ಆಲೋಚಿಸಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ, ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ೧೯೫೨ರಲ್ಲಿ ೧೬೦೨ರಷ್ಟಿದ್ದ ಭಾಷೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಈಗ ಉಳಿದಿರುವುದು ೭೦೫ ಮಾತ್ರ ! ಭಾಷೆಗಳ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಇಷ್ಟು ಚಿಂತಾಜನಕವಾಗಿರೋ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ "ಮಾಹಿತಿಯ ಆಗರ" ಎಂಬಂತಾಗಿರೋ ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕೆ ವಿಕಿ ಏಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ಹೇಗೆ ನೆರವಾಗಬಹುದು,ಅದರ ಸದ್ಯದ ಸ್ಥಿತಿಗತಿಗಳೇನು ಎಂಬುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು.

ವಿಕಿಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ:

ಜನವರಿ ೧೫ ರಂದು ಶುರುವಾದ ವಿಕಿ ಈಗ ೩೦೦ ಭಾಷೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಿದೆ. ೨೦೦೩ ಜೂನ್ ಮೂರರಂದು ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಯ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭ. ಇಲ್ಲಿಯವರೆಗೆ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ಮೈಸೂರು, ಮಂಗಳೂರು, ಸಾಗರದಲ್ಲಿ ಆದ ಸಂಪಾದನೋತ್ಸವಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ, ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ರಚನೆಯಾದ ಪುಟಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ, ಜನರ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸುವಿಕೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು. ಮಾತನಾಡುವವರ ಲೆಕ್ಕದಲ್ಲಿ ೩೫ ನೇ ಸ್ಥಾನದಲ್ಲಿರೋ ಕನ್ನಡದ ವಿಕಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತೀ ಘಂಟೆಗೆ ೮೯೨ ಭೇಟಿಗಳು ಸಿಗುತ್ತಿವೆ. ೧೫ ವರ್ಷಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಇಂಗ್ಲಿಷ್ ವಿಕಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸೃಷ್ಠಿಯಾಗಿರೋ ಲೇಖನಗಳ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ೫೦ ಲಕ್ಷ ದಾಟಿದ್ದರೆ ೧೩ ವರ್ಷದ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿ ಲೇಖನಗಳ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ೧೯,೬೦೦. ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಭಾಷೆಗಳ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ೧೦೭ನೇ ಸ್ಥಾನದಲ್ಲಿರೋ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿ ಭಾರತೀಯ ಭಾಷೆಗಳ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹತ್ತನೇ ಸ್ಥಾನದಲ್ಲಿದೆ ಎಂಬ ವಿಕಿಯ ಬಗೆಗಿನ ಅಂಕಿಅಂಶಗಳು ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ನೆರೆದವರಿಗೆ ತಿಳಿಯಲ್ಪಟ್ಟವು. ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮಕ್ಕೆ ನೆರೆದಿದ್ದವರಿಗೆಲ್ಲಾ ಧನ್ಯವಾದಗಳನ್ನು ಸಮರ್ಪಿಸಿದ್ದು ಡಾ| ಸರಸ್ವತಿ ಅವರು.

೧೧:೪೦ ಕ್ಕೆ ಪ್ರಾತ್ಯಕ್ಷಿಕೆಗಳ ಎರಡನೇ session ಆರಂಭವಾಯಿತು. ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಲೇಖನಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ, ಅದರ ಸಂಪಾದನೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ, ಖಾತೆ ತೆರೆಯುವುದೇ ಮೊದಲಾದ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ, ಯೋಜನೆಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಪವನಜ ಅವರು ನೆರೆದವರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರಾತ್ಯಕ್ಷಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದರು

೧೨:೪೦ ಕ್ಕೆ Creative common, license ಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಸಂಪಾದಕರಲ್ಲೊಬ್ಬರಾದ ರೆಹಮಾನುದ್ದೀನ್ ಶೇಖ್ ಅವರಿಂದ ಪ್ರಾತ್ಯಕ್ಷಿಕೆ ಇತ್ತು.
ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ನ Attribution, no derivative, non commercia, sharealike ಎಂಬ ಅಂಶಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ ರೆಹಮಾನುದ್ದೀನ್ ಅವರು ೬ ತರದ ಲೈಸನ್ಸುಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು. ಅವುಗಳೆಂದರೆ
೧) cc by A --> attribute
2) cc by S --> share alike
3)cc by ND --> no derivative
4)cc by NC --> non commercial
5)non commerical, share alike(CC by SA)
6)non commercial, no derivative
ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಫೋಟೊಗಳನ್ನು ಬಳಸಬೇಕಾದರೆ ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸಬೇಕಾದ creativecommonsತಾಣದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ ಅವರು ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಕ್ಕೆ ಯಾವ ತರಹದ ಫೋಟೋಗಳನ್ನು ಬಳಸಬಹುದು, ಯಾವುದನ್ನು ಬಳಸಬಾರದು ಎಂಬ ನಿಯಮಗಳನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು. ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದಲ್ಲಿರೋ ಫೋಟೋಗಳನ್ನು ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವಾಗ ಫೋಟೋ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದು, ಆದರೆ ವಿಕಿಯಿಂದ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡದ್ದು, ಇಂಥವರ ಫೋಟೋ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಬೇಕು ಎಂಬುದೇ ಮೊದಲಾದ ಲೈಸನ್ಸ್ ಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ನಿಯಮಗಳನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು.

ಬೆಳಗಿನ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ಕೊನೆಯ ಅಂಕದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಕ್ರಿಯವಾಗಿ ತೊಡಗಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ರಾಧಾತನಯ, ವಸಂತಕುಮಾರ್,ಬಿ.ಎಸ್.ಚಂದ್ರಶೇಖರ್, ಓಂ ಶಿವಪ್ರಕಾಶ್,ಹರೀಶ್ , ತೇಜಸ್ ಮುಂತಾದ ಸಂಪಾದಕರಿಗೆ ಧನ್ಯವಾದಗಳನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಹೊರ ಊರಿನಿಂದ ಬಂದ ಸಂಪಾದಕರಾದ ಅನಂತ್ ಸುಬ್ರಾಯ್ ,ಚಿರಾಗ್ ಸಾರ್ಥಿ ಮತ್ತಿತರರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರೇಮಿಗಳ ದಿನದ ಸಂಕೇತವಾದ ಗುಲಾಬಿಯನ್ನಿತ್ತು ಅಭಿನಂದಿಸಲಾಯಿತು :-)
ನಂತರದ ಭಾಗ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯನ್ನರ ನುಡಿಗಳು. ಇದರ ಅಂಗವಾಗಿ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯನ್ನರು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದ ಬಗೆಗಿನ ತಮ್ಮ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಗಳನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು
೧)ಕ್ರೈಸ್ಟ್ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಯೋಜನೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ತೊಡಗಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಡಾ| ಶಿವಪ್ರಸಾದ್
೨)ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾಲಯದ, ಮೈಸೂರು ಸಂಪಾದನೋತ್ಸವದ ಸಂಚಾಲಕರಾಗಿದ್ದ ಡಾ| ಸೌಭಾಗ್ಯವತಿ
೩)ಸಾಗರದ ಸಂಜಯ ಗಾಂಧಿ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ, ಸಾಗರ ಸಂಪಾದನೋತ್ಸವದ ಸಂಚಾಲಕರಾಗಿದ್ದ ವಿದ್ಯಾಧರ ಚಿಪ್ಳಿ
೪)ಸಂತ ಆಗ್ನೆಸ್ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ಉಪನ್ಯಾಸಕರಾದ ಶ್ರೀಮತಿ ಕವಿತಾ
೫)ಭಾರತೀಯ ಗೋತಳಿಗಳ ವಿಕಿ ಯೋಜನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ, ಸಾಗರ ಸಂಪಾದನೋತ್ಸವದ ಸಹಸಂಚಾಲಕರಾಗಿದ್ದ ವಿಕಾಸ್ ಹೆಗಡೆ
೬)ಕ್ರೈಸ್ಟ್ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿನಿ ತ್ರಿವೇಣಿ
೭)ಸಂತ ಅಲೋಷಿಯಸ್ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿನಿ ಮಮತಾ ಅವರು
೮)ಸಂತ ಆಗ್ನೆಸ್ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿನಿ ಧನಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿ
೯)ಉಜಿರಿಯ SDM ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳಾದ ಆಂಜನೇಯ ಮತ್ತು ಮಂಜುನಾಥ
೧೦)ಮಂಗಳೂರಿನ ರಾಮಕೃಷ್ಣ ಪಿ.ಯು ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ಉಪನ್ಯಾಸಕ ನಟೇಶ್ ಆಳ್ವ
೧೧)ಮುಕ್ತ ತಂತ್ರಾಶಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ತಮ್ಮನ್ನು ತೊಡಗಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ, it for change,openstreetmap NGO ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ತೊಡಗಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಶ್ರೀ ಯೋಗೀಶ್
೧೨)openstreetmapನಲ್ಲಿ ತೊಡಗಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಶ್ರೀವಿದ್ಯಾ ಅವರು
೧೩)ಕೊನೆಯದಾಗಿ ನನಗೂ ಒಂದಿಷ್ಟು ಮಾತನಾಡೋ ಅವಕಾಶ !

ಮಧ್ಯಾಹ್ನ ಭೋಜನಾನಂತರ ಸಂತ ಅಲೋಶಿಯಸ್ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ಐಟಿ ಲ್ಯಾಬಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಪಾದನೋತ್ಸವ ನಡೆಯಬೇಕಿತ್ತು. ಆದರೆ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲ ಸಂಪರ್ಕ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಯದ ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ ಅದರ ಬದಲಿ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ಸಭಾಂಗಣಕ್ಕೆ ಸ್ಥಳಾಂತರಗೊಂಡಿತು. ರೆಹಮಾನುದ್ದೀನ್ ಅವರಿಂದ ಉತ್ತಮ ವಿಕಿ ಲೇಖನ ಹೇಗಿರಬೇಕು, ಇರುವ ಲೇಖನವನ್ನು ಬಾಹ್ಯ ಕೊಂಡಿ, info document ,ಚಿತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಹಾಕುವ ಮೂಲಕ ಹೇಗೆ ಉತ್ತಮಪಡಿಸುವುದು ಎಂಬ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಪ್ರಾತ್ಯಕ್ಷಿಕೆ ನಡೆಯಿತು. ನೆರೆದಿದ್ದ ಕಾಲೇಜು ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಪಿಲಿಕುಳದಲ್ಲಿ ತೆಗೆದಿದ್ದ ಚಿತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಪಿಲಿಕುಳ ಎಂಬ ವರ್ಗಕ್ಕೆ ಸೇರಿಸಿ ಲೇಖನಗಳನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ ತಯಾರಿಸಬಹುದು ಎಂಬುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆಯೂ ವೇದಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲೇ ತಿಳಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲ್ಗೊಂಡವರಿಗೆಲ್ಲಾ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸುವಿಕೆಯ ಪ್ರಮಾಣಪತ್ರ , ಕಾಲೇಜುಗಳಿಗೆ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದ ಪೆನ್ ಡ್ರೈವ್ ನೀಡಲಾಯಿತು. ಸಂಜೆ ನಾಲ್ಕರ ಸುಮಾರಿಗೆ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ಮುಗಿಸಿ ಹೊರಬಂದರೂ ಇನ್ನೂ ಆ ವೇದಿಕೆಯ ನೆನಪು ಮನದಲ್ಲಿ ಸುಳಿಯುತ್ತಲೇ ಇದೆ. ನೂರಕ್ಕೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೆರೆದಿದ್ದ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯನ್ನರ ನುಡಿಗಳು ಕಿವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅನುರಣಿಸುತ್ತಲೇ ಇದೆ.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/caaccdcb0cb6cbec82ca4cb5ca8