The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 3.
CPOV: Critical Point of View
https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/Wikiwars
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society (Bangalore, India) and the Institute of Network Cultures (Amsterdam, Netherlands) seek to bring together ideas, experiences and scholarship about Wikipedia in a reader that charts out detailed user stories as well as empirical and analytical work to produce.. The organisations will jointly host two separate conferences aimed at building a Wikipedia Knowledge Network and charting scholarship and stories about The Wikipedia from around the world. </b>
<h2 align="center"><strong>CPOV: Critical Point of View</strong></h2>
<h2 align="center"><strong>Wikipedia
and the Politics of Open Knowledge</strong></h2>
<div align="left" class="pullquote">Proposal for a research network, two conferences
and a reader</div>
<div align="left" class="pullquote"> </div>
<div class="pullquote"> Organized by Centre for Internet & Society
(Bangalore, India) and the Institute of Network Cultures (Amsterdam,
Netherlands)</div>
<p><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p><strong>Introduction:</strong> It would be no exaggeration to state that
Wikipedia is at the brink of becoming the de facto global reference of dynamic
knowledge. The highly visible clashes amongst opinion leaders, university
professors, Web 2.0 ‘evangelists’ and publishers over accuracy, anonymity,
trust, vandalism and expertise only seem to fuel further growth of Wikipedia
and its user base. In this respect, what does it mean to now say that Wikipedia
has become “mainstream”?</p>
<p>The accelerated growth and scope of Wikipedia as
a knowledge reference of universal ambition is unheard of. The Google search
engine gives preferential treatment to Wikipedia in an attempt to beat search
engine optimizers and to provide a more fruitful experience to its users. Apart
from leaving its modern counterparts <em>Britannica</em> and <em>Encarta</em> in
the dust, such scale and breadth places Wikipedia on par with such historical
milestones as Pliny the Elder's <em>Naturalis Historia</em>, the Ming Dynasty's <em>Wen-hsien
ta-ch' eng</em>, and the key work of French Enlightenment, the Encyclopédie.</p>
<p>Wikipedia owns a whole set of characteristics –
including number and automation (bots) of contributors, regularity of updates,
fluidity, ease of search, number of languages, and growing user base. In doing
so, this online encyclopedia might be cited as the most visible and successful
example of the migration of FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source Software) principles
into mainstream culture. Those of us who believe in pluralism, and the
possibility of another world have reason to celebrate and defend Wikipedia from
intellectual- property-right-maximalists
and promoters of proprietary models of knowledge production and dissemination.
However, such celebration and defense should contain critical insights,
informed by the changing realities of the Internet at large and the Wikipedia
project in particular.</p>
<p>The Wikimedia Foundation has recently employed
its first research analyst and provides spaces for “Wikipediology”, including
projects such as the Wiki Project on vandalism studies. Nonetheless, critical
Wikipedia research should also be done outside the self-reflexivity of the
Wikimedia Foundation and its community. There is an urgent need for
quantitative and qualitative research from an Humanities and Arts perspective
that could benefit both the wider user base and the active Wikipedia community
itself.</p>
<p>More than this though, as one of the largest if
not the largest self-contained general knowledge reference of our time,
Wikipedia offers critical insights into the contemporary status of knowledge,
its organizing principles, function, and impact; its production styles,
mechanisms for conflict resolution and power (re-)constitution. New strategic
and tactical operations of knowledge/power are clearly at work. The concept of
the open remains ambiguous in this formation, serving as both a rallying
concept and masking new agonistic encounters.</p>
<p>By permanently (re)formulating the open and
inclusive as the guiding Wikipedia principle being formulated by the community
itself, one might also look at this norm as a narrative or even call it a
founding myth. For example, the demographic profile of the Wikipedia editor as
a white male geek with a limited mono-cultural worldview based on Western
rationality remains a concern. However, the question of (non)diversity being
formulated in Wikipedia discussions needs also to be posed beyond existing
stereotypes and at the general level of discourse. The question of
(post)identity and representation is not necessarily resolved via the
discursive construction of 'inclusion', if such inclusion may require leaving
competing knowledge histories and practices at the door and if it puts a
culture of editing not next to a culture of listening/hearing.</p>
<p>In the most material and perceptional way, every
new technology modifies conditions of possibility for knowledge. The logic of
technologies bleeds into the very structures and organizing principles of
knowledge and today, both medium and message may reflect the<em> </em>ideas of the (organized) network<em>,</em> multitude or the Deleuzian
machine<em>.</em> It is through a selected mix of technological and
normative conditions – the distributed architecture of the net, the Wiki
software platform, commons-based property licenses and the FLOSS zeitgeist –
that Wikipedia as the encyclopedia of the information age emerges, both
continuing and transforming the Enlightenment encyclopedic impulse or <em>will
to know</em>.</p>
<p>The authors of these proposal are aware of the
seemingly conflicting overarching research agenda: At one level is a
philosophical, epistemological and theoretical investigation of knowledge
artifacts and social, culture construction in terms of , authority and
politics. At the other level the research agenda is an empirical, anecdotal,
sociological investigation of the specific phenomenon of the Wikipedia. This
has been done on purpose so that the learnings from theoretical research
activities can inform practice oriented research and vice-versa.</p>
<p>Overall the conferences and reader may include
the following areas inviting theoretical, empirical, practical and art-based
contributions:</p>
<ol type="1" start="1"><li><em>WikiTheory
(opening session)</em></li><li><em>Wikipedia and
Critique of Western Knowledge Production</em></li><li><em>Encyclopedia
Models-- from 18th to 21th Century</em></li><li><em>Wiki Art</em></li><li><em>Designing Debate</em></li><li><em>Critique of Free and Open</em></li><li><em>Global
Politics of Exclusion</em></li><li><em>The
Place of Resistance</em></li><li><em>Wikipedia and Education</em></li><li><em>Wiki-analytics, Wikipedia as Platform and Software Studies</em></li><li><em>Wikipedia and Conditions of Knowledge Production<br /></em></li></ol>
<p> </p>
<h3>Descriptions of the Sessions/Fields of Interest</h3>
<p class="callout"> <em>1. WikiTheory –
Mining for Concepts (opening session)</em></p>
<p>Besides providing a general overview of the
topics to come, and with an emphasis on diverse global approaches, the aim here
is develop concepts that could be used in further research and that could fit
into larger projects on Internet culture and the critique of the free and open.
Is it possible to develop a counter-hegemony of critical practices that
situates itself in the midst of technological cultures? What kind of critical
lessons does Wikipedia provide in the face of overwhelming Web 2.0 hype and P2P
utopianism? How can a radical Wikipedia critique be developed that does not
present itself as the cynical ‘I told you so’ outsider or mimic the
neo-conservatist position of Andrew Keen? What kind of insight can Wikipedia
offer regarding the continuing tension between knowledge and information?</p>
<p class="callout"><em>2.
Wikipedia and Critical Histories of Western Knowledge Production</em></p>
<div class="pullquote">This session may include topics like: western vs.
non/post-western knowledge production, textual vs. oral tradition, visual vs.
textual knowledge, Wikipedia and language diversity, and indigenous knowledge.</div>
<p>The persistence of almost buried
master-narratives: The Western tradition of Enlightenment tends to permeate
both common and official understandings of knowledge on Wikipedia. Mirroring
the Enlightenment itself, Wikipedia both offers a very particular type of
knowledge and simultaneously makes claims upon the universal - e.g. in the
formulation of visionary goals, structure of articles, author positions,
writing style, categorization of entries, conflict resolution models and so on.
The ways in which such ideals persist and continue to bear their mark on the
present in often subtle ways requires further attention. Indeed, the 'grand
narratives' of the Enlightenment that Jean-Francis Lyotard claimed had
retreated with the emergence of 'computerized societies' continue to inform the
popular imaginary in ways largely untouched by the deconstructive moment.
Frederic Jameson once referred to this as the 'persistence of buried
master-narratives', a 'political unconscious' that guides decisions
irrespective of philosophical status. Likewise, this resonates with Foucault's
urge 'to reveal a <em>positive unconscious</em> of knowledge' as that which
performs the task of subjugation but operates beyond contention. What matters
here is not truth or belief, but operation.</p>
<p>The predominance of textual or even linguistical
cultures: The current system of Wikipedia citation prejudices textual systems
of knowledge over oral and visual systems of knowledge. This under-values the
knowledge systems of cultural memory and related technique such as mnemo
techniques or oral poetry on the one hand, and illiterate populations on the
other hand.</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="callout"><em>3.
Encyclopedia Models-- from 18th to 21th Century</em></p>
<p>The word made durable: In this session we want to
give an overview of various attempts to create a collection of global
knowledge. In order to get a better understanding of the cultural specificity
of the underlying code on which Wikipedia is built, this topic seeks to dig
further into the histories of the encyclopedia. D' Alembert's <em>Preliminary
Discourse</em> to the <em>Encyclopedie</em> is often described as the most
succinct statement of European Enlightenment, and the Encyclopedie itself as
the material project of Enlightenment. It is through the <em>Encyclopedie</em>
that the Enlightenment becomes durable, tangible and disseminated. What can be
learned by examining such historical precedents?</p>
<p>Encyclopedias have been said to be sources of
national images and stereotypes of the self and the other within Europe. In
Wikipedia image construction tends to be both disembogue and masked in favor of
a cosmopolitan, global self-understanding. This session might interrogate to
what extent knowledge production’s construction of national images is shifted
from a discursive to an automatic georeferencing system of construction.</p>
<p>As machines think (or maybe Knowing Machines or
The Machinic Intellect): This session may also look to historical attempts to
revolutionize knowledge through the creation of new technologies and to what
extent these alternate histories resonate with Wikipedia specifically and the
technologies of the Net as driven by knowledge imperatives more generally. Examples
include the Mundaneum, the Memex, the Galactic Network and project Xanadu. </p>
<p class="callout"><em>4.
Wikipedia Art</em></p>
<p>Art at the gates: Wikipedia Art is understood
both as artwork and intervention. Taking place largely on Wikipedia itself, the
project Wikipedia Art was considered controversial and was quickly removed (see
recent debate on nettime-l). What does this project reveal about this type of
knowledge production? What is the threshold of legitimacy for this type of
knowledge and how are the boundaries policed? What is at stake in the rejection
of art?</p>
<p class="callout"><em>5.
Models of Disambiguation and Designing Debate </em></p>
<div class="pullquote"><em>May
include topics like: </em>Dissent made visible, After Talk / Alerts /
Mailing Lists, the role of forum software, technical opportunities for
discontent, barnstars/award culture.</div>
<p>The paradox of neutrality: The Neutral Point of
View policy of Wikipedia does not always accurately depict the state of debate
on topics: The view held by a corporate lobby, using funded research, will find
equal space as the opinions of thousands of disadvantaged persons who might be
impacted by the actions of the corporate lobby. Would it make sense to replace
the NPoV policy and think about Wikipedia as a space of open political
agonality; as a battle for meaning underpinned by the desire for reason?</p>
<p>New crises of authenticity: As Wikipedia gains
the status of default reference for other printed textual knowledge artifacts –
there are emerging challenges of representation; longevity born digital
references; digital manipulation of sources; and circular referencing.
Shuddhabrata Sengupta of CSDS/Sarai says “Wikipedia encouraged in its community
the active exercise of a critical and skeptical attitude towards any received
form of knowledge”. In this context the evolving notions of authenticity has to
be further interrogated given the rise of peer-produced knowledge and the
diminishing cult of the expert. <em></em></p>
<p> </p>
<p class="callout"><em>6.
Critique of Free and Open </em></p>
<div class="pullquote">May include topics like: the parasite model of
free culture (“You work for free, others will make the money from your free
labour.”), governance, the role of developers, economy of Wikipedia, the beliefs
of the founders as the political foundation of Wikipedia, critical
interrogation of knowledge in relation to 'the open'.</div>
<p>Vacuous collaboration: Master concepts like
freedom and openness are at constant risk of remaining empty or constituting an
‘empty signifier’. The failure to fill such concepts has lead to many
descriptions of Wikipedia as 'collaborations' or even 'ad hoc meritocracies'
(Alex Bruns). Both these second-tier notions also tend to mask the
reconfiguration of the political and new forms of closure.</p>
<p>Paid and voluntary community manipulation: Many
Wikipedians hold strong opinions on range of sensitive areas including identity,
religion, science, politics, culture, and use sophisticated techniques such as
astro-turfing on Wikipedia. Additionally, some states, corporations and
organized religious groups sometimes pay specialists to engage in astro-turfing
in order to remove critical opinions and rewrite information from Wikipedia.</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="callout"><em>7.
Global Politics of Exclusion </em></p>
<div class="pullquote"><em>May
include topics like: </em>non-western, language, connectedness, oral
histories, women, non-geeks.</div>
<p>Tyranny of the connected: In societies which are
compounded by digital and participation divides, the connected usually always
win over those who don't have access and time to spare.</p>
<p>Gendered Knowledge: While women are strongly
represented among readers, globally, they are
hardly represented among contributors. In offlist chats, women express
that they do not feel comfortable when contributing to Wikipedia conversations.
They even felt silenced by the perception of Wikipedia as a masculine tech
culture. Some women have already created an alternative space of discussion at
wikichix.org. Does the separation of discussion spaces and the marginalization
of domestic issues and social impacts on Wikipedia turn back time?</p>
<p>Morality laundering: Moral standards that exist
in one country are being exported to other countries via Wikipedia. For
example, photo-realistic images of human bodies on pages dealing with sexuality
and anatomy are being replaced with drawings. Does this type of common
denominator approach undermine the pluralism of global sexuality? The call and
eventual refusal of image censorship for the entry on Mohammad represents a
similar scenario.</p>
<p>Language diversity: Despite the self-imposed
normative claim of language diversity and the self-description of Wikipedia as
a truly multi-lingual project, English is the Lingua Franca in translingual
meta projects and policy discussions. Also, on the level of content, is the
English Wikipedia the 'Leitmedium' in terms of (content) synchronization. In
what other ways does the language divide operate on Wikipedia?</p>
<p>Global governance: Governance of Wikipedia has
evolved and become increasingly sophisticated to match its phenomenal growth
and the attention it has garnered. While these changes in governance have
managed to sustain the growth of Wikipedia and prevent its credibility from
being undermined, there is a need to understand the impact that various
governance mechanisms have on the different incarnations of Wikipedia
throughout the world. Such analysis should consider separately (and compare)
different national chapters, plus extend beyond Wikipedia projects to the
governance of the Wikimedia Foundation.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Form and format: As the Wikipedia becomes a
standard of documentation and knowledge archive, it becomes important to focus
on traditional, oral and ephemeral knowledges which might die because of the
limitations of technologised platforms to capture them. Oral histories,
community knowledges, incipient systems of documenting personal and collective
memories, etc. start getting lost as the logo-centric, ‘objectively verifiable’
structures of knowledge production come into being. Rather than a critique of
Wikipedia, analysis needs to concentrate on ways by which such knowledge
systems are not lost and further tools which need to be developed in order to
make them accessible and visible.</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="callout"><em>8.
The Place of Resistance</em></p>
<p>Why do people resign from Wikipedia? Are critical
voices silenced by the majority of the mass? Does the exclusion of the
Wikipedia Art project reveal that within Wikipedia is no place for contesting
forms, repertoires, styles that go beyond linguistic approaches? Rituals and
mechanisms of exclusion offers critical insights into the contemporary status
of resistance formation in an paradigmatic age of diversity and inclusion.
Going beyond and extending the thinking of social movement scholars such as
Touraine or Melucci the study of Wikipedia might inform culture and identity
approaches of social movement studies and vice versa.</p>
<p>Can Wikipedia said to be a social movement and/or
how do social movement actors appropriate the Wikipedia to built alternatives?</p>
<p class="callout"><em>9.
Media Literacy and Education </em></p>
<p>Knowing about knowing: While technologies like
newspapers, television, radio and cinema have given birth to educational
institutions that engage in media studies, thereby providing tools for the
discerning citizen-consumer and future professional, there is still much work
required to develop similar critical models for emerging projects like
Wikipedia. The common institutional (non)response to warn against the ‘dangers’
of Wikipedia-like projects and discourage or ban their use seems grossly
inadequate. The rise of 'prosumers' suggests a need for new 'production
literacies' in addition to the traditional 'consumption literacy'. Furthermore,
there is also a growing number of meta projects on Wikipedia that seek cooperation
with schools and academia. But is the Wikimedia foundation and select national
bodies the legitimate actors to teach media literacy or is this rather a public
relations effort? What would Wikipedia literacy entail?</p>
<p class="callout"><em>10.
Wiki-analytics, Wikipedia as Platform and Software Studies</em></p>
<div class="pullquote"><em>Possible Topics: </em>Protocological
Knowledge, Knowledge vs. Information, Cultural Analytics, Cybernetics in the
present, (Un)dead labour and the posthuman bot.</div>
<p>Knowledge in the neighborhood of software: Can we
start thinking of Wikipedia as an interplay of editors and technology, since
software and notification systems are such an important part of the Wikipedia
project? Indeed, whilst humans argue over knowledge statements, 'bots' do much
of the dirty work and general knowledge housekeeping – a kind of (un)dead
labour. The presumption here, of code as politics, is that the wiki principles
themselves need to be debated from a perspective of software studies. To what
extent has bot politics triumphed over vernacular expertise or lead to an empowerment of the e-tech geeks
in knowledge projects? Related to this is the question of the cultural history
of Wikipedia as a platform. What is the relation between policy formation and
technical protocols? Is Wikipedia knowledge
Cybernetic?</p>
<p>Wikipedia as a data set: Besides the automation
participation in the form of the bot, Wikipedia is an information artifact
through and through. What kind of data analysis techniques can contribute to a
radical critique or illuminate network regularities beyond human
interpretation? What additional anonymised data sets of edit and use history
should be released by the Wikimedia Foundation to promote media literacy and
education.</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="callout"><em>11.
Wikipedia and Conditions of Knowledge Production</em></p>
<div class="pullquote">Possible Topics: Politics of knowledge production,
question of authority, The fallacy of objectivity, Wikipedia and the Public
Sphere.</div>
<p>The alarm that traditional bastions of
knowledge production and consumption (like universities and publishing houses)
raise against Wikipedia, brings into sharp relief, the fact that the Wikipedia
is a part of a much larger knowledge production industry. With the Wikipedia’s
integration into more ‘mainstream’ usage, it becomes necessary to focus on how
the emergence of such a space (and the principles it embodies) also affects the
much larger and global politics, aesthetics and mechanics of knowledge
production. Wikipedia has substantially changed academic trends of publication,
citation, classroom pedagogy and research. It has also been central to many
debates about who produces knowledge and who has the ‘right’ to be an Authority
on the knowledge thus produced.</p>
<p>Moving beyond the class-room and questions
of plagiarism or teaching, there is need to investigate the pre-conditions and
the contexts within which Wikipedia emerges, and the kind of questions it poses
to processes of knowledge production, consumption and verification.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3><em>Production
Details</em></h3>
<p>Besides setting up a network for critical
Wikipedia research with its own mailing list and organizing two events early
2010 in Bangalore and Amsterdam (to start with), the aim is to gather materials
for a Wikipedia Research Reader that will be published in the INC Reader series
around September-October 2010.</p>
<div class="pullquote">Research and editorial group: Geert Lovink and
Sabine Niederer (Amsterdam), Nathaniel Tkacz (Melbourne), Sunil Abraham
(Bangalore), Johanna Niesyto (Siegen), Nishant Shah (Bangalore).</div>
<h3><em>Contact
info: </em></h3>
<p>Sunil Abraham: <a href="mailto:sunil@cis-india.org">sunil@cis-india.org</a></p>
<p>Nishant Shah: <a href="mailto:Nishant@cis-india.org">Nishant@cis-india.org</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>For more information on how to apply to the Bangalore WikiWars conference, please <a title="CPOV - Critical Point of View : Wikiwars" class="internal-link" href="/research/conferences/wikiwars">click here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/Wikiwars'>https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/Wikiwars</a>
</p>
No publishernishantWikipediaart and interventioncyberculturesdigital subjectivesVandalismdigital artdigital pluralism2009-07-13T09:07:42ZBlog EntryResearchers At Work
https://cis-india.org/raw/cisraw-faq
<b>CIS-RAW stands for Researchers at Work, a multidisciplinary research initiative by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. CIS firmly believes that in order to understand the contemporary concerns in the field of Internet and Society, it is necessary to produce local and contextual accounts of the interaction between the internet and socio-cultural and geo-political structures. The CIS-RAW programme hopes to produce one of the first documentations on the transactions and negotiations, relationships and correlations that the emergence of internet technologies has resulted in, specifically in the South. The CIS-RAW programme recognises ‘The Histories of the Internet and India’ as its focus for the first two years. Although many disciplines, organisations and interventions in various areas deal with internet technologies, there has been very little work in documenting the polymorphous growth of internet technologies and their relationship with society in India. The existing narratives of the internet are often riddled with absences or only focus on the mainstream interests of major stakeholders, like the state and the corporate. We find it imperative to excavate the three-decade histories of the internet to understand the contemporary concerns and questions in the field.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/cisraw-faq'>https://cis-india.org/raw/cisraw-faq</a>
</p>
No publishernishanthistories of internet in Indiainternet and societygeeksdigital subjectivescyborgscyberculturesarchivescyberspacespedagogyresearchwomen and internete-governance2012-01-04T05:27:06ZPageHistories of the Internet
https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/histories-of-the-internets-main
<b>For the first two years, the CIS-RAW Programme shall focus on producing diverse multidisciplinary histories of the internet in India.</b>
<p><strong>Histories of internets in India</strong></p>
<p align="justify">The CIS-RAW programme is designed around two-year thematics. Every two years, we shall, looking at our engagement and the questions that are emerging around us, come up with new themes that we would like to commission, enable and encourage research on.</p>
<p align="justify">The selection of the theme of the History of Internet and Society is a unanimous decision made by our researchers in-house, the members of the Society, distinguished fellows, supporters, and peers who all gathered for a launch workshop for the CIS. There is a severe dearth of material on the histories of Internet and Society in India and we find it necessary to contextualise and historicise the contemporary in order to fruitfully and critically engage with the questions and concerns we are committed to. In the first two years of its programme, the CIS-RAW hopes to come up with alternative histories of the Internet and Society, which chart a wide terrain of the field that we are engaging with and produce one of the first such resources for researchers working in this field.</p>
<p align="justify"><strong>Scope of the Theme:</strong></p>
<p align="justify">We are looking at a wide range of accounts of the different forms, imaginations, materialities and interactions of the internets in India. As we excavate its three-decade growth in India, it becomes increasingly clear that there is no homogenised Internet that has evolved in the country; Instead, what we have is a technology, which, through its interactions and intersections with various objects, people, contexts and regulation, has emerged in many different ways. The theme of 'Histories of internets in India' hopes to address these pluralities of the internets and how they have been shaped in the unfolding of these technologies.</p>
<p align="justify">We have collaborated on the following histories with different researchers in India:</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<ol>
<li> <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/rewiring-bodies/" class="external-link">Rewiring Bodies</a> - Asha Achuthan, Centre for Contemporary Studies, Indian Institute of Sciences, Bangalore.</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/archives-and-access/" class="external-link">Archive and Access</a> - Rochelle Pinto (Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore; Aparna Balachandran, Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore; and Abhijit Bhattacharya, Centre for Sudies in Social Sciences, Calcutta.</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/law-video-technology/law-video-and-technology" class="external-link">Porn: Law, Video & Technology</a> - Namita Malhotra, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/transparency-and-politics/transparency-and-politics-blog" class="external-link">Transparency and Politics</a> - Zainab Bawa, Centre for the Study of Culture and Society</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/the-last-cultural-mile/the-last-cultural-mile-blog" class="external-link">The Last Cultural Mile</a> - Ashish Rajadhyaksha, Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/revolution-2.0/revolution-2.0-blog" class="external-link">Using the Net for Social Change</a> - Anja Kovacs, (Research) Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/queer-histories-of-the-internet/queer-histories-of-the-internet-blog" class="external-link">Queer Histories of the Internet</a> - Nitya Vasudevan, Centre for Study of Culture and Society and Nithin Manayath, Mount Carmel College</li><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/internet-society-and-space-in-indian-cities/internet-society-and-space-in-indian-cities-blog" class="external-link">Internet, Society and Space in Indian Cities</a> - Pratyush Shankar, Center for Environmental Planning and Technology University, Ahmedabad</li><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/gaming-and-gold/gaming-and-gold-blog" class="external-link">Gaming and Gold</a> - Arun Menon, Centre for Internet & Society<br /></li></ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/histories-of-the-internets-main'>https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/histories-of-the-internets-main</a>
</p>
No publishernishanthistories of internet in Indiainternet and societygeeksdigital subjectivescyborgscyberculturesarchivescyberspacespedagogyresearchwomen and internete-governance2015-03-30T14:15:10ZPage