WikiConference India 2016/Updates

Hashtag: #WCI2016

This section is now outdated and archived only for historical purposes

Alternative Media Partner

Hello everyone, The Logical Indian Community is willing to support WikiConference India as our official Alternative Media Partner. They have around 50 lakh likes on Facebook. They have a big presence on other social media platforms as well. Collaborating with them will help us reach a bigger audience.

We would like to take comments from the Wikimedia community about this and we would like to inform them as soon as possible.--Satdeep Gill (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sounds great! Do we have any other proposals from competitors for comparison? AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid I have not found other competitors with such a big following.--Satdeep Gill (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good... and what about print media?--Dr. Manavpreet Kaur (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, We are looking for Print Media Partners as well.--Satdeep Gill (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Logical Indian can be a great partner. But to help us more, we should search for more partners. Anycase, if we get someone else, Logical indian can be our Social media partner anyways Yohannvt (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We can look for other print and visual media partners for sure. We will surely have blogposts on Wikimedia blog and other blogs related to the open source movement but I believe we can reach a different audience through Logical Indian. I must mention here that Logical Indian wants only one thing from us that they should be the only Official Alternative (Social Media) Partner.--Satdeep Gill (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great news. --Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great thing. They have a good reach to many online people. --59.90.187.207 07:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Please be clear with the deliverables. Mokshjuneja (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we will be discussing these things soon enough. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: I have a few concerns:

1. Why does WCI need a media partner at all? Please help me understand. One benefit we have as a community is that everyone knows what Wikipedia is and why it should be taken seriously. We don't need to convince any media outlet to take us seriously. What benefit is derived from granting exclusive rights of a volunteers' conference to a media partner?
2. As for Facebook and Twitter publicity/ outreach, WCI can run its own pages, use the existing pages, and I am sure posts by Wikipedians who have a profilic presence on these social networking websites would all add up. Communities and movements with goals similar to the Wikimedia movement could chip in with social media outreach. On the contrary, it is likely that competitors of the media partner shy away from covering the conference or posting updates about it.
3. I am at loss trying to understand the connect between TLI and WCI in particular, and the Wikimedia movement in general.
4. If there needs to be a media partner, how is such a partner to be chosen? What would be the criteria for choosing such a partner?
5. What would a WCI media partner be entitled to, apart from being mentioned on the banners and publicity material? Satdeep's comment above indicates that TLI wants to be "the only social media partner". What privileges does this exclusivity grant?
6. Finally, I find some of the commentary published on The Logical Indian, both in the comments section and the articles, very shallow and superficial, deeply sexist, and politically polarised. It would be greatly problematic if WCI, intended to be so symoblic of the Wikipedia movement in India, were to officially associate itself with such a publication. -- Rohini (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7. I was updated about this tie up this morning and thought I'd leave my comments here. In 2011 we were approached by DNA but chose to remain neutral and work with all media outlets- bigger media outlets tend to stay away from covering events where competitors are partners. I've also worked with Logical Indian commercially and am aware of their work and reach. Such a tie up makes sense for LI but no sense for Wikimedia unless there is a significant cash component in the deal which I doubt is the case. We would be alienating all other competition and giving milage to LI which would be far greater than what LI could give WCI. I'd suggest staying neutral & coordinating with multiple such media to maximise exposure. All these outlets are short of quality content and would be happy to cover WCI at no cost. Regards, AroundTheGlobe (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Strongly Object " I have a few concerns about this partnership too :

I am very vary about partnering with some one who might not be truely nuetral. In case of this partnership it will mean Wikimedia India is endorsing Logical Indians work and validating it . Which is deeply troubling for me esp when we do not know what are these groups principles or motives. We are not dealing with another media outlet but a group which has impact on forming opinions in masses.
In the past they have published various stories which are not neutral and especially when it comes to feminism.
1. In fact very recently 20th April they had to take down a story [1]because they were called as sexists and this is not the first time they have published conflicting opinions.
2. Here is one telling we need empowerment because rural women need it and urban women dont[2]

There are more such articles which talk about opinions and not facts . Hence I think this partnership is unsuitable, Offcourse they are welcome to share our conference without a partnership. Chinmayisk (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose For the reasons mentioned by Rohini, AroundTheGlobe and Chinmayisk. Additionally; Why are we granting exclusive rights for Social media coverage to a page that now seems to have a dubious reputation? Given the above links to their somewhat sexist remarks, this doesn't augur well with the Wikimedia spirit, especially the work being done in the Gendergap field. Along with this, the whole concept of having an exclusive social media partner itself seems to go against the Wiki spirit. Let the community by itself handle Social Media. This partnership just makes it seem like the Wikimedia India community is validating/endorsing TLI. It personally seems more like an excuse for TLI to piggyback on Wikipedia's reputation and publicity. This partnership will damage our reputation more than help in any way. ----Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the point we just need people to cover us and not sponsor us, but We need partners like Google who makes sense. This will hurt wiki more than helping us in any way. on top of this, we have seen how this page is controversial, and has made biased statement about gender roles. I think this collaboration is bad and that community can handle social media on their own. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Code of conduct, Friendly Space Policy, Diversity and Inclusion Guidelines

This is to announce that the Diversity and Inclusion team is working on:

Code of Conduct for the conference and its online components
Friendly Space Policy for participants and organisers
Diversity and Inclusion Guidelines for organisers
Complaint resolution mechanism

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time these policies are being drafted and published by a Wikimedia community in India. Hence, we aim to come up with comprehensive policies and guidelines that not only serve Wikimedia Conference India but act as a benchmark for future Wikimedia events in the country. We will post a draft for comments by the third week of May.

On behalf of the Diversity and Inclusion team. -- Rohini (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great update! Please do keep us updated on this.----Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]