Talk:WikiConference India 2011/Submissions Review

Jury

This is to inform the voting jury that there have been disputes between me and Sodabottle, he has !voted against me at ANI too at English wikipedia. I didn't mention it on this page earlier because (even though I saw that he was the jury since I submitted my proposal), is I believed that in view of his involved nature he would recuse himself from voting in my case. Yogesh Khandke 18:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Another issue is that both Jayantanth and Sodabottle are making presentations and have been voted for by other juries. What can prevent from I scratch your back and you scratch mine? Juries should not make presentations. Please take this seriously. What is being done is highly irregular. Yogesh Khandke 02:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd ask that Yogesh Khandke please assume good faith. I am presenting below a table of the voting pattern pointed out by Yogesh to determine if further discussion/action is needed.

Voting pattern where Yogesh alleges COI

ID	Title	Presenter (first author)	Vote1 (Sodabottle)	Vote2 (Logicwiki)	Vote3 (Jayantanth)	Vote5 (Shiju Alex)	Final Score
91	People are Knowledge	Aprabhala, Shijualex, Mayur	3	3	3	0	Score
43	World's 6th Most Spoken Language: Bengali Wikipedia	Jayanta Nath	3	3	0	3	Score
178	Role of Tools in Indic Wikipedias. A look at the range of tools being in use.	ta:User:Logicwiki	3	0	Vote	3	Final Score
13	Collaborating with corporates - the Tamil Wiki experience	ta:User:Sodabottle	0	3	3	2	Score
30	The Tamil Wiktionary Story	Thagaval Uzhavan and ta:Sodabottle	0	3	3	3	Score
97	The Evolution and Importance of the Main Page in Tamil Wikipedia	user:sodabottle	0	3	Vote	2	Score

Zuggernaut 05:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Zuggernaut is driving at asking me to AGF, but to me it looks like an awful idea that juries are presenters too. Doesn't make any sense at all. You can't take guard in one over and put the white coat in another. That happens only in gully cricket I wonder who is running this show, he should have one good look at this. Yogesh Khandke 16:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

YK explains his work

My presentation title is Editing experiences in the India related content environment. My statement in the abstract reads This work would attempt to examine the treatment of a sample of India related content on English Wikipedia and editing experiences in the Indian article environment and to draw conclusions and compare them with the above.

Explanation to jury: Jayantath who justifies his strong rejection with (Does) not match with Wikimedia movement and philosophy."

• The philosophy of wikipedia is enshrined in the five pillars, is there any violation above?

Explanation to jury: Logicwiki who justifies his strong rejection with Heavy POV Submission, does not discuss in NPOV

• Does my statement contain a non-neutral point of view?

There is a presentation titled Patriotism, Nationalism, Jingoism which has got a strong acceptance. Assuming that someone suffers from Patriotism, Nationalism or Jingoism is an attack, isn't that against Wikipedia policy? Please don't point to OSE, don't we need transparency, and a yard stick that doesn't wax or wane?

I am sorry Ashwin, I'm sure you mean the best and it is not fair on my part to pick on your presentation, however please remember it isn't personal, nevertheless please accept my apology if it hurts you in any way, since your work has been accepted, would you accomodate mine? Don't worry if you have to decline. Yogesh Khandke 16:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Different Strokes for Different Folks: The Selection of Proposals for WCI 2011

It is unfortunate that prestigious institutions/organizations are all too often taken over by a tiny caucus who exploit their 'power of patronage' to further their own narrow agenda, or for purely parochial reasons. The Indian chapter of Wikipedia is the latest victim of this trend. I do not say this out of a sense of disgruntlement, but because I am deeply disappointed.

Although the jury claims that "[a]ll the relevant submissions made in response to the Call for Participation have been selected here based on review by Conference program team" it is not true at all. My submission "Wikipedia as a Knowledge Highway: Transforming Research Methodology in India" although included in the Knowledge track, was not reviewed at all. My e-mail to members of the jury requesting for a review of my proposal was met with a studied silence. On the other hand, it is extremely doubtful if several of the accepted submissions deserve representation at the WikiConference India 2011. A look at entries 43, 83, 85, 109, and 60 among others will make clear what I am trying to convey.

There is no doubt that members of the jury voting for/against fellow members constitutes conflict of interest. But Messrs Sodabottle, Logicwiki, Santhosh, Jayantanth, and Shiju Alex have gone far beyond that. Not only will they be presenting their own papers at the conference, but one look at the final selection list will make evident their heavy bias. Out of a panel of five members, two members are active contributors to the Tamil Wikipedia, whereas another two are active contributors to the Malayalam Wikipedia. Now, if any one is perceptive enough, she/he will find how overwhelmingly certain persons have been preferred at the expense of others. There is no doubt that certain Wikipedias - particularly Tamil, Malayalam and Marathi - have done a commendable job. But the members of the jury have a moral obligation to rise above sectional interests. The upshot of this blinkered policy has been this (among others): None of the north-eastern languages have been represented; there are no participants from the more inaccessible places like Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand, and finally many worthy contributions (one by an IIT-ian, another suggesting a Bollypedia, for instance) have been rejected.

This is not the way to spread a noble initiative like Wikipedia. I do not question the intellectual credentials of the members of the jury (although there is good reason to do so), but ask them to review their policies. Finally, to all those who have had the patience to go through my comment, I request them to make other concerned people aware of what is going on behind the scenes in the Indian chapter of Wikipedia, and help it to make it a more enabling knowledge space.

Shubhro Datta (shubhro1983@gmail.com)