CORNEL DACOSTA
2008-09-26 15:27:19 UTC
OPEN LETTER TO GOANET AND OTHER GOAN RELATED WEBSITES
We have had Cecil Pinto's confirmation on GX (GoenchimXapotam) that, it is Frederick Noronha who rejects large numbers of posts sent to Goanet without the slightest whiff of an explanation. This disclosure has not been rebutted by Frederick for over a fortnight and I therefore want to congratulate him on his contribution towards corruption and the absence of transparency for which India has just been rated 85th out of 180 countries on the Transparency International Survey. But what on earth am I talking about?
Anyone who googles Transparency International will discover that since 1995, there has been an official international body (executive director, Chandrashekhar Krishan) that studies corruption in differnt countries and provides such data in a league table. The latest was published on 23/9/08 and its details, especially on its methodology, are on Google.
Many will recall that since the start of 2008, there has been a huge number of posts rejected by Goanet without explanation. This prompted several posters to question what was going on rather unexpectedly. In my case, I had 25 to 30 rejections since Jan 2008 and virtually none among many hundreds, in the previous six years--and of course, I had not changed my general focus nor writing style in any way! Others had similar experiences and this led to Santosh Helekar kindly agreeing on behalf of others, to list key questions that needed to be addressed by Goanet--specifically relating to the rejection of posts without explanation. The immediate response to Santosh Helekar's very polite and precise query was the standard rejection note that his post was "inappropriate". It was of course sent by a person who chose to remain anonymous and so much in keeping with recent Goanet practice!
Unfortunately, I am only now able to respond to the totally unexpected info (at least for me) that good old Frederick Noronha lay at the heart of the rejection racket whilst taking good care not to be discovered as the villain of the piece. Coincidentally, just after Cecil's disclosure about Frederick Noronha's role vis a vis Goanet, I happened to be in Russia where among the academics I met, the central concerns were: a) the problem of growing corruption at all levels in that society including the Net, schools, colleges, universities, employment etc. The parallels with India seemed very close but the Transparency International League table now puts Russia at 147 compared to India at 85 out of 180 nations. b) the absence of a free press in Russia and the wide use of censorship.
I naturally found it difficult to believe that Frederick Noronha whom I have always held to be a decent guy was the source of so much unrest among serious and highly educated posters on Goanet and therefore wish to make the following observations, knowing full well that this post is unlikely to appear on Goanet for the simple reason that Goanet cannot handle even the mildest form of constructive criticism. It will howeve be read widely and Goanet members will have access to it irespective of every means that Goanet tries to block it:
1. If indeed, Frederick Noronha is (with others) the owner of the Goanet site, I can accept that, it is his prerogative to reject those posts he does not personally consider acceptable for his site. However, he and his fellow site owners have TOTALLY FAILED to inform us posters that this is indeed a private site in which he (Frederick Noronha and unnamed associates) can do as they please with absolutely no regard for any accountability nor any concern for the posters. Had he and his associates acted properly, there would not be a need for several posters, unhappy with Goanet post rejections, to try to endlessly extract information from the so called moderators about the discernible pattern of post rejections. This lack of transparency regarding Frederick Noronha's hidden hand on Goanet is in my view, one clear illustration of corrupt practice on Goanet. Why on earth not just come clean and say that only what he says goes on Goanet instead of
consistently pussy-footing about the 'constructive objectives' of Goanet, endlessly welcoming posts and commentary but operating very much like Lady Macbeth as an assassin from behind the scenes?
2. Another example of corrupt practice on Goanet is when consistency is absent. At least one moderator will provide a reason for the rejection of a post and indeed be named so that at least something may be done about it. Yet, virtually all others will remain anonymous (whoever they are) and will use the sham of a standardised rejection note. When the available Goanet protocol is followed up to seek an explanation for a rejection, the question simply ends up in limbo everytime. If Frederick permits this kind of corrupt practice as a site owner, questions are surely reasonable regarding his personal integrity in running an international web site with the hollow sham that "Goanet is where Goans connect" when instead hundreds of post rejections represent a major 'disconnect' without reasons.
3. Information about exactly who the moderators are is steeped in secrecy. Surely, it is incumbent on Frederick Noronha and his fellow site owners to make this information clear so as to curtail contradictory versions emanating from so called moderators of Goanet who pathetically try to remain nameless.
4. Another form of corruption is that Frederick Noronha appears to perform the role of a newspaper editor where indeed the editor traditionally has the last word (normally without explanation) regarding a letter to the editor. However, a web-site like Goanet is not run like a newspaper. It is indeed dependent on a large number of posters who sustain discourse. Unexplained rejections of posts on Goanet inevitably stifle such discourse. If such supression of posts by elimination did not take place, Frederick Noronha as one of the site owners would hardly appear at the top of the list for posts published virtually every month! Surely, his personal integrity requires some explanation re this peculiar conundrum or we should be informed that it is his personal greater glory that is important to him rather than Goanet being of purported concern about Goan matters in Goa and the Goan Diaspora. A cheeky question would be if anyone ever moderates any of the site
owners' posts, and if not, why not? And why the implicit racket of them and us on Goanet?
4. It is corrupt if it is not made clear to posters that certain ideological positions are unacceptable or indeed that his 'chieftenship' Frederick Noronha, effectively dictates what is aceeptable or not. His role smacks of authoritarian censorship evident in communist and fascist regimes. This is particularly strange for someone who is purportedly a professional journalist and purportedly a strong advocate for democracy. Further, if the intelligencia in Goa of which Goanet is clearly a part, performs as Goanet does on the inexplicable rejection of posts in significant numbers, is it any surprise that Goa is in the absolute mess that it is in with regard to corruption? Put simply, Frederick Noronha and his fellow site owners seem to be complicit in the very corruption they pretend to disown and abhor. Openess in discourse is the key towards the elimination of the hidden hand of corruption that clearly permeates Goanet through and through.
5. Non explanation for the rejection of posts allows for the corrupt practice of avoiding reading or engaging with the posts received by the moderators.
6. The paradox for me is that India does have an excellent press that in many ways emulates the best traditions of the UK press in which nothing is sacred except what affects state security. How then is it possible that Frederick Noronha runs a Goanet 'racket' in which everyting is highly secretive and totally lacking in transparency? I am sure the many Goan websites where this post of mine will be transmitted, would like to have Frederick's answer to this question out of sheer curiosity if nothing else.
Finally, for me, the annual report from Transparency International was most timely. Its appearance coincided precisely with a time when I was reflecting on corruption and lack of transparency on Goanet. I therefore have, with many regrets, to assert strongly that, Goanet is a seriously non transparent organisation with the hidden hand of corruption all over it. No other website that I am familiar with reaches the depth of corruption and non transparency as Goanet does.
This trenchant criticism is not meant to be personal but it is the only way I can focus on the serious systemic shortcomings of Goanet.
Cornel DaCosta, London, UK.
We have had Cecil Pinto's confirmation on GX (GoenchimXapotam) that, it is Frederick Noronha who rejects large numbers of posts sent to Goanet without the slightest whiff of an explanation. This disclosure has not been rebutted by Frederick for over a fortnight and I therefore want to congratulate him on his contribution towards corruption and the absence of transparency for which India has just been rated 85th out of 180 countries on the Transparency International Survey. But what on earth am I talking about?
Anyone who googles Transparency International will discover that since 1995, there has been an official international body (executive director, Chandrashekhar Krishan) that studies corruption in differnt countries and provides such data in a league table. The latest was published on 23/9/08 and its details, especially on its methodology, are on Google.
Many will recall that since the start of 2008, there has been a huge number of posts rejected by Goanet without explanation. This prompted several posters to question what was going on rather unexpectedly. In my case, I had 25 to 30 rejections since Jan 2008 and virtually none among many hundreds, in the previous six years--and of course, I had not changed my general focus nor writing style in any way! Others had similar experiences and this led to Santosh Helekar kindly agreeing on behalf of others, to list key questions that needed to be addressed by Goanet--specifically relating to the rejection of posts without explanation. The immediate response to Santosh Helekar's very polite and precise query was the standard rejection note that his post was "inappropriate". It was of course sent by a person who chose to remain anonymous and so much in keeping with recent Goanet practice!
Unfortunately, I am only now able to respond to the totally unexpected info (at least for me) that good old Frederick Noronha lay at the heart of the rejection racket whilst taking good care not to be discovered as the villain of the piece. Coincidentally, just after Cecil's disclosure about Frederick Noronha's role vis a vis Goanet, I happened to be in Russia where among the academics I met, the central concerns were: a) the problem of growing corruption at all levels in that society including the Net, schools, colleges, universities, employment etc. The parallels with India seemed very close but the Transparency International League table now puts Russia at 147 compared to India at 85 out of 180 nations. b) the absence of a free press in Russia and the wide use of censorship.
I naturally found it difficult to believe that Frederick Noronha whom I have always held to be a decent guy was the source of so much unrest among serious and highly educated posters on Goanet and therefore wish to make the following observations, knowing full well that this post is unlikely to appear on Goanet for the simple reason that Goanet cannot handle even the mildest form of constructive criticism. It will howeve be read widely and Goanet members will have access to it irespective of every means that Goanet tries to block it:
1. If indeed, Frederick Noronha is (with others) the owner of the Goanet site, I can accept that, it is his prerogative to reject those posts he does not personally consider acceptable for his site. However, he and his fellow site owners have TOTALLY FAILED to inform us posters that this is indeed a private site in which he (Frederick Noronha and unnamed associates) can do as they please with absolutely no regard for any accountability nor any concern for the posters. Had he and his associates acted properly, there would not be a need for several posters, unhappy with Goanet post rejections, to try to endlessly extract information from the so called moderators about the discernible pattern of post rejections. This lack of transparency regarding Frederick Noronha's hidden hand on Goanet is in my view, one clear illustration of corrupt practice on Goanet. Why on earth not just come clean and say that only what he says goes on Goanet instead of
consistently pussy-footing about the 'constructive objectives' of Goanet, endlessly welcoming posts and commentary but operating very much like Lady Macbeth as an assassin from behind the scenes?
2. Another example of corrupt practice on Goanet is when consistency is absent. At least one moderator will provide a reason for the rejection of a post and indeed be named so that at least something may be done about it. Yet, virtually all others will remain anonymous (whoever they are) and will use the sham of a standardised rejection note. When the available Goanet protocol is followed up to seek an explanation for a rejection, the question simply ends up in limbo everytime. If Frederick permits this kind of corrupt practice as a site owner, questions are surely reasonable regarding his personal integrity in running an international web site with the hollow sham that "Goanet is where Goans connect" when instead hundreds of post rejections represent a major 'disconnect' without reasons.
3. Information about exactly who the moderators are is steeped in secrecy. Surely, it is incumbent on Frederick Noronha and his fellow site owners to make this information clear so as to curtail contradictory versions emanating from so called moderators of Goanet who pathetically try to remain nameless.
4. Another form of corruption is that Frederick Noronha appears to perform the role of a newspaper editor where indeed the editor traditionally has the last word (normally without explanation) regarding a letter to the editor. However, a web-site like Goanet is not run like a newspaper. It is indeed dependent on a large number of posters who sustain discourse. Unexplained rejections of posts on Goanet inevitably stifle such discourse. If such supression of posts by elimination did not take place, Frederick Noronha as one of the site owners would hardly appear at the top of the list for posts published virtually every month! Surely, his personal integrity requires some explanation re this peculiar conundrum or we should be informed that it is his personal greater glory that is important to him rather than Goanet being of purported concern about Goan matters in Goa and the Goan Diaspora. A cheeky question would be if anyone ever moderates any of the site
owners' posts, and if not, why not? And why the implicit racket of them and us on Goanet?
4. It is corrupt if it is not made clear to posters that certain ideological positions are unacceptable or indeed that his 'chieftenship' Frederick Noronha, effectively dictates what is aceeptable or not. His role smacks of authoritarian censorship evident in communist and fascist regimes. This is particularly strange for someone who is purportedly a professional journalist and purportedly a strong advocate for democracy. Further, if the intelligencia in Goa of which Goanet is clearly a part, performs as Goanet does on the inexplicable rejection of posts in significant numbers, is it any surprise that Goa is in the absolute mess that it is in with regard to corruption? Put simply, Frederick Noronha and his fellow site owners seem to be complicit in the very corruption they pretend to disown and abhor. Openess in discourse is the key towards the elimination of the hidden hand of corruption that clearly permeates Goanet through and through.
5. Non explanation for the rejection of posts allows for the corrupt practice of avoiding reading or engaging with the posts received by the moderators.
6. The paradox for me is that India does have an excellent press that in many ways emulates the best traditions of the UK press in which nothing is sacred except what affects state security. How then is it possible that Frederick Noronha runs a Goanet 'racket' in which everyting is highly secretive and totally lacking in transparency? I am sure the many Goan websites where this post of mine will be transmitted, would like to have Frederick's answer to this question out of sheer curiosity if nothing else.
Finally, for me, the annual report from Transparency International was most timely. Its appearance coincided precisely with a time when I was reflecting on corruption and lack of transparency on Goanet. I therefore have, with many regrets, to assert strongly that, Goanet is a seriously non transparent organisation with the hidden hand of corruption all over it. No other website that I am familiar with reaches the depth of corruption and non transparency as Goanet does.
This trenchant criticism is not meant to be personal but it is the only way I can focus on the serious systemic shortcomings of Goanet.
Cornel DaCosta, London, UK.