Web 2.0 Really for the Poor?
June 15th, 2007 by Edward Addo-Dankwa
As part of a research conducted by GINKS (www.ginks.org) in Ghana, a web-based tool (Ekumfi Atakwaa Information Kiosk) was developed to stream videos on Agricultural practices online for women farmers in a small community in the Central Region of Ghana called Ekumfi Atakwaa. These women have very little or no formal education, and are mostly peasant farmers. As part of the research project, an information center was set up at the village. This center has about 10 networked computers with an installed VSAT for internet connection. The software is currently streaming the video on the LAN. It would have been interesting having it on the internet for it to benefit more people but the general connectivity issue………….. We tried it in the initial stages but it took almost forever to upload the videos unto the server (These were very big video files). Althouth we installed a VSAT for the center and we are paying for a 128 kbps (shared) bandwidth, the speeds are just too bad. (General Service Conditions by ISPs in the developing world).
It will be interesting to use Web 2.0 tools to capture these videos for a wider dissemination. Let me confess that we have not tried that yet. My concern however is still the problem of the usefulness of online content for the rural folk. Although we have trained these women to use the tool themselves, and are using it effectively, they are most impatient with the loading time (20 - 30 sec). They prefer to play the videos on a DVD player because that one plays almost instantly. I wonder if they will be patient enough to wait for the long download times associated with links in out part of the world. One sometimes have to click the refresh button a number of times to get a full download.
As I said earlier, I have had just a little experience with the Web 2.0 tools, but I am aware of its power. What I will like to people to devote some efforts to, in its development is the issue of low bandwidths in developing countries. There are arguements that the target is for Web 2.0 is not “a direct access of the poor to the new technology“. I agree with the assertion that it should be seen as a framework of the service landscape in rural areas in general. My concern once again is that these service providers and informediaries, like myself, who will access these tools for the benefit of the rural poor themselves have to contend with the low bandwidths. It is therefore my opinion that these tools are developed such that they are accessible to us, “The World’s Poor”, it terms of its use of resources like bandwidth and computer resources. My understanding of the world’s poor is not the uneducated, simple, rural people but people like us who work as intermediaries, and informadiaries, trying to make life a little confortable for our unfortunate brothers and sisters “down there“. I believe sincerely that where all have failed, ICT has the capacity to save them.
Cheers
Eddie
“It will be interesting to use Web 2.0 tools to capture these videos for a wider dissemination. Let me confess that we have not tried that yet.”
What about Youtube ? The videos must be less big (some software could do the job). Create a channel on Youtube so that we too can see the videos. Maybe also peer to peer could help.
See Angelina Jolie & Jeffrey Sachs.
[…] it would probably be a good place to start. Their blog also has some interesting discussions around Web 2.0 and poverty and the challenges of Web 2.0 in […]
Je suis tout a fait d’accord avec l’idée générale de cet article. L’outil web2.0 est un outil, qui pour ma part, peut considérablement aider les paysans dans leurs pratiques agricoles. Grâce à cet outil, de nombreuses vidéos sur les bonnes pratiques agricoles peuvent être diffusées et regardées par un large public. Cependant, le problème de la bande passante et de l’accès à Internet pour certaines communautés ruales restent un frein à cet outil et il faudrait trouver un moyen pour y faire face. Maintenant quelle solution trouver, je ne sais pas! Tout ce que je sais c’est qu’en matière de radio certaines alternatives ont déjà été trouvées pour permettre aux ruraux l’accès à certains programmes radios agricoles: il s’agit de la radio par satellite. Bien sûr je ne pense pas qu’une telle alternative soit applicable à Internet mais je pense qu’avant d’énumérer les bienfaits du web2.0 pour les communautés rurales il faudrait d’abord s’assurer qu’elles puissent y avoir accès…Mais ce n’est que mon opinion.
I agree with Eddie regarding barriers to the use of internet and low bandwidth especially in developing countries in the Pacific region where most rural communities do not have access to the internet and computers!!!. these are poor communities that still live in subsistence living, they grow their food, fish in the rivers and sells surplus to pay school fees and book for education.
However the idea of doing a video like images that can be downloaded and then shown to the rural dwellers would be one useful idea.
But for your information, I am just learning this Web2.0 myself and hope I can get more information and understanding on its applications.
cheers
It is true that most of the so-called Web2.0 applications handle multimedia files that are in most cases just too big for the use of low bandwidths. An alternative for e-learning videos may be shockwave movies - but they request an appropriate handling with the software to produce them (as well as sizes of these files can be big, too). What may also be of interest is the way of distributing web-content via digital radio broadcast (DAB/DRM), what would be a one-way, receiving only possibility - one would also need the necessary equipment.
Anyway the problem of impatience while working with computers is always given, but I would say that - if one is not handling big multimedia files - web2.0 tools like wikis and blogs should be in general useful to participate even with connections with low bandwidths.
Best regards
The title is catchy, alas misleading. What are the “Web 2.0 Tools?”. What is the essence of Web 2.0? Is it YouTube vidoes, really? Actually - no. YouTube is just one example. The real, revolutionary change from
“Web 1.0″ to “2.0″ is the direction of communication.
In the “old web” publisher was pushing content down to the audience, treating the audience as consumers, faceless statistics that you can visualize in traffic numbers.
The great thing in the new web is that the communication is two-way, now. There is not necessarily a “central”, almighty publisher. The community around the 2.0 websites are both the creator and the consumers of the information.
In this regard, Web 2.0 is, indeed, the most beneficial for the developing countries where people more diverse opinions and greater need to share the grassroots information.
I think You tube, daily motion and other websites might be interesting Media in the near future for those who work with video for development. They are a powerful alternative to traditional broadcast dissemination (expensive, dedicated to entertainment, very much centralized and controlled).
The question is really how do we make Agriculture popular/ visible on these sites. There is no comparison between the latest video from Madonna (thousands of hits) and the latest videos I have uploaded on You tube (check for instance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQfEsLVXQv0) a few hundreds at the very best.
In terms of technical data, you just need a compressed file.
I believe that if we give farmers the possibility to create their own content and share it online with other rural communities, these women (seeing the results)will get very interested.
I’ve heard about an interesting project using vlogging (short video done with a picture camera and posted on you tube) and if I’m correct we’ll know more about it during the conference.
The question is also: should we have a RuralDevelopmentvideo platform where to post such a content?