The group of organizers of the Web2ForDev Conference which took place last September 2007, held a review meeting on November 20th. The event was evaluated, also based on the input from those who filled in the end-of-conference survey, and considered follow-up actions. In general all organizations present expressed a commitment, also fed by the survey respondents, to keep the movement going. However, as we learned at the conference, the nature of web 2.0 is participatory. The goals and intentions of the organizers can only be realized with participation from the movement owners: all those interested in learning and sharing together about Web2ForDev.

So do not hesitate to get involved in the online collaborative platforms already available and keep the movement going. If you are specifically interested to proactively participate in any of the areas defined below, please contact web2fordev@web2fordev.net .

Primary follow-up areas defined by the organizers:

1. Training in various forms was requested by many in the end-of-conference survey. In response, the organizers are exploring options to merge their strengths and work together to provide a combined effort in this regard in 2008.
2. The online community, represented primarily by the Web2ForDev DGroup members, but also those tagging in Delicious with the Web2ForDev tag, and posting to the Web2ForDev blog, is also a resource and movement which the organizers want to continue supporting. In combination with the Web2ForDev wiki, the community has at its fingertips a strong combination of web 2.0 tools which can facilitate learning and sharing in a collaborative manner.
3. Continued awareness raising is also on the agenda and is considered one of the efforts to keep the movement going. The organizers will explore their networks together and undertake actions to feed awareness raising around Web2ForDev.
4. Case studies, including some demonstrated at the Web2forDev conference, are being examined and compiled by the various organizations. The nature of this pioneering field is that continued research is necessary to indicate which web 2.0 tools and approaches are best suited within a development context. The organizers are committed to compile this information and provide it to the development community.

In short, the Web2ForDev movement can count on continued support from a multi stakeholder collaboration. We are looking forward to engaging with all interested parties and individuals who, like us, believe Web 2.0 approaches and tools can make a positive difference within the development context.

Signed:

the Web2forDev Partnership

(CTA, FAO, IICD, GTZ, CGIAR, ACP, UBC, APC, Euforic, UCAD and IFAD)

Crossposted from crisscrossed.net

Thanks to Tom L. and Peter Ballantayne for their very interesting remarks on my post “an overview of blogging for development.” Peter argued that there are a lot different blogs in development aid or international cooperation out there and “must be loads more, just not very visible.” And Tom had a great point:

What’s probably as important as noting the existence of the blogs themselves is tracking the development of the aid-development blogosphere, examining the connections (strength, regularity, theme) between blogs and seeing if there are purposive and deliberate communities building out there. Not many groups are actually taking aggregation a step further and building connections and seeking to create value to the profession from the new-found willingness to share online.

I agree with Peter that there is probably much more of it out there, but I criticize that in most cases it is not linked and therefore has no networks. And as Tom rightly points out, there is little knowledge sharing and discourse between different bloggers, different organizations. I give you three examples how different the approaches are and what is behind them. I analyzed all three blogs with technorati.com and aiderss.com to find out about their network and discussions.

Blog World Hunger
This blog is from the International Food Policy Research Institute. They also presented their web2.0 approach on the web2fordev conference. They have been experimenting with blogs internally for knowledge sharing for already some years. This internal blogging seemed to me quite vibrant since it involves a lot of staff. However, when you look at the external blog, you have a complete contrast. Six posts and seven comments in 2007. I wonder why they even use a blog and not a normal website. In Technorati, it has 9 blog reactions in 2007 (other blogs linking to it), and in del.icio.us it has been bookmarked only one time (from me!).
Certainly not a blog to network nor discuss the issue of world hunger with a broader community. For example it does not link to any other blog. It seems to be a place to just drop various documents and articles.

The following two blogs are very different in which one is grassroot driven and the other from the World Bank.

William Kamkwamba’s Malawi Windmill Blog
This is a blog about William Kamkwamba, the 19-year-old self-taught engineer who built a windmill power system for his family’s home in Malawi. His story was broadcasted at the TEDGlobal 2007 in Tanzania. (Check out all the other great presentations). His blog, which started back in June, got over 222 blog reactions according to Technorati. It has been commented 52 times and it has been bookmarked 48 times in del.icio.us. No doubt that that blog is a great storyteller and invites to read and interact. It also clearly is meant to support William in his eduction. Furthermore, it has been nicely embedded into the wider blogosphere and the result is remarkable. It has big attention.

End poverty in South Asia
This is a blog run by the Shanta Devarajan, the Chief Economist of the South Asia Region at the World Bank. His statement “End poverty in one generation. It can be done in one generation” makes the goal clear. It is quite an offensive approach for an organization such as the world bank in my opinion. This has triggered already 49 comments two 12 posts since it started in September, and it has aroused over 20 blog reactions so far. Similar to William’s blog and in contrast to the world hunger blog, it gives a personal perspective, and evokes feedback. However, I am curious to see how an organization such as the world bank will keep such an open discourse and how it can contribute:

This is why I am starting this blog. To contribute to the debate (sometimes, to start one) with ideas, analysis and evidence so that South Asians—and people who care about South Asia—can have a dialogue on these critically important issues, so that together we can end poverty in South Asia. (Shanta Devarajan)

In conclusion, I think blogs are used in more and more different ways. However, blogs are often not part of networks nor refer to each other. The communication is a one way street or the discourse is not happening in a social network of blogs. And interestingly there is still a wide gap between the many piles of documents for development themes and the few pioneers tempting to have a two way conversation about development.

It’s going to rain in Dakar on Tuesday 20 May 2070. How do I know? Michael Saunby told me, at his presentation of Climate Change Mashups this afternoon in the Lebanon Room. But why do we need to know today whether or not it’s going to rain in Dakar on 20 May 2070? “It might not,” confesses Michael, “it’s not a prediction, it’s more like an average of the weather at that time, as far as the computer models can tell.”

Michael works at the Met Office Hadley Centre in the UK. Massively powerful computers there are used to work out how the Earth’s climate might change over the next decades and into the 22nd century. His example of the weather over West Africa on 20 May 2070 illustrates the kind of data being produced. When examined over longer periods this kind of information could indicate particularly high rainfall for the region - invaluable knowledge for people living in coastal regions or along rivers that could flood. Similarly, knowing in advance that sustained periods of drought were likely is crucial to farmers when planning which crops to plant, when to harvest or when developing future irrigation schemes.

But how could a farmer in rural Senegal access information produced by a super computer in the UK? Mashup, is Michael’s answer. Combining Met Office weather data with Google maps, for example, could indicate the likely impact of the changing climate for a specific area and help farmers plan how they can best use the land in the years to come.

This means those most affected could work together with their wider community and even government when decisions are made, taking action early rather than waiting until disaster hits. And disaster will hit. Most experts agree that some aspects of climate change are inevitable – seal levels will rise, the planet will get warmer – and so, while measures can still be taken to prevent or limit damage it is important that the most vulnerable people have the information to contribute to future decision making. Not only that, but web 2.0 now also makes it possible for people to add local information to the data provided by the Met Office and help Michael and his colleagues to make ever more accurate models for future changes to our climate.

Michael’s obvious enthusiasm for the subject made for a lively presentation that not only looked impressive but was incredibly informative too. Just remember, make sure you pack an umbrella if you’re visiting Dakar in May 2070.

At the Web2forDev conference, everyone has been saying that it’s not about the technology – it’s about the people. It’s about what people can do with the technology – and what ‘mash-ups’ of tools and approaches are appropriate and really working.

I came to this conference to find people who are really doing participatory web – not just using the technology, but facilitating real empowerment and positive change. Our plan at IIED is to co-publish with CTA a special issue of the Participatory Learning and Action series on participatory web for development – so I needed to find real examples.

Well, yesterday I was lucky enough to see Ednah Karamagi give her presentation, Enhancing Knowledge Sharing in the Rural Community through Adoption of Web 2.0 tools.  

I felt like I had found a magic bean.  Ednah works for a Ugandan NGO, Busoga Rural Open Source & Development (BROSDI). It’s a not-for-profit organisation that works with government and civil society in improving rural livelihoods. Within BROSDI is a project called Collecting and Exchanging of Local Agriculture Content (CELAC).                       

Both BROSDI and CELAC project make extensive use of Web 2.0 approaches. But it’s a real combination of Web 2.0 and grassroots participation. For example, CELAC is almost entirely populated with locally generated content. As Ednah says, ‘We are sharing information from our great grandfathers that we are losing in our generation.’  

Essentially, it’s a great combination of the online – Blogs, Google Maps, Wikis, online documentation, chatrooms – and the offline – a weekly mobile phone SMS farmers’ information service, village knowledge brokers, monthly farmer forum meetings, village meetings, radio, and hard copy documentation. They are even developing an e-learning tool for primary school children. 

Ednah is candid about the challenges they face. ‘The Internet is expensive, and needs power,’ she says. ‘It’s a problem in a country where access to electricity is intermittent.’ There is also the issue that people need to change their attitudes towards sharing information, rather than ‘hoarding’ it. And sometimes the technology doesn’t work – and is abandoned. ‘We did have a Wiki,’ Ednah says. ‘But the staff rejected it, as it was too complicated. But we plan to have a new Wiki for developing training material so that we can all comment and add to it.’ 

Ednah was a real inspiration. There was a long list of real life examples – not just the different technologies – but how the technology has made a real, positive change to people’s lives. My favourite was Cissy and her turkey farm. Ednah told us, ‘She learnt how to rear turkeys on SMS!’

This morning, I overheard Dr Hansjorg Neun of CTA talking to Ednah Karamagi. He asked Ednah, ‘Why do you think you have been so successful?’

Ednah’s reply was, ‘You have to use as many methods as you can to reach your community.’

Well, BROSDI are doing that in style. Let’s hope they continue to get the support they need to keep this pioneering organisation going from strength to strength.    

Despite challenges that are currently in Zimbabwe, Youth organizations still see web 20 as a mechanism that would promote free flow of information in spite of stringent laws that prevents people to enjoy freedom of press and freedom of association. Head of Zimbabwe Youth Movement, Mr Innocent Ncube spoke lengthily about their challenges and aspirations to also have access to Web 2.0 to empower rural and urban youth communities.

Download audio

Interviewee: Mr Innocent Ncube, Head of Zimbabwe Youth Movement

Interviewer: Dibuseng, Theta FM & Nkgowa Media

Report back - Anti Social-Computing: Indigenous language, Intellectual Property Rights and Digital Video 

A presentation by Tim Kulchyski and Jon Corbett 

This was a fascinating presentation about a project initiated by the Hul’q’umi’num’ Treaty group in Canada. Like Kado Muir’s accounts of the Ngalia people in Australia, this is another inspiring example of how First Nations communities are revitalising their culture and language using Web 2.0.The Hul’q’umi’num Elders approached the University of Victory in Canada and asked them to collaborate with them on a project. The Elders had identified language as a key element in strengthening their culture and cultural identity.They wanted to use participatory video within their community to record songs, stories, and skills. In Tim and Jon’s presentation, we saw many photos of Hul’q’umi’num community members engaged in ‘everyday’ activities, such as storytelling and weaving cedar bark. But as Tim explains: ‘It was about bringing it back into people’s everyday lives – they’re things that we’re losing, these activities are becoming extinct.’The key thing though, was the carefully developed process involved. All material generated within the community was overseen by Elders Advisory Boards – and in particular, to protect and preserve sensitive cultural information.Essentially, many Web 2.0 processes are often referred to as ’social computing’, about sharing information with the rest of the world. But here, the information generated is closely protected within the community. So it is, in fact anti ’social-computing.

Why? ‘There is a need for caution,’ co-presenter Jon Corbett observes. ‘Caution about what information goes online, and who has access. There has been really significant knowledge expropriation for generations – so what remains, the communities must have control of.’ 

Corbett continues: ‘Imagine a pyramid. Data is at the bottom, information next, then knowledge – and only wisdom is at the top. Social computing is a good way of sharing information, but less so knowledge, and certainly not wisdom.’

Essentially, what this means is that the learning and growth of community wisdom that is perhaps the most significant indicator of success.

‘It’s not the final product that’s important, it’s the process,’ Tim Kulchyski says in conclusion. ‘Like a dictionary, it’s never really done. If we’ve learnt something from it, to me that means the project has been a success.’       

Participatory Web for Development is circling the point in a spiral formation of Web 2fordev. This was noted in a key note address delivered by Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director at the opening of the conference on Web2fordev at the Food Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in Rome, Italy which started today and will end on September 28.

She also observed that mainstreaming of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) in development was a victory for many of the people who have embraced technology but as with gender mainstreaming, there was a risk that it can be mainstreamed to the extent of being marginalised.

Anriette observed that basic challenges remain in the words of one of the contributors to the Web2fordev d-group discussion that took place before the conference: “As soon as a few rural communities begin understanding the basics of the internet and world wide web, a new tools box with new knowledge emerge. It’s like running a race in which there is no finishing line. If you are a participant in this you can’t help but feeling a sense of fatigue,” Charles Dhewa wrote.

She noticed that in her experience working with online databases and email systems in the late 80s the term ICT4D did not exist. APC, which emerged at the same time, called itself a ‘network’, supporting ‘global computer communications for environment, human rights, development and peace’

She added that even the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Networking Programme, which, like APC, and a partnership built early pre-public internet e-mail networks for Universities and development NGOs did not use the term.

She said that the term was associated with the telecom boom of the 1990s, the telecom policy reform process: privatisation, liberalisation, opening of markets to international operators.

“It was this time that various ‘high-level’ initiatives and new buzz-words emerged… the Digital Opportunities Task Force, the United Nations Information Communication Technologies (UN ICT) Task Force, and, the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS),” Anriette said.

She however noticed that there were Pros and Cons to people’s approach to technology. The tendency to technology-driven hype, notions of “leap-frogging over development challenges.”

She explained that this often diverted attention from investment in more traditional and not mutually exclusive information and communications infrastructure such as libraries, community media, and the people and skills needed to maintain such infrastructure.

She observed that this was in many ways ‘disconnected’ from development. ICT4D experts rarely had experience in development work and many development people were skeptical, even suspicious, of ICT4D efforts.

On the Prons, Anriette says it put the lack of access and infrastructure on the development agenda, and the growing gap between those with access to ICTs and those without and also raised awareness of how not addressing this gap could deepen existing social and economic divides as more and more transactions, decisions took place.

She also noticed that it focused attention on the need for ICT skills and capacity development, but… there was a hidden ‘con’ in this observing the puritanical approach.

“The standard ICT4D approach to capacity building in the use of ICTs in developing countries was quite puritanical,” she said. This she explains was not surprising. “Development is serious work, poverty is real, people’s lives and livelihoods are at risk but, it produced an approach to ICT appropriation and skill development which unintentionally contributed to maintaining the digital divide.”

Anritte explained that for many people from the developing countries, in places like South Africa, Kenya, Ghana with relatively good access, their first introductions to ICTs was through some very ambitious ICT4D project, where, with limited resources and access they had to demonstrate the ‘impact of ICTs on poverty alleviation’. Every project was a pilot, with an uncertain future. Not exactly an environment that was conducive to creative learning.

In contrast, she said people in the developed World appropriated ICTs in more ‘selfish’ ways. Personal, private e-mail, Computer games and in a few years, online shopping and dating, music and TV downloads. She observed that these online actions were still not possible for many people in the developing world because even there is access, there is lack of bandwidth.

But, in the developed world children and teenagers had the opportunity and freedom to explore technology in ways that produced a generation of creative geeks; the geeks behind the development of Web 2.0 and social networking platforms.

Today she noticed that the hype is over following increased access has increased, and new solutions are emerging: mobile phones as handheld internet devices, fuel cells, more effective solar technology, and computers that consume less energy.

She added that there has been a shift away from approaching at ICT4D as a stand alone sector and that a more mature approach has evolved, with the use of ICTs being integrated into development work e.g. in the agricultural sector. “This event, the stories and experience that you will share, will illustrate this.”

By Brenda Zulu

Interview: Christian Kreutz

Audio-Download

Interview Nynke Kruiderink

Audio-Download

There is so much data on Internet that for most of us it is a headache to find the right information. We’ve been using Google to search for key words in the last couple of years but I was told at the Web2fordev that it was not an up to date approach.

Interview with Jon Corbett, Steering Committee, Web2forDev Conference, Rome, 25th September 2007

On my second day at the conference venue here at FAO in Rome, I feel that I am delving a little deeper into how – and whether – Web 2.0 is actually participatory. But I still want to investigate this further: exactly how are the Web 2.0 community of practice integrating participatory approaches to development with ‘participatory’ web?

I wanted to get to grips with some comments I had heard about Web 2.0 since I had arrived in Rome. First, I wanted I wanted to question Steering Committee member Jon Corbett about what the differences are between ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) and Web 2.0, with its plethora of applications such as blogging, vblogging, audioblogging, wikis, and social bookmarking.

According to Corbett, Web 2.0 is still a form of ICT – ICT is just an umbrella term, which covers all forms of digital information technologies. ‘But,’ Corbett argues, ‘Web 2.0 is markedly different from other ICTs. It doesn’t just solicit; it thrives on the participation of people. It’s what fundamentally makes it different. Web 2.0 wouldn’t exist if it weren’t populated by people using it.’

But perhaps more importantly, I also wanted to probe deeper into a comment Corbett made on Sunday, before the conference.

‘Web 2.0 is parallel to participatory development,’ Corbett had stated. ‘It’s about empowering people to take a role, it’s about citizen media.’ So I asked him today, why do you describe it as parallel to participatory development?

‘Ah, it’s not exactly parallel,’ he says, and goes on to explain. ‘I’ve been working with digital information technology with indigenous communities since 1995. In the past, it was different. All the content was produced with communities, but there was a steep learning curve in terms of the technology. But with Web 2.0, it simplifies how people interact – and it thrives on people contributing knowledge, and hence the comparison to participatory development.’

Essentially, what Corbett argues is that Web 2.0 requires the active participation of people in creating the content online – unlike in the past, when technical experts traditionally drove the uses of ICTs, in both the set-up and populating with content.

‘The technical experts were essentially the gatekeepers of the technology,’ Corbett says. ‘But Web 2.0 now offers opportunities for communities to interact with the technology – anyone can create content, you don’t have to be an expert.’

So is this why he describes it as parallel to participatory development? ‘Yes, as it’s about direct engagement, not about being represented by experts,’ says Corbett.

But, I argue, what about those without the time, access or inclination to take part in Web 2.0 for development?

‘There will still be a lot of people who are passive recipients rather than active participants,’ agrees Corbett, ‘But you could argue that this is the same as any other form of development today. The main difference is that Web 2.0 invites everyone to participate – and there’s no requirement any longer for it to be expert driven.’

‘It’s about early adopters,’ Corbett continues. ‘Early adopters of the technologies and applications get on board – just look at the people who are attending this conference. People like Ethan Zuckerman with Global Voices , or Kado Muir [who is presenting a session at Web2forDev on the ‘Outback Movement for Cultural Survival Using Web 2.0: An Aboriginal Case Study’]. These people have already identified that their communities, or the communities they work with, can benefit from Web 2.0.’  

It’s good to know that there are real examples of participatory development integrated with Web 2.0 applications out there, within this community of practice. I feel that I am a little closer to understanding this ‘mash-up’ of participatory approaches and ‘participatory web’. But I still have more questions to ask….

Download audio file

SANGOnet is an Information Communication Technology NGO in Southern Africa that promotes and support ICT projects in the region. They are currently setting up Citizen Journalism project with the aim of promoting the use of Web 2.0 by rural communities on issues of development. SANGOnet ICT Services Manager, Matthew de Gale explains how they are planning to make this project to provide communities with necessary skills and opportunities to utilize Web 2.0 to improve their lives.

Interviewee:Matthew de Gale ICT Services Manager SANGonet
Interviewer:Lillian Malete, Nkgowa Media

African Journalists need to embrace the new revolution of Web 2.0 tools if they are to catch up in this globalised World. Below find an interview on Web 2.0 with Matongo Maumbi a journalist from Zambia whose blog matongo.blogspot.com

Maumbi recently attended an online training focusing on Web2.0 tools organized by PenPlusBytes, the International Institute for Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Journalism. In 2006, PenPlusBytes launched an online course on ICT Journalism in Africa and it attracted about forty three participants from nine countries spread across Africa, Europe and Asia. You were one of these fortunate students.

Why did you want to engage in such a course? What were your needs?

Matongo: I engaged in the course because I have an interest in exploiting ICTs at personal level and also professionally. I have been working as a broadcast journalist since 2002 and I was lucky to have been exposed to the computer and internet right from the early days of my career. My ICT knowledge is driven by personal interest and enthusiasm. I needed some professional guidance on using ICTs in my career as well as how I would fully utilize them. I needed to know the pros and cons of using ICTs . The limits, the potential benefits the fun of using the internet and how to explore it better.

What did you learn? What did you prefer (e.g.,. learning about new tools, engaging with other journalists, sharing your ideas and knowledge with others, working together on a common article, networking and interacting…)?

Matongo: I leant quite a number of things. I initially only took blogging as an adventure. Writing whatever came to my mind without any real set objective or target. I guess this was because I did it just out of interest and curiosity. I learnt how to conduct better online research for background information. How to source documents, how to set good parameters for searching. My knowledge on Web 2.0 was improved. Blogging is a good place to express oneself freely without the censorship of your editor or superiors on your work.

How does, what your learnt, influence your current journalism practice? How did it modify your way of working? How did it nurture your work (if so)? How do you apply what you learnt?

Matongo: I preferred learning new tools and also interacting with other journalists from across the continent and globe. As curiosity satisfaction was among my needs, I was really looking forward to learning new tools on ICTs. My mind was more set on learning new tools from what I already taught myself. I guess from the many things I learnt, I now spend less time on the internet. I spend less time because I know better how to conduct my online research with in the shortest possible time but with maximum information. As I am now working better with internet, it has encouraged me to continue getting a local touch to what I read on the internet. During the course I found my self working on fewer but better researched programmes that are of great relevance to our catchments community.

You created your own blog. How do you use this blog? What is the main purpose (PR, information sharing, interacting….?). Did you reach your goal? What are the strength and the weakness of such an exercise?

Matongo: Initially had a website aimed at doing radical campaigns online on things that affect Zambia. Time and resources could not allow me to continue and my site died out. Then I though of creating blog with a similar aim. I basically transferred what my site to the blog. I use the blog to make and achieve my thoughts online. As my blog is more of expressing my self, I have not yet set a good objective. In a small way I have reached my goal of transferring my thoughts online. The greatest strength is that you are your own editor and can write anything you fell is morally right at your own pace and space. You get unlimited freedom besides that fact that you have sensitive stories. Weakness comes in as most of the time I only write about my thoughts without backup professional thoughts. This creates a sense of non credibility from readers. Updates are seldom coming on the blog as I use company equipment and internet to do the updates.

What are the main challenges for African journalists to use Web2.0 tools? Do you think that most journalists have already a “mindset” for Web2 tools? What would the African Media community gain by using Web2.0?

Matongo: The main challenges of African journalists using web 2.0 tools is that we do not have our own working space. We have to rely on computers and internet from our offices. How on earth could one fully use web 2.0 tools when one does not have their own resources? The mindset for most journalists is there but a mindset with out resources is meaningless. Internet connection and access is very expensive for most journalists and even when it is affordable it is very slow. There is plenty to gain such as information sharing, unlimited power to express oneself (group) without the trouble of going through the censoring editors and managers.

Do you think that web2.0 applications - if well used by African journalists - can make the Internet more “relevant”? How so?

Matongo: I think Web 2.0 tools if properly used can make it more relevant. There is a lot of information that African Journalists have but because they have to go through editors, such info is suppressed. Mostly it is as a result of editors, managers not appreciating the role of ICTS tools.

Have you advertised your blog. If yes to whom and how?

Matongo: I think my blog is an isolated one. I have not advertised it. The only people that know about are my friends. I never thought of advertising it mainly because I think I do not update it regularly.

Are you making money from your blog?

Matongo: I am not in any way making money from my blog . I still do not fully know how I can tap into that potential. I do not really see how I can make money. I guess this is something I have to learn next. I know I have what it takes; I just do not have the right guidance.

Have you taught other about blogging?

Matongo: I have not taught any of my close friends’ blogging and taking full advantage of the internet besides e-mail messaging. Training for African Journalists in necessary on new web tools because these are new things which are not taught in Journalism. It is also important to note that a blog helps to store content online for African Journalists which has been for a long time been stored in paper form. The content put on a blog is shared and people learn from that kind of content.

The latest ICT-Update from CTA has an interesting feature about podcasting in Africa. One article deals about Pambazuka News and their experiences of podcasting. Besides the potentials…

Podcasting has the potential to enable activists and ordinary citizens engaged in the struggle for social justice, to plan, produce and edit their own ‘broadcasts’ without an interpretive or interfering intermediary, as happens so often in the mainstream media (whether written or broadcast). Given such developments, we felt it was important to encourage and support others in Africa who might either be using, or wanting to use new media, to make their voices heard.

it also describes the challenges to produce and broadcast podcasts in Africa.

When we started, we naively thought that all we needed to do was to have someone read out some of the excellent articles published in Pambazuka News. We published a couple of podcasts of this kind, but the results were lacklustre. It was clear that what is produced for one medium (the written word) cannot be translated into another medium. The requirements of each medium are radically different.

Link to the whole article
Another article is titled: “Extending networks with podcasting in the Caribbean”
Pambazuka’s podcasts

I stumpled over an interesting interview on Global Voices with Jeff Msangi about his blogging experiences, the growth of Swahili bloggers and its social impact.

I find this growth very stimulating. You know, information is power and therefore the more Swahili blogs out there, the more influential we become as Swahili bloggers. I anticipate, as a result of blogging, we will see true social change through debates and dialogue, which will ultimately re-shape social, economic and political policies. However, we need to clearly define our vision and mission and believe that blogging is a tool for social change. It is my hope that with the formation of the Tanzanian Bloggers Association, we will be able to achieve that goal sooner than later.

As I said, yes, beyond any doubt I believe that Swahili blogging community can bring enormous changes in our society. We are actually already witnessing changes following what started as a simple online blog discussions. Moreover, I anticipate seeing citizens, through tools like blogs, participating in writing, planning and executing national social, economic and political policies. That will be a dream come true for me.

I had a look at the Global Voices’ wiki, which shows bloggers from many African countries. Tanzania seems quite vibrant with all kinds of blogs (e.g. political, fashion, photo, cartoon). Its blogger community even has a virtual election for their Tanzanian Bloggers Association.

It appears to me that the size and activity of the blogger community varies a lot between African countries. For example, I did not find a single entry for french blogs in the global voices wiki although I know there a lot as well (I guess Global Voices is, so far, very much focused on English).

Do you have examples of other blogospheres and their activities? Do you share Jeff Msangi’s thought that blogging can promote social change? He, for example, promotes the great idea to introduce blogs in schools.

I heard about this project from a blogger - White African and have been wondering why the view point seems to be rural and not developmental. Am just asking, or maybe I am getting it all wrong. There is the need for such (Web 2.0) projects in Africa and it is both nice and encouraging to know that there are Africans initiating such projects.

However, it is obvious that there are grave limitations that are hindering the progress of such projects. Personally, I think South Africa seems to be the leader when it comes to African Web 2.0 because of the rising implementation of Web 2.0 projects by South Africans, with the likes of Afrigator, Muti, Zoopy, Iblog and the like. As I said, it is encouraging that these projects are being implemented. They have one of the best internet infrastructures in Africa although they are definitely lagging behind the West and the US. I am Nigerian and currently run a web 2.0 project Meshedlinks. The greatest challenges from my little experience remains the availability of a solid Internet backbone in the country. To consider rural Internet coverage while the urban (developing community) areas remain poorly connected might not necessarily be the best step to take by the government (or whoever - investors or otherwise) to connect the developing communities.

The poor exist in both the urban and rural areas. And from this part of the world, if it comes to connectivity to the world (via the Internet) then the so-called “rural” communities have to constitute the urban and rural areas in my locale.

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

This has been some of the main questions on the minds of many internet users. The issues of whether Web 2.0 is a new development or a reparkaged set of already existing tools is not relevant to many people in the catagory if “the world’s poor”. To these people, the most important thing is whether these tools can realy help alleviate their poverty. Many of these people are themselves not interested in the tools, but how these tools can be used to help them out of their poverty. From my own point of view, working with the rural poor and exploring how ICT could be used to reduce their poverty, I think we should be exploring the possibilities of using these tools to effectively raise the livelihoods of the poor farmers and traders who are in the majority. Issues of poor connectivity in major towns and communities in developing countries bring up a serious challenge to the promoters of any new technological advancement in the world which in most cases are targeted at reducing poverty. Can we look again at the issue of connectivity, especially in areas where dial-up is even a problem. How can these people effectively use the wonderful features that Web 2.0 offers?

Food for thought