Dear friends,

Recently aware of your iniciative and eager to contribute to a better understanding of the challenges and posibilities of the so called Knowledge Society, I would like to let you know of two projects who conceive the use of blogin to generate networks of participative conscience on different issues of social participation in which I have been part. One is LINC which stands for “Laboratorio de Inteligencia Colectiva” (you know, we use Spanish as lingua franca in this South…), and was a somehow successfull -and still unique by the time- experience, to establish free ways of expression and colaborative thinking between people working in different areas of the public administration in charge of the social protection program Chile Solidario. There you´ll find lots of entries on issues of social protection and TIC´s and some twenty links to other blogs who were being created on time and conform a network still active in at least a region of the country, altough the initiative was not “fully” comprised by the central administration… but that lead to another conversation on politics. Then, there´s our actual initiative using the same open media and still in social protection and technologies but from the private sector this time (8th Millenium Goal). Both links to this material could be accesed next. Needless to say that we´ll be very gratefull for your visit and coments. Please don´t hesitate to contact and make any question you want.

www.vc-on.blogspot.com

www.siischilesolidario.blogspot.com

Best Regards,

Rainer.

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.    

Scholar literature is underrepresented on Internet and Southern researchers’ content remains invisible. There is a critical mass of “grey” knowledge which could highly benefit from the web2 opportunities. Ismael Peña-López from the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) expressed the importance of facilitating access to researchers’ work in a provocative manner “If you exist on Internet, you exist for real”.

He presented the Personal research portal (PRP), a combination of various Web2 applications, more than a mere communication tool for scientists, but a way to keep growing and learning. “It forces you to read and be well informed and, at the same time, you get connected to a network; it is a way to manage the knowledge you’re giving away and the one you’re gaining. The more you expose your work, the more you get comment and can reflect on your topic of interest.”

I asked him how he would describe the web2 and how that would be an opportunity for Southern researchers. I was also interested in what one’s could achieve through a PRP and why the individuals should complement institutional repository.
And a few other things…

Download audio

Additional info:

http://ismael.ictlogy.net

http://ictlogy.net

http://www.km4dev.org/journal/index.php/km4dj/article/view/92

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.’       

Over the past decade, the ‘digital divide’ has been shrinking as the number of fixed phone lines, mobile subscribers and Internet users grow. It is becoming less a gap in access to ICT as a difference in quality and capacity. However, the International Telecommunication Union estimates that approximately one billion people worldwide still lack connection to any kind of information and communication technology. From FAO’s perspective, this conference could not be more timely. Over the past two years, our organization has been pressing forward with a number of major reforms including a new emphasis on FAO as a Knowledge-sharing Organization.

Duration: 59sec

In mp3 (Broadcast quality, Kb to be downloaded)
ftp://ext-ftp.fao.org/Radio/MP3/2007/Web-2-0/DG-e.mp3

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….

Charles Dhewla made a comment which raised a great discussion on dgroups.  It expands how web2.0 might even widen the gap of ICT for development. It also highlights how challenges such as connectivity, electricity or education limit very much the use of web2.0. Here are some interesting quotes from the discussion. The full contributions can be accessed here: web2fordev dgroup.

Charles Dhewla:
Web2.0 is a welcome development particularly for African countries where website developers are charging a fortune if one wants a simple website. This new technology has opened up new channels for sharing information. I have discovered that in most cases, a blog is more useful and user-friendly than most websites which are not even interactive.

However, before we are lost in the hype of Web2.0, let us not forget that in some parts of Africa, there are millions of people who are still to know what an e-mail is or visit a website. Let’s not promote new technology as if the earlier one is no longer useful. There are people still learning their ropes on conventional websites who need to be given time to absorb this knowledge. The pace at which ICTs are being developed and promoted does not take into account the rate at which people are able to absorb and use acquired knowledge and skills. If it takes years for educated people to learn and absorb internet use, how long do you think it will take illiterate communities, who are supposed to benefit? The workshop should make an effort to address this issue. Information and knowledge overload is a grim reality in most developing countries especially in Africa.

Ken Kubuga:
In parts of the world like Africa, Web2 is not exactly the problem. The problem is Internet availability and accessibility. I am sure a good number of us will feel charged about exploiting the opportunities associated with web2 tools during and after the conference and perhaps get back home to having to deal with Internet accessibility.

Steve Ciscler:
I’d like to remind people of the solution in the mid-90’s to low bandwidth and the desire to use the web: accessing it via email. There were whole manuals to do this, and I met a researcher from Guyana who did literally everything via email at 9600 bps. You can see some of the instructional texts at the bottom of this page: http://www.expita.com/ While most of us would not do this, there may be a resurgence in using these techniques from mobile phones: access the web using SMS.

Makelesi Kora-Gonelevu:
Lets not forget the Pacific where the islands are spread over vast amounts of water. The problem here too would be internet connectivity.

John Tim Denny:
On the one had we need the dreamers to come up with what it will be in the future, yet at the same time we also need some sort of bridge between what we must do now to directly assist in the most basic steps to set the stage… the step from not having electricity to Web 2.0 is like sending a man to the moon.. what is in between?

Rachael Kadama:
I would like to include another dimension to this discussion, if tomorrow we all got reasonable internet access and availability, what kind of impact to development are these tools likely to bring to us?

The availability of relevant content is what worries me and where I think the web2 tools have the opportunity to lend us a hand in developing it. whether we have no access , little access or abundance of bandwidth, people in both rural and urban areas only need this access to get some kind of content / information. We need to look into how these tools can deliver some of the lacking content or strengthen content development, communication, collaboration etc.

Tobias Eigen:
For me the most important part is that Web 2.0 helps to make the case for justifying the Internet for busy and cash strapped organizations. With a little knowhow and an hour or so of Internet connectivity, it is possible to get a professional looking blog up and running. With minimal care and feeding, that blog can be filled with compelling stories and photographs, as exemplified by some of the blogsdescribed in the comments to my blog already. Blogs are really just one example - a wide range of new “Web 2.0 hype enabled” software and services really have made it easier for African organizations to make use of the Internet once you get online.

Koin Etuati:
I think the Web 2 is ideal for us that work on gathering and sharing information on new technologies/concept - either with energy, agriculture, health etc. Because we want to use this technology to share and gather new ideas/concept with our counterparts, in the respective islands in the case of the pacific region. We put the information together, get innovative financing schemes to put this information on the ground.

Edward Addo-Dankwa:
If we are going to wait for all people to learn and be familiar with conventional things before new technologies are introduced, then we will never develop. New technologies are mostly built on the conventional ones. In fact Web 2.0 according to many people, is not new. They are the old conventional things that have been improved. They are supposed to have made it easier for people to appreciate and use those technologies better. Technology does not take into consideration individual people’s rate of learning. In fact our people don’t need to start learning from the begining.

Anke Weisheit:
Connectivity is a major challenge for economically poorer countries to access, participate in the electronic media, especially internet, and e-mail communication.
Some internet connectivity information in Uganda
1-hour internet in a cafe in
Kampala 1500UGX = 0.85USD
Mbarara 3000UGX = 1,72USD
Village 6000UGX = 3,42USD

Jonathan C Onyekwelu:
Bandwidth cost is probably the same for Africans and Europeans or Americans but the earning power is about 500 times higher in both continents than in Africa. Providing the right bandwidth that will guarantee the right internet speed will cost Africans a fortune!
It might be interesting for us to know that a lot of Universities and research institutes in Africa cannot afford the luxury of fast internet connection. In fact most have epilectic services, which is often times frustrating. You will have to wait for hours to connect and when you are finally connected, downloading data is another nightmare. If this is the case with the elites, then what will the story for rural communities for whom we are trying to evaluate the efficacy of web2fordev?

Researchers and research interests in developing countries are underrepresented in mainstream academic publishing systems. Reasons are many but publishing costs, research infrastructure financing and interest in topics are among the most apparent. Some of the consequences of this landscape are:

• Difficult access to international scientific production
• Invisibility of research
• Underrepresentation of development topics
• Invisibility of researcher
• Difficult access to mainstream publishing circuits
• Difficulty to build one’s scientific network
• Actuality of findings

Efforts have been made to mitigate this situation; an increasingly common and successful approach is open access to scholarly literature such as open access journals, self-archiving in corporate repositories and self-publishing — most of them, as can be seen, at the institutional level. But the concept and tools around the web 2.0 harness clear opportunities for researchers, acting as individuals, to contribute and build a broader personal presence on the Internet, at the same time benefiting from a better diffusion for their work, interests and publications.

Complementary to formal academic research dissemination and validation trajectories, and complementary to these institutional initiatives, the Personal Research Portal — a mesh of Web 2.0 applications like blogs, wikis and the like — should be able to contribute to achieve the following goals:

At the Personal / Researcher level, let the scientific community know:

• “who am I”
• “what do I do / what does interest me”
• “what have I done / what do I know”
• “where am I”

At the Work / Research level:

• Constitute a public repository for personal production, with past and present information and documentation, with everything interlinked
• Gather digital resources, news, general information and materials, on the same platform, accessible from each and every computer
• Self-archive & self-publish research results, ongoing research, reflections, doubts, findings
• Let know what one knows and that one knows
• Disclose and foster formal and informal relationships with the academic community

_____________________

The concept of the Personal Research Portal will be discussed with professor Ismael Peña-López, Open University of Catalonia (Spain), during the Web2fordev Conference. His work in this topic has been recently published at the Knowledge Management for Development Journal, where a full article is free to download.

It is quite obvious that wiki software is changing communication, since the success of wikipedia and since many organizations use wikis to collaborate and share knowledge openly. It is interesting to see how organizations in the field of internal cooperation are starting to use these new tools as well. Some examples are the United Nations experimenting with the wisdom of wikis, and the World Bank with its blogs: Poverty and Growth and Private Sector Development. I wonder whether web2.0’s enable communication will lead to a change of the interaction of these organizations with external actors. Might it be that these organizations become, themselves, part of an open network for knowledge sharing in the future?
What fascinates me is that the web develops, pressures for own concepts of knowledge sharing, and affects more and more “real life”. Take a look at events or concepts like “JAM” or “unconference“. From what I know, both approaches are web rooted and rely on the web’s open and transparent culture. Both concepts are open for everyone interested. They are mainly organized online, but some unconferences such as barcamps take place worldwide to discuss web2.0, wine, local development or e-government. By the way, a book about how to do an unconference is currently collaboratively being written.
UN Habitat organized a JAM prior to a conference, which allowed people to participate and articulate their opinion.

During a three-day digital discussion, hundreds of thousands of people from 191 countries engaged in issues ranging from safety and security to improving the lives of slum dwellers. In India, women participated through moderators who went into communities to seek their views, while in Kenya, people waited hours for computer access so they could have a say. The results of the discussion were included in the forum’s agenda. (Newsweek)

It enthralls me that web2.0–its communication, community, participation behind it, etc.–gives rise to new models of collaboration, which questions the traditional ones. At unconferences, everybody is a listener and a presenter at the same time, and they are organized over a wiki. As mentioned in my last post, at our conference, we also want to experiment with this kind of approach in our open sessions.