Re: [GKD] Proposed Open Knowledge Network
In response to Peter Armstrong's call for feedback and in response to the critique from Warren Feek (in quotes) 1. Local content creation: I am not sure you need to incentivise this - support it and commincate it, yes, but not incentivise. Why not incentivise local content creation? Just because we are dealing with something as abstract as knowledge, does not mean we should treat it only as free and not invest in it. I really don't think there is an excess of local level voice on development issues relative to what you see when you survey the huge mass of comment coming from high level sources. 2. The desirability of spending this amount of human and financial resources on this plan at this time: See above. I do not agree that a project by project approach is necessarily the best, when we are talking about a very long term problem that requires both planning and infrastructure, and for that matter the setting of standards. 3. The wrapping of information [your containers analogy]: Maybe I just do not understand this concept but it seems to be redundant and inadvisable. Standards I understand - but those are being created across the internet as this is an issue much broader than just the development field and it is those broad standards we will all need to adopt; just as we would not think of a special high definition TV standard just for international development. It is the container analogy that has me struggling. As I understand the key to effective positoning of information on the internet it is to develop, and place as separate items, small pieces of information. Again this is an interesting point. I think the issue is more about integrating a new standard with existing standards. The Reports provided on the OKN site make it clear that specialised techniques are required to make time efficient use of connectivity. It is not unreasonable to want to include a set of standards with such a new set of techniques. The container analogy exists within standard HTML and internet useage, in the form of Meta Tag information. I disagree with Warren in that this infomation is not sufficient to produce a classification. It actually takes human editors to compare information and produce a classification, as a classification is a set of relationships between things, and not something based purely and absolutely on the nature of the building blocks it is made up of. This problem has been encountered already with standard internet technologies, and one response has been collective categorisation projects such as the Open Directory Project (ODP). www.dmoz.org Perhaps Oneworld should contact the ODP staff with two objectives in mind. Firstly to look at the way they have organised a collective voluntary classification process. Secondly to see if they can produce an approach to classification that will allow easy integration of their data into the general collection already amassed by the ODP. Since the ODP provides source data for most of the major search engines, this would be a means of publicising the ins and outs of our field to a more general audience. After all, the fact that very few people understand what we are up to is a major problem, wouldn't you agree? Best regards, Daniel Taghioff permanent email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] homepage: http://www.geocities.com/danieltaghioff/homepage.htm ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, an NGO that is a GKP member*** To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
Re: [GKD] Integrating Western and Traditional Information Systems
In response to the fascinating thread as below: Stuart Hawthorne wrote: The literature covering the implemention of Western designed information systems in developing countries frequently attests to the difficulty of matching the world view of the local community with the way knowledge is represented in the system. This difficulty arises because the local perspective is, or is historically derived from, a community-centered approach to information sharing. It is holistic and essentially deductive. This contrasts with the inductive, segmented nature of Western information systems. While there is much descriptive comment on the problems this mismatch causes, little attention has been given to identifying the operational differences at the analytical level John Lawrence wrote: Particularly interesting is the effort to understand the differences in perceptual organization, and therefore knowledge 'management' at the most fundamental levels. Can I ask, have you considered the implications for possible education system applications, and e-learning approaches? The School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London is running an MA and PhD research programme on the Anthropology of Media, aimed at precisely these sorts of issues. I am enrolled on this programm for entry 2003, and having read the course materials I can vouch for its relevance. http://www2.soas.ac.uk/AnthSoc/MACourses/maanthmed.html A programme I have no direct experience of but one that seems very interesting is one at the Institute of Learning Technologies, Columbia University. They seem to be doing in-depth research on the implications of ICT for education. As an educator (Well a TEFL teacher at least) and someone in this discussion, I can say that the integration of these two areas of inquiry in a field setting is probably key to development as capacity building. http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/about/index.html Does anyone know of any programmes or institutions similar to these two? Perhaps we should start a training and resources links site for our particular field of interest, do any already exist? Daniel Taghioff ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, an NGO that is a GKP member*** To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
I feel I must respond to Perry Morrison's Comments. It may be naive to think that ICTs in developing countries will suddenly make it matter when the West has a much greater ability to tune the message out, to corrupt it or just turn up the volume on its own orgy of self interest. Whilst it is clear that Information Handling Technologies can be used by powerful parties to mis- or dis-inform, I think it is important not to view the west as a homogenous lump. Whilst it is true that the emerging picture of the global power structure is being effectively blocked out in the majority of mainstream media outlets, it has to be remembered that awareness of these issues is greater than it ever was. Whilst this does not neccessarily shift the decision makers of today, it may affect the decision makers of the future. Some have said that old ideas tend to die with those that hold them, and certainly change may require a long view. This is especially true when it comes to the material division of the spoils on a global scale. But to forget the impact that information has, is to forget what governments, and for that matter all buerocracies are made up of and how they operate. They are staffed with real human beings and they will have to recruit from an increasingly aware pool of educated young people. The more accurate and relevant information that value driven groups have at their disposal, the more that they will be able to influence important decisions. And for that information to be accurate, and relevant and to carry a certain legitimacy, it needs to be seeded from input at the grass roots. Certainly it is important to focus on practicalities, but it is also important to have the endurance to commit to longer term objectives. And information handling capacity at, or at least nearer to, the grass roots seems integral to this. Daniel Taghioff ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.globalknowledge.org
[GKD] Re: Computer Shipping and Transport costs
In response to Adam Nash's message on 1 June 2001: In dealing with some recent requests for donated computers, it has become obvious that the hardest aspect of the process is finding the money to pay for the shipping costs. We are based in Melbourne, Australia, so it is a long way to pretty well anywhere in the world! I am hoping to start a discussion on this list about possible solutions to this problem. Perhaps if all the organisations that recycle computers got together and ran an exchange system where they swap a delivery to somewhere nearer to where they are situated for one nearer to those that they exchange with. For instance World Computer Exchange in the states might want to deliver to Indonesia, whilst Adam Nash's group in Melbourne has a request for computers in Brazil. Probably deliveries are already regionalised to some extent, but this might help. Also exchanges could be used to consolidate deliveries, making containers more affordable: all mainland South East Asian deliveries via Melbourne etc..., making a single container on a ship perhaps viable. This is how big shipping firms handle their logistics, perhaps they could provide this type of logistical support to the computer recycling organisations, if they organised as a group. Best regards, Daniel Taghioff ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Article on How to Bridge the Digital Divide
A quick response to John Hibbs response, he wrote: How does ICT happen, commercially, in places where tecno-entrepreneurial skills are as rare as a good working telephone? I believe the Grammen Bank micro-credit intitiative raises question marks over the notion of a lack of entrepreneurial skills in developing countries. I think that the Village Pay phone scheme demonstrates that technical capacities can be introduced via microcredit initiatives. I think the cases of the simputer and the world space foundation show that developing country based techno-entrepreneurial intitiatives can lead to new and useful applications of existing technologies. There is a political problem related to recipient agency involved here that is general to most development discussions: If they are capable of less we need to do more, and that gives us something to do with our lives. I do agree with the idea of a multi stranded approach involving donors large and small and also local skills etc. But never underestimate them. It is their lives after all. Daniel Taghioff ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Response from Development Gateway
In response to Tom Abeles' comments in the Development Gateway, following on from John Garrisson's input defending its legitimacy. The internet, like any other forum, is a political space, and I believe Tom Abeles is right to cast a critical eye towards the Bretton Woods intitutions on their wish for a presence. I do not believe it is wrong for them to wish to have a prominent place in this development debate, as they do in all others. It is just what is to be expected from what has always been a politically motivated institutuion. John Garrison's defence focusses on how the Development Gateway is doing all the right things from a technical/ professional point of view. This has always been the WB and IMF's argument for their political interventions. Whilst the Development Gateway may provide some usefull services, despite its top down nature, it is mainly about giving the Bretton Woods institutions a firm base in the discourses surrounding ICTs, especially since they are so closely tied to political discourses on Good Governance Let us not forget we are all engaged in a form of Social Engineering, where we all assume, right or wrong, that good communications will further our liberal democratic ideals of personal liberty. Bretton Woods has always been about such modernisation and political intervention, but we also need to examine our own political assumptions. There is a problem in that by engaging with the Bretton Woods institutions we aid them in sharpening up thier political rhetoric, by providing our knowledge as a foil for their arguments: Participation has been taken up by the Bretton Woods institutions as a buzzword from the NGO Community. However if we don't engage and make our opinions heard, how can we ever expect reform from these institutions, which are central to every development debate weither we like it or not? We can always ignore them and hope they go away,but that I fear is a bit naive. Maybe the development community needs the development Gateway as a means of influencing the World Bank, so that in our peer to peer communications we are not just talking about the disasterous effects of the next World Bank Mega Project. Maybe it is a window for advocacy from NGOs and the grassroots, even if it is not such a usefull mode of providing information in itself. If important discussions on the Gateway were mirrored on other independent sites, this might publicise the problems and issues, making it harder for these institutions to ignore them. Does anyone have any case studies of issues and projects that have been discussed via the Gateway, with suggestions being taken on board by the World Bank? Daniel Taghioff ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Article on How to Bridge the Digital Divide
Tom Poe wrote: Large Donor agencies - - - Who would they be? How to get their attention? Here's a more direct, simplified [too simplified] approach that could be used to demonstrate that outfitting an entire nation with community kiosks is the most efficient means to bring money to the developing nations, rather than drain it away from developing nations: http://www.worldccr.org/kiosks.htm In response to Tom's response, The Grameen Bank already runs a commercial operation called the village pay phone project, which siphons off money whilst providing important communication infrastructure. Perhaps this might give pause for thought , when you invoke the business = bad, charity = good dichotomy. Don't forget that development in itself has its roots as a power political business. Secondly, to advocate a one solution fits all strategy underestimates the intelligence of those at the recieving end. The Grameen Bank is in fact a business started by phlianthropically minded entrepreneurs IN BANGLADESH. But even their specific solutions are not a replacement for people within the countries to be helped being engaged in the creative process of finding their own communication products and solutions. Hence the idea, in line with Grameen Bank's Philosophy, of involving local entrepreneurial talent. Who are big donor agencies? Government agencies such as UKs DFID, canada's CIDA and Sweden's SIDA all have a healthy interest in ICTs in development. Unfortunately they often fall for one size fits all approaches too, but admittedly the Grammen Bank solution is much more realistic cost wise. To get their attention requires good old advocacy, just like the process that the Grameen Bank went through in order to catch your attention, and that has made it a model of best practise for such State donors. Finally, private business might be seen as donors in such a project, since they would gain market research information. Don't forget that Sub Saharan Africa is partly under developed not because of Multinational Companies being over-represented there, but due to a lack of foreign interest in investing in anything but natural resource extraction: These countries are crying out for investment in manufacturing. Simplistic black and white judgements do not help in this area, if the good guys and bad guys were easy to identify then development would not be the largest social crisis of our age. Daniel Taghioff ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Article on How to Bridge the Digital Divide
In response to Richard Labelle's feedback on the Financial Times article: I think the legitimation of recycled PC's by donor government agencies to get past antagonism towards dumping practices felt by third world governments is a valid strategy, but does not address the fact that these governments may have a pint when thinking strategically. Perhaps if Donor agencies bought up or backwards engineered patents on technologies that are becoming cloned and so generic in developed country markets, then they could provide free licenses on these patents to firms in the developing world that have a focus on providing products and services to the low end of the market, possibly with a philanthropic emphasis. This would allow low cost applications of existing technologies to be developed in low invcome, low infrastructure contexts. This would also constitute a true transfer of technology since control of such products would reside within the recipient nation in terms of further research and development. The information generated from the monitoring and evaluation of such activities would also constitute commercially valuable market research for companies wishing to explore, exploit or develop such markets so could be used as an incentive to lever companies in to donating patents in the first place. Presumably the applications produced would be appropriate, with none of the stigma and strategic drwabacks associated with hand me down technologies. Large Donor agencies would have the resources and profile to carry off such a project, and it would strengthen the case for intellectual property rights if they were applied flexibly and constructively in such a fashion. Any more thoughts on this? Best regards, Daniel Taghioff School of Oriental and African Studies London email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.globalknowledge.org
