Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[brioja]

Hermana en tu respuesta concerniente a Martha Davies noto un poco de
sencibilidad en la pregunta que te hice sobre la ponencia que se me informo
se  trataria el Lunes en mencion. Para mi fue una sorpresa se tocara otro
tema y  otro asunto que no se habia discutido.

Sobre la honorabilidad y calidad humana de Martha Davies no tienes que
recalcarmelo por que yo mejor que nadie la conoce muy bien y mi opinion de
ella  la tengo bien formada y siempre ha sido bien positiva por el carino y
respeto  que siempre demostro a mi madre. Ella siempre la llamo para que la
ayude aunque  sea para cortar papelitos pero la hacia sentirse util.
Entiendo que lo mismo  hace con muchas compatriotas de Seattle.
Motivo por el cual le sugeri a Octavio le expusiera su proyecto de apertura
de  una escuela siguiendo la pauta de EIGER en la zona de Seattle. A ella
le gusto  la idea y se entuciasmo bastante comunicandole la idea a otras
personas que  eran afines.

Yo empezare este proyecto en esta zona y Octavio empezara el proyecto en
la zona de Wisconsin con la ayuda de muchos compatriotas y Americanos.

Te informo todo esto para que no tengas una idea erronea de nuestras
intenciones y de nuestras preguntas.

Ojala pueda encontrar la misma ayuda en Seattle a la par que hemos
encontrado  en Wisconsin; y espero realizarlo muy pronto por que ya he
perdido mucho tiempo  en la vida. Raul e Ines se mostraron muy interesados
en nuestra idea y  compartimos el mismo entuciasmo en hacer realidad este
sueno. Asi lo espero. Tu idea de formar un Instituto Tecnico es bastante
interesante y quizas  beneficioso para la comunidad. Ojala pudieramos
intercambiar ideas.


FELIZ 28 DE JULIO [***Moderator's note: this is Independence Day of Peru***]






***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:

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[Lesley Andrews]

I agree with Michael Menou - it is important that people must be
educated to be able to make sense of information, and this should begin
with basic education (as early as possible). The availability of
technology must be accompanied by an improvement in the quality of
education to enable grassroots human development.

The research conducted by Ipsos-Reid illustrates the need for people to
be enabled and empowered to use ICT - and to understand the value and
potential of ICT and information for their personal lives as well as for
professional and economic reasons.

There is currently a great deal of emphasis on technical issues, on
providing access to the Internet, the development of technical
specialists, and the need for skills training. These issues are only
part of the picture - people need to be empowered to use ICT with
confidence and competence, to exploit information and become creators of
knowledge.

If the objective is to enable the development of knowledge societies,
then investment must be made into improving the quality of education for
the young. Young people can become leaders of change and development,
given the opportunity.

Lesley Andrews

EOS
Educating for an Open Society
[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:

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[Michel J. Menou]

Given Deirdre's note, it might be appropriate to say a bit more about
what we intend to try with the Olistica project
. The question is to what extent do ICT
policies and activities contribute to sustainable and socially
responsible development. Instead of asking what do you think of ICT,
what do you do with it, we would like to turn the table. That is:

1) ask: What are people's major problems?
2) Work with them to see if ICT could play a role in overcoming those
problems and how
3) Figure out with them what signs can point to an overall positive
outcome
4) Organize with them a process of continuing observation and discussion
of these signs and related issues.

This is a cooperative project. All voluntary participations from the
Latin American and Caribbean region are welcome. Replication elsewhere
is not less welcome! The only impossible things are those which were not
tried.

Michel Menou



Deirdre Williams wrote:

> I recently read the draft of a paper by Michel Menou "IsICTometrics*:
> Toward an alternative vision and process" to be presented at RICYT &
> Observatorio das Ciencias e das Tecnologias (OCT), Portugal, Seminar on
> Indicators of The Information Society and Scientific Culture Lisbon,
> 25-27 June 2001 in which he proposes a methodology to examine the extent
> and the effects of ICT penetration. It would be an excellent thing if
> such an examination were to become possible.




***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:

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[Martha Davies]

If at the begining (1995), Quipunet found apathy and indiference from
the people we wanted to help the most to use ICT -- that is not the case
anymore!

During the years we have been on GKD we have learned so many things:
from our own experiences, from seeing other experiences, from friends'
advice, from the wonderful pool of knowledge from this list!

What have we learned?

That it is more economical to have virtual seminars and forums that can be
"attended" by people from countries who cannot afford to attend real
seminars.

That, using ICT, we can really help, at times almost inmediately, the
victims of disasters (we helped during El NiNo's disasters and again
this last series of earthquakes in the Southern part of Peru). Our
network of Peruvians on e-mail was put into effect with very good
results.

To (virtually) plan, execute and carry out tasks done by committee work,
such as the effort we just completed (the most difficult one) of
managing the paper work, shipping, receiving, storing, distribuiting,
collecting money, and completing the donation of 600 brand new CPUs.

That we ARE CONNECTED, even if sporadically (due to costs)with our
Ashaninkas, the kids in Guadalupe (who are doing amazingly well), with
Father Alfonso, in Cusco, with many rural places that send us messages
whenever they are near to the "cabinas" of cities close to them.  Our
rural people are using the donated computers for teaching.  Dreaming of
the days when they can have  better access. After all, their impossible
dream of ever owning a computer came true, why not the next dream?

That we Peruvians (inclusing those of us the USA) are using computers
more and more everyday. Why, the other day we had a meeting to organize
ourselves as a Chapter of a much bigger Asociation of Peruvian
Institutes in USA and Canada (AIPEUC) and everyone of us present at the
meeting (10) had e-mail, and half of us have our own web pages!

Our company, E-Connexions was started from an idea taken from the GKD
list: Merchant account in USA (given by no other that Janice Brodman).
We haven't expanded the idea even though it is working well, mostly
because most of the owners of E-Connexions are still working at other
jobs.  But the concept works...beautifully!

Maybe there are not as many people on line as predicted and hoped. But
there are a LOT of people using computers.  They will get on line when
the prices come down.  That is one of the impediments!   The other? Not
having enough content in our language.

I said it before and I will say it again, the GKD List, with its low-tech
format, accessible to many of the developing countries with only e-mail,
is more powerful and more useful that any fancy Gateway.

Sincerely,

Martha Davies




***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:

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[Perry Morrison]

John Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 > Perry, thanks for expressing the crucial message underlying this thread...
 > i.e. how can we be smart and experienced enough to avoid the pitfalls of
 > past `revolutionary' innovations...I think why I have so much faith in the
 > Internet is its fundamental democratic promise admittedly not anywhere
 > near realized yet since so few are using it... but I couldn't drive my own
 > little train along the railroads, nor can I shout, cry or laugh to my
 > friends/colleagues or anyone else on TV except under circumstances that
 > are entirely controlled by the moguls..but the Internet (potentially) allows
 > individual expression a creative freedom, reciprocity, reach and scope that
 > seems unparalleled in human history...my idealistic reading of these
 > tealeaves leads me (personally) towards fostering/supporting wherever
 > possible the extension of that (new?) human capacity and empirical study
 > of its dissemination and impacts is certainly a factor...

There's a lot to these issues. Here's my "take" for what it's worth:

THE major issue involved in the evolution of the Internet over the next
few decades is as ancient as civilisation itself - centralisation vs
decentralisation, or economic and political monopoly vs the alternatives
The communications theorist of the 1950s -Harold Innes ("Empire and
Communication")- who was McLuhan's mentor, said a lot that was relevant.

Innes attributed the destruction of the knowledge monopoly of the church
to the invention of movable type - all of a sudden lots of people could
reproduce knowledge -not just institutions with people who could use a
quill- and they could do it faster.

Innes also draws significant attention to the inherent conflict between
decentralising and centralising tendencies in comms technologies. Clearly,
some technologies are inherently centralised (e.g. despite the 1950s
popular mechanics mags - you were NEVER going to have a nuclear reactor for
a home furnace). Some are highly decentralised- e.g. the original internet
based on UUCP protocol and dial up, store and forward propagation. Indeed
the original ARPANET was actually designed to be decentralised to
withstand a nuclear attack.

I guess it's just a flavour of technological determinism to say that lots
of technologies have the capacity to be either centralised or
decentralised - depending on the contexts and influences that shape them.
In the case of the current internet/web, that is certainly true. In one
corner we have the Larry Ellison (Oracle) CENTRALISED approach to using
the web as the medium and the message - the web stores your data and
serves your applications as you need them.

In the other corner we have Uncle Bill Gates' original DECENTRALISED
"Shrink Wrapped Individualism" in the form of MS operating systems and
applications. Both of these are heavyweight contenders, however it is
important to note that Bill's strategic position has significantly shifted
toward Ellison's model in recent times. A third contender is the flashy,
smart mouthed, but skinny pugilist- Linux/Open Source/Free Software- with
its array of towel bearers including civil liberties/civil society groups,
social advocates, international aid people etc.

The big question is how will this all pan out? To understand that, we have
to understand some motives and gains. And of course, I'm just guessing as
much as anyone else.

If we take the issues of consumer demand and technology push, I speculate
that a number of things will become true for the western industrialised
world:

1. The Death of "The Home Mechanic".

Those with the incomes to afford communications services will become
increasingly harried, stressed and pushed in their daily life. The
prospect of maintaining increasingly sophisticated hardware and software
in home computational/Comms devices will eventually become too tedious,
difficult and specialised. Like a new car, you will eventually become too
busy and too unskilled to maintain it to even the most basic level needed.
Besides, systems of the future will be designed NOT to be touched by you.
A model T Ford can be maintained by you. A chip controlled fuel injected
car of now can't. As for IT devices of the future- you won't have the
hardware or proprietary software tools and you'd void the warranty anyway.
OK, so you work fulltime as a "knowledge worker" and "could" do it. So
what? If you have neither the time, or would prefer to be doing other
things with your leisure - you won't. If you want to have fun tinkering,
then buy an old VW. Otherwise get a new computerised Toyota, get it
serviced and put the spanners away.

2. The Rise of "Home Delivered Pizza"

People like defaults. They like decisions being taken away from them -
especially if they are busy and the decisions are about issues they think
are unimportant and/or need intellectual investment. About 60% of a
complex user interface is never used by most users. They accept the
defaults, us

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[John Hibbs]

At 8:12 AM -0400 07/19/01, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
 >The more proper question is "Why be online?".

Sam, our 'real world' (if partial) response to that question is the
opportunities of tele-work. During Global Learn Day 5 we hope to show
the connections between radio, telecenters, basic keyboard training
and on line job acquisition. One illustration will come from an
Indian firm which offers programming services worldwide. Another will
be e-commerce developments in South America. In Mexico we are about
to launch a project in the border city of Mexicali, where, among
other things, the hope is that we can slow down some fence jumping.
Why risk your life for a job washing cars in a foreign country when
you can get a much better job tending web sites from home?

John Hibbs
www.bfranklin.edu/gld5
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Those who know of on-line telework activities are kindly requested to
contact me. We would like to feature those.





***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:

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[Michel Menou]

Yes we are still in supposition territory. It would thus be more appropriate to
openly admit it rather than endorse commercial slogans.

And I am certainly not suggesting to neglect the potential of ICT, or the
Internet in particular, in supporting development policies. Nor to wait and see
till one is sure of what exactly is being done. There is however a difference
between a push by the owners of the technology and a pull by communities
who want to try and use it for the purpose they have decided. What is more
controversial is the Internet as a development policy per se.


Monday, July 16, 2001, 4:15:05 PM, John Lawrence wrote:

snip
JL> Well, we are all in supposition (speculative) territory her, but Michel,
JL> can I ask, demonstrated to whom? and by what means? by 'research'
JL> findings resulting from studies usually designed, conducted, published
JL> and interpreted by those on the upside of the divide?

Demonstrate to all stakeholders, especially those groups which are supposed
to be the prime beneficiaries of the positive outcomes.
Demonstrated by whom is even more important. I'd say, again, by the
beneficiaries themselves and with their own criteria.

JL> What if we reverse your proposition what is the evidence of
JL> negative effects of the Internet? where has access to Internet hurt
JL> net (plus-minus) development, of the individual, or the society?

It may be too early to show evidence of actual damages overriding benefits in
particular areas. But clearly many fears about such issues as cultural
identity, privacy, security, play an important role in policy formulation 
as well
as in people's perceptions.
But let's say that apparently child pornography has developed faster than the
actual, in the field not only on the Net, protection of children against all
sorts of abuse, including slave labour.

JL> Then I would compare that answer to the net (plus-minus) negatives, or
JL> costs of neglecting the Internet in development policy considerations,
JL> which I would suggest are far greater than any negatives accruing to
JL> equitable Internet access, and free informational and knowledge choice
JL> (allowing for language democracy, reasonable regulation/protection, e.g.
JL> for children, the disabled etc)...

Again to early for having evidence. Except that it seems quite obvious that the
Internet alone does not make any more difference than TV, rural radio,
mechanization of agriculture, industrialization, functional literacy or any
other development mantra as you call them.

Free informational and knowledge choice will be a reality when all cultural
groups will have been able to build their own Internet resources. For the
moment it is more like a choice between two washing powders which are
produced by the same company anyway.





***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:

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[Sam Lanfranco]

When I was a child there was a world's fair where visions of everybody
going to work in a personal helicopter was offered as a vision of the
future. That future is here. Why doesn't everybody go to work in a
helicopter? The answer is, of course, it doesn't make sense. Full stop.

A similar question lurks in the background w/r to the question "Why aren't
more people online?" The more proper question is "Why be online?". Being
on line is a waystation to somewhere else, somewhere else in the
socio-economic landscape. A way station is part of going somewhere, it is
not a destination in and of itself. I grew up in a town that was a
railroad creation. Over 100 years later that town is still adjusting to
the changing reality of the railroad. Life is more complicated than "Why
don't more towns have railroads".

One problem here is the continuous (mainly North American) focus on the
individual and access to the Internet, in contract to asking what does
this electronic space mean for groups (communities) of social actors, be
they civil society groups and groups of 12 year olds trying to get an
education. Even much of the discussion on "community access" ends up
being discussion about community facilities to promote individual access.

Some are online who shouldn't be online, e.g. pedophile rings. Others
should be online who are not, e.g. rural teachers or doctors in need of
access to a supportive community of practice. It is more useful to ask
what communities of practice, interest or concern are online and doing
what. A learning circle consisting of half a dozen students, or teachers,
or nurses, with a single member online, and the group up to something, is
more important that a collection of hundreds of people who get recorded as
"having online access".

Online is just the how. The why and what are more important and seldom are
they mainly about the individual, usually they are about the group, the
community. For example, Amnesty International is about saving one person
at a time, almost always a person with zero Internet access. But, today it
is AI's ability to mobilize a community of concern, mainly online, to
write personal letters on behalf of the individual in need that counts
most.

While it is important to address the obstacles that re-enforce the digital
divide, the purpose is not simply to increase the number on line. It is to
open up these electronic spaces to "doing good" and "reducing bad" to put
it in very simple terms.

If there is a technological imperative in these ICTs it is not that they
will drive the good, or drive the bad. It is that they will be used. The
issue remains, as always, to what ends. Almost nobody owns a railroad.
Almost nobody's life is untouched by the ebb and flow of railroads. The
big issues are at the level of social process, not individual access.

Sam Lanfranco

   
Sam Lanfranco, Chair, SASIT  email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   ---
School of Analytic Studies and Information Technology
 York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3
-> SASIT: Bridging Liberal and Professional Studies <-
   





***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:

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[Deirdre Williams]

I recently read the draft of a paper by Michel Menou "IsICTometrics*:
Toward an alternative vision and process" to be presented at RICYT &
Observatório das Ciências e das Tecnologias (OCT), Portugal, Seminar on
Indicators of The Information Society and Scientific Culture Lisbon, 25-27
June 2001 in which he proposes a methodology to examine the extent and the
effects of ICT penetration. It would be an excellent thing if such an
examination were to become possible.

It seems to me that, as well as the "digital divide", there is also a
"perception/comprehension divide" between those of us who are in effect
"connection boxes" joining ICT and the South in the South, and those at
the other end of the "bridge" where ICT sets out from the North. In a
recent message John Lawrence wrote in reply to Michel Menou (July 16th):

 > What if we reverse your proposition what is the evidence of
 > negative effects of the Internet? where has access to Internet hurt
 > net (plus-minus) development, of the individual, or the society?

This is frightening, particularly in the context of President Bush's
recent statements that his major concern is the health of the US economy.
"Not doing harm" CANNOT be equated with "doing good", particularly where
resources are small with a hundred worthwhile claims for every cent. In
the June 2001 issue of Popular Science there is an article by Chris
O'Malley "Low-Tech Blues" in which he describes a good deal of wonderful
technology that really doesn't work properly. Some of this technology is
what Northern experts propose that the South should invest in.

Perhaps the most useful thing that mechanisms like this list could do is
to identify technology solutions which work and which bring demonstrable
benefits (Frederick Noronha and his colleagues are doing this already as a
volunteer exercise) and stop insisting that universal access to computers
is going to solve all the problems.

Do what the economists have at last conceded may be the sensible way to go
- consult the poor and ask THEM to define their poverty.

Best wishes,
Deirdre Williams




***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:

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[John Lawrence]

Perry, thanks for expressing the crucial message underlying this thread...
i.e. how can we be smart and experienced enough to avoid the pitfalls of
past `revolutionary' innovations...I think why I have so much faith in the
Internet is its fundamental democratic promise admittedly not anywhere
near realized yet since so few are using it... but I couldn't drive my own
little train along the railroads, nor can I shout, cry or laugh to my
friends/colleagues or anyone else on TV except under circumstances that are
entirely controlled by the moguls..but the Internet (potentially) allows
individual expression a creative freedom, reciprocity, reach and scope that
seems unparalleled in human history...my idealistic reading of these
tealeaves leads me (personally) towards fostering/supporting wherever
possible the extension of that (new?) human capacity and empirical study
of its dissemination and impacts is certainly a factor...


"Dr. Perry Morrison" wrote:

 > I think the issues raised under this thread are central to a huge number
 > of ICT development efforts. It might be very useful to fund a study
 > which examines the impact of major past technological changes in terms
 > of equity, distribution of benefits etc. I know such material exists,
 > but a focused study that concentrates on the relevance of ICTs would be
 > very useful.
 >
 > Even my own cursory reading suggests that the invention of railroads and
 > electricity production were predicted to act as great "equalisers" of
 > society. And TV was going to be the engine for cheap, worldwide
 > education. In many places the green revolution displaced poor farmers
 > who couldn't pay for the technology into the urban slums and many 3rd
 > world countries became the victims of multinational agribusiness.
 >




***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:

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[Steve Cisler]

Dr. Perry Morrison mentions the effects of the railroad. I just
finished an in-depth series of interviews and visits to rural US ICT
and community organizing projects in 12 states. Here in 2001, the
after effects of the railroad (some good, but a lot not so good) are
still being felt. Many of the small towns were started as real estate
investments by the railroads, and they were totally dependent on them.
Now some of these places still have tracks, but no train stops (nor
any busses, for that matter). Others take only freight.  A century
ago, in 1901, Frank Norris wrote the novel "the Octopus" about the
negative effects of the railroad. It is still read in schools to this
day. Nobody has done the same for the Internet!

A couple of years ago I attended a conference organized by the
Annenberg School of Communications. It was called "Technological
Visions: Utopian & Dystopian Perspectives"  Not a whole lot has been
answered since then. My old report is here:
http://home.inreach.com/cisler/tech.htm

Steve Cisler




***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:

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[John Lawrence]

"Michel J. Menou" wrote:
> The assumption that for the few percent of the world population who are
> presently using the Internet, the balance between the positive and
> negative effects of their use falls heavily on the positive side remains
> to be demonstrated.'

Well, we are all in supposition (speculative) territory her, but Michel,
can I ask, demonstrated to whom? and by what means? by 'research'
findings resulting from studies usually designed, conducted, published
and interpreted by those on the upside of the divide?

What if we reverse your proposition what is the evidence of 
negative effects of the Internet? where has access to Internet hurt
net (plus-minus) development, of the individual, or the society?

Then I would compare that answer to the net (plus-minus) negatives, or
costs of neglecting the Internet in development policy considerations,
which I would suggest are far greater than any negatives accruing to
equitable Internet access, and free informational and knowledge choice
(allowing for language democracy, reasonable regulation/protection, e.g.
for children, the disabled etc)...

After all, isnt the development mantra of today 'increasing peoples'
choices'? And isnt this the 'information age'? So wavering, holding
back, finger on chin, waiting one more day... (which is the witholding
privilege of us on the divide upside)... means one more day of denial to
others of enhanced knowledge and information choice.and one more day
of watching the digital gulf yawn wider notwithstanding your
pollution arguments, which I acknowledge, but consider manageable
'noise' in the system.





***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:

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[Paula Uimonen]

While I appreciate the analysis of non-usage, it would probably not hurt
to put some of the issues we are dealing with into a wider perspective.

Although the 'digital divide' is a major concern, we should not lose
sight of the fact that the Internet has spread at an astonishing rate,
when compared to other media (it took radio 37 years to reach an
audience of 50 million, television 15 years and the Internet 3 years).
We are also using statistics that are guestimates at best, since it is
quite impossible to fully appreciate how many Internet users there are.
These statistics can be particularly misleading for the developing world
where public access points such as Internet cafE9s are becoming
increasingly popular. And I am always perturbed when I read analyses
that equate the Internet with the Web. Not only is Internet access more
widespread than Web access (especially in places with low bandwidth),
but there are fundamental differences between interactive applications
such as e-mail and listservs and the distribution and retrieval of
information over the Web that affect usage patterns.

As for future growth, issues of infrastructure obviously need addressing
(availability and affordability), followed by the more intangible issues
of attitudes and perceptions among existing and would-be users, i.e.
issues relating to appropriate content, technical aptitude and the
capacity to make use of information. I would suggest that policy makers
need to address not only infrastructure, but also the more intangible
socio-cultural aspects of Internet usage. In other words, it is not just
a question of providing access, but access to what, how and for who also
need to be taken into account. This requires paying more attention to
users' communicative and cognitive needs and practices rather than
merely 'technical' aspects, the appreciation of which calls for a
two-pronged (top-down and bottom-up) approach.

As for user demand, we should not underestimate the growing popularity
of the Internet in the developing world. Empirical research in Trinidad
has, for instance, shown that whether rich or poor, people have a
'natural affinity' for the Internet (see http://ethnonet.gold.ac.uk).
This 'natural affinity' is mainly derived from the fact that the
Internet is malleable by the individual user and thus socially embedded
in everyday realities. Anthropological research in other parts of the
world (including my own work) has shown similar patterns, i.e. that
users adapt the Internet to serve their own needs, whether personal or
professional (usually its a combination of the two).

So, although the question "why aren't more people online?" is a valid
one, we should perhaps try to learn from those who are using the
Internet to understand "why are people on-line?".

Paula


Paula Uimonen
Department of Social Anthropology, Stockholm University
Mailing address: 12 rue Voltaire, 1201 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel: (41 22) 940 22 33, fax: (41 22) 940 22 34
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://www.i-connect.ch/uimonen



***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:

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[Dr. Perry Morrison]

I think the issues raised under this thread are central to a huge number
of ICT development efforts. It might be very useful to fund a study
which examines the impact of major past technological changes in terms
of equity, distribution of benefits etc. I know such material exists,
but a focused study that concentrates on the relevance of ICTs would be
very useful.

Even my own cursory reading suggests that the invention of railroads and
electicity production were predicted to act as great "equalisers" of
society. And TV was going to be the engine for cheap, worldwide
education. In many places the green revolution displaced poor farmers
who couldn't pay for the technology into the urban slums and many 3rd
world countries became the victims of multinational agribusiness.

As a technology enthusiast and implementer, I would like to know how I
can promote more good than harm in my activities.

Perry Morrison




***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:

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[wai-leng]

Hi all,

We at AWO are pondering the same issue:

Our editorial on 8 July:

The Internet, e-commerce and knowledge nations have become buzzwords.
Journalists, politicians, business people all spout and mouth the same
term and sport the same jig: the Internet will liberate us and provide
for all. It was to be the great leveller - empowering and enabling
everyone.

The Internet and its accompanying technologies are ostensibly new
technologies enabling the construction, organisation and dissemination
of information and knowledge. The relative freedom and speed of
communication it offers provide and unrivalled mechanism for the
production and dissemination of information. In countries with strict
media censorship, the Internet provides an alternative sources of news
and views.

The question remains: Is this great enthusiasm and optimism over the web
just hype?

While we can see the potential of the web, we have to realise that this
same technological wonder will be the bane of many poorer countries
which have little access to it and doing catch-up with the better
developed infrastructure in wealthier countries.

When access and inequality issues are raised, corporations typically
deride the critics. They claim that the Internet, instead of restricting
options, enables greater accessibility. But as the development of the
Internet progresses, there is now a chorus of growing concern that the
Internet may actually accentuate the gap between the poor and the rich,
men and women, across and within countries and marginalise millions of
people. And indeed this condition has caused concern and prompted both
national governments and international agencies to develop policies
addressing this issue of the digital divide.

According to the International Labor Organisation World Employment
Report 2001, despite the communications revolution given the speed of
diffusion in wealthy and poor countries, the information and
communication (ICT) revolution is resulting in a widening global digital
divide. Vast areas of the globe remain technologically disconnected from
the benefits of the electronic marvels revolutionising life, work and
communication in the digital era.

Perhaps for those living in the west, it is harder to envisage the issue
and problems in developing countries. While developing countries grapple
with the high costs of technology and Internet access, consumers in the
west have access to wide ranging services like cable access and
broadband services.

A few statistics will easily illustrate this gap. There are more
telephones in New York City than in all of rural Asia, more Internet
accounts in London than in all of Africa. As many as 80% of the world
population have never made a phone call. The Internet connects hundreds
of millions of computers globally but recent statistics put the
percentage of people having Internet access at 6%. Of course this divide
is felt most acutely in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

About three billion people in the world do not have access to adequate
sanitation and over one billion people lack access to safe drinking
water (UNDP 2000). Another one billion live in absolute poverty with a
subsistence rate of less than US1 dollar a day (UNDP 2001).

Access to the net in Asia is a real problem for many. Costs are high for
both access and also purchase of equipment. Internet users tend to use
it at work or come from the middle-class and well-educated
professionals. Apart from the costs, this access and participation in
the global information society presumes some level of education without
which the vast treasures of information and knowledge become
meaningless.

Is there anything that can do to arrest this increasing divide? The
World Bank is bent on launching its global development gateway - the
mother of all portals. Or perhaps we should launch more community-based
access to the web? How feasible can these proposals and projects be? One
can always plan for a computer in every village but does that address
the underlying problems? It does not address the issue of content
production, control and management. It does not address the issue of
corporations and governments who control broadcasting and transmission
rights. It fails to respond to the issue of control of infrastructure
and the development of associated new technologies. There are also
numerous other issues - the issues of governments, regulations, power
and governance.

Even if all villages have access to a computer, who controls access at
the village level? Who designs the project for them and if governments
are repressive, what does that mean for information access and
dissemination?

In reality, the poor will languish in hyped-up cyberspace while
questions of access, the barriers of language (if not addressed) are not
resolved. The reality is that many will be cut off from participation:
language barriers; literacy issues? and reliance on middle "men or
women" will only further aggravate access issues.

Notwithstanding the

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[Dan Bassill]

My response to John Lawrence would be to say "work aggressively to
extend and put in place the necessary infrastructure where the demand is
evidenced."

In fact, that is what my organizaiton, the Tutor/Mentor Conneciton
(T/MC) is attempting to do.  Our focus is on the entire universe of CBOs
who are offering various forms of tutoring, mentoring and
school-to-career services to inner city youth living in Chicago.

We have built a database of more than 370 service providers and use GIS
maps to show where thos providers are located in relation to high
concentrations of poverty, poorly performing schools, and incidents of
youth violence. Our www.tutormentorconnection.org web site serves as a
"virtual library" anyone can go to for information that they might use
to build the capacity of any tutor/mentor program, in Chicago, or any
where in the country.

On August 1 we'll kick off a 7th annual Chicagoland volunteer
recruitment campaign, with Mrs. George Ryan, First Lady of Illinois,
serving as honorary chair.  This campaign will peak the first weekend
after Labor Day when more than 100 CBOs will host displays at at least
20 different volunteer fair sites around the city. The goal is to build
visibility that draws volunteers, donors, tech partners, etc to every
single program in the city's poorest neighborhoods.  An on-line
directory on our web site enables volunteers and donors to find these
programs even if they don't go to the volunteer fairs.

You can read about this campaign, and a year-round schedule of follow up
activities that are intended to help agencies keep these volunteers and
convert them to leaders and more effective tutors/mentors.  Visit
www.tutormentorconnection.org

You can also get involved with this campaign, as a communicator, or
business partner to any of these programs. You can also help duplicate
this in other cities.  The more aggressive we are, and the more personal
responsibility each of us takes for the result, the more likely we are
to put technology, as well as mentors and operating dollars, in places
where help is most needed.

You can also document your actions, if you choose to take them, at
www.tutormentorexchange.net.  This is an on-line system where various
stakeholders can document what they are doing to achieve an
organization's mission.  We've been piloting this for the past year and
you can now view a six-month report of 200 actions which have been
documented from Sept. 2000 to March 2001.  Without accountability it is
unlikely we'll have the type of on-going actions that will ever bridge
the economic divides that separate the poor from the rich.

I hope  you all take a look and that some of you join in this campaign.

My response to John Lawrence would be to say "work aggressively to
extend and put in place the necessary infrastructure where the demand is
evidenced."

In fact, that is what my organizaiton, the Tutor/Mentor Conneciton
(T/MC) is attempting to do.  Our focus is on the entire universe of CBOs
who are offering various forms of tutoring, mentoring and
school-to-career services to inner city youth living in Chicago.

We have built a database of more than 370 service providers and use GIS
maps to show where thos providers are located in relation to high
concentrations of poverty, poorly performing schools, and incidents of
youth violence. Our www.tutormentorconnection.org web site serves as a
"virtual library" anyone can go to for information that they might use
to build the capacity of any tutor/mentor program, in Chicago, or any
where in the country.

On August 1 we'll kick off a 7th annual Chicagoland volunteer
recruitment campaign, with Mrs. George Ryan, First Lady of Illinois,
serving as honorary chair.  This campaign will peak the first weekend
after Labor Day when more than 100 CBOs will host displays at at least
20 different volunteer fair sites around the city. The goal is to build
visibility that draws volunteers, donors, tech partners, etc to every
single program in the city's poorest neighborhoods.  An on-line
directory on our web site enables volunteers and donors to find these
programs even if they don't go to the volunteer fairs.

You can read about this campaign, and a year-round schedule of follow up
activities that are intended to help agencies keep these volunteers and
convert them to leaders and more effective tutors/mentors.  Visit
www.tutormentorconnection.org

You can also get involved with this campaign, as a communicator, or
business partner to any of these programs. You can also help duplicate
this in other cities.  The more aggressive we are, and the more personal
responsibility each of us takes for the result, the more likely we are
to put technology, as well as mentors and operating dollars, in places
where help is most needed.

You can also document your actions, if you choose to take them, at
www.tutormentorexchange.net.  This is an on-line system where various
stakeholders can document what they are doing to achieve an
organizatio

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[Michel J. Menou]

The assumption that for the few percent of the world population who are
presently using the Internet, the balance between the positive and
negative effects of their use falls heavily on the positive side remains
to be demonstrated.

While connectivity has tremendous "enabling" capabilities, it has also
enormous pollution capabilities.

In any case connecting people whithout granting them the basic
conditions for making a judicious use of the tool, in the first place
through general education, is simply expanding the TV brainwashing.


Best regards,
  
Michel J. Menou
<[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:

Re: [GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[John Lawrence]

Very useful analysis I would add illiteracy and language restrictions
to this causal pattern, but doesn't this raise an important policy question
concerning the digital divide? Since time can only exacerbate the gap
between those who are already profiting (in various ways) from Internet
technology, and those who are not even able to access it, what should be
the policy approach? Just let time pass? Or work aggressively to extend
and put in place the necessary infrastructures where the demand is
evidenced?

Steve Cisler wrote:

 >  readers. Here's an interesting international study about the
 > situation>
 >
 > The San Jose Mercury News' writer David Plotnikoff alerted me to it:
 > http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/opinion/daveplot/dp062101.htm
 >





***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:

[GKD] Why aren't more people online?

[Steve Cisler]

The San Jose Mercury News' writer David Plotnikoff alerted me to it:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/opinion/daveplot/dp062101.htm

Steve Cisler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
home.inreach.com/cisler

Ipsos Reid press release on the report on why more people are not
online (around the world):

http://www.angusreid.com/media/content/displaypr.cfm?id_to_view=1244
Why Aren't More People Online?
No Need, no Interest, no Money Keep Billions Away Only an Estimated 6%
of the World is Online-Ipsos-Reid

© Ipsos-Reid
Public Release Date: June 13, 2001


Minneapolis, June 14, 2001-In the developed world, the Internet is
literally in your face. Opportunities to go online are everywhere, and
an estimated 400 hundred million people use the World Wide Web daily.

Yet according to international research firm Ipsos-Reid, billions of
people have neither heard of the Internet nor have any intention of
going online anytime soon. Even in countries such as the United
States, Canada, Sweden, and the Netherlands, about one-third of people
who could use the Internet choose not to. In fact, of the world's 6
billion citizens, only about 6% are online. Why?

"The answer is twofold", says Brian Cruikshank, a senior vice
president with Ipsos-Reid and leader of the company's global
technology practice. "In the developed world, a substantial number of
people who could very easily go online have decided not to. They see
no compelling reason to be on the Web. The hype and the promise of the
Internet clearly hasn't impressed them-not yet, at least. For others
in nascent, less developed markets, the cost of accessing the Internet
competes with the cost for basic necessities and access availability
is very limited outside of urban areas."

As part of its global research program, Ipsos-Reid talked to people in
30 countries who aren't on the Internet and who say they have no plans
to be. The most frequently mentioned reasons for staying offline are
"have no need for the Internet" (40%), "no computer" (33%), "no
interest" (25%), "don't know how to use it" (16%), "cost" (12%), or
"no time" (10%). (For Internet usage rates by country, see chart.

In lesser developed countries, where access to the Internet is a
significant problem because of poverty and lack of a modern
communications infrastructure, cost and access are cited as barriers
more often than they are in major industrialized countries.

In urban India and urban South Africa, only one-quarter of the
population has access to the Internet, and fewer than 10% of people
report being recent users, the company found. In urban Russia, 83% of
respondents reported having no Internet access at all.

"Those growing up on the Internet will one day make up the bulk of the
population and there will be very few non-users down the road",
Cruikshank says. "But that's maybe an entire generation away in many
developing markets. In the meantime, you still have a massive
group-that is not going to disappear overnight-of potential users who
have the means yet are still not convinced of the Web's merits."

"The next crest of the Internet wave will come from markets that are
already well along the way-particularly in Western Europe-with the
most capacity for upside surprises, since their social structures and
communications infrastructures offer few barriers", Cruikshank says.
He continues, "In these countries, it's simply a matter of time before
more people go online-we have already started to see Europeans
representing a larger proportion of the global Internet population."

The study offers the caveat that in other parts of the world, there
are simply not enough access opportunities to go around. In other
words, there are more adults with intentions of going online than
there are adults with Internet access. These countries include South
Korea and urban markets in Malaysia, India, Mexico, and South Africa.

"Far from being dead, the Internet has a large growth potential
everywhere, but progress is destined to be slower than its most
enthusiastic advocates might have envisioned a few years ago",
concludes Cruikshank. To expand the reach of the Web in developing
countries, he says, public venues-libraries, schools, offices and
Internet cafés-will have to play a more crucial role.

Still, widespread availability is a long way off in the most populated
areas of the world. Overall, Ipsos-Reid found that 98% of respondents
own a television, 51% own a cell phone, 48% own a home computer-but
only 36% have home Internet access.

Methodology
These international survey research data were collected via Ipsos-Reid
's Global Express, a quarterly international omnibus survey. Fieldwork
was conducted in November and December 2000. Data are based on
individual surveys taken with a random sampling of adults (18+) across
35 national markets. The target sample size in each country was 500,
except for the United States and Germany, where 1,000 interviews were
conducted, India, where 1,700 interviews were conducted, and Turkey,
where 1,2