ICTlogy

In some ways, this could be called Web 2.0 and diffusion of research (part IV): the article. History goes as follows:

• I give a seminar on Web 2.0 issues applied to research and self-archiving
• Colleague César Córcoles joins to improve the seminar and impart it again, adding a deeper technological background and broader range of examples.
• A review of the seminar is published

Now, Carlos Casado, colleague of both César and me here at the University has joined the team and the result is the article The 2.0 Teacher: teaching and research from the web, recently published at UOC Papers review. I think (I hope) that the output has once again improved, as Carlos added his own part on blogging in the classroom, besides valuous contributions to the whole. Pity is that 5,500 words is not really plenty of space to deal with all the matters we wanted to, and the balance among a “diffusion paper” and an “academic paper” is quite a difficult thing to accomplish: you’re asked to be both, and each kind of reader thinks it’s not either.

Anyway, here goes the abstract:

The aim of the article is, first, to give a brief presentation of what the web 2.0 is from the teacher and researcher’s point of view, leading to a consideration of some of its proposed uses in the classroom and to conclude by considering how it has begun to affect, and will continue to affect, the world of research, especially in terms of publishing completed work and establishing a new framework for collaboration among researchers.

Consequently, we will be talking about a web 2.0, which, in terms of technology, offers a wide public a set of sophisticated content publication and management tools and, in social terms, makes it possible for a collective intelligence to appear, based on the aggregation of non-systematised or explicitly guided individual contributions. Both points come together in the teaching and research activity of teachers, affording them tools-such as blogs and wikis-and ways of doing things that they can use at different times during their activity to increase their communication and motivation capacity in the classroom, and to optimise the efforts devoted to searching for information, collaborative work and the communication of their results in the laboratory.

The article concludes that the confluence of new tools and attitudes should lead to an academic panorama with greater collaboration between peers and a natural evolution of the current meritocracy system.

• Full article (Spanish) (366 Kb)
• Bibliographic citation

Taking as a baseline Open Knowledge, Free Society, the 3rd edition of the Online congress of the Observatory for Cybersociety will take place from November 20th to December 3rd, 2006.

Five working groups have been created:

• Topic A: Policy and social change
• Topic B: Identity and Social groups
• Topic C: Communication and culture
• Topic D: Education and learning
• Topic E: Critic and Innovation

each one still accepting papers for submission (deadline: October 30th).

The whole congress is a gem but, if you focus on ICT4D issues, Topic A. Policy and social change is your place.

If I had to pick one or two tracks — choose or die — I’d take these two:

• A-6. Las TIC y la cooperación al desarrollo: después de la Cumbre Mundial para la Sociedad de la Información [ICTs and cooperation for development: after WSIS], coordinated by friends Manuel Acevedo and Mila Gascó.
• A-7. Los Telecentros, ¿un recurso necesario para alcanzar una sociedad más libre? [Telecenters: a necessary resource to reach a freer society?], coordinated by Ricard Faura and Jose David Carracedo, whom (Jose David) I met when we organized the II Workshop on Internet and Solidarity and spent together richest time.

Feel like registering?

New report developed by the International Telecommunication Union, the UNCTAD, the Ministry of Information and Communications of the Republic of Korea and the Agency for Digital Opportunity & Promotion (KADO).

This report charts progress towards the Information Society, in response to the call by the WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, for evaluation and international benchmarking, as well as the need for monitoring of WSIS follow-up and implementation (noted in the WSIS outcome documents). It evaluates access to telecommunications and digital opportunity in 180 economies worldwide in the context of the WSIS targets and Millennium Development Goals. It presents the Digital Opportunity Index, as called for by the WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, paragraph 28, and considers the policy implications for the further evolution of the Information Society. It reviews WSIS implementation and follow-up in different countries, and considers efforts to promote ICT development. It also presents the latest available data on 180 economies worldwide.

It is intended that the “The World Information Society Report” will be an annual publication.

So, it seems that the transition from the Digital Access Index and the Digital Opportunity Index has been done. Nevertheless, looking at who is backing the new report and, hence, the DOI, I guess there’s still some time until the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development becomes really functional. I suppose it’s likely that next edition will be signed by the Partnership in its whole.

Digital Opportunity Index 2005. Source: World Information Society Report 2006
[click to enlarge]

The main two reflections that come to mind — besides the most evident about the digital divide and wealth distribution/opportunity-to-access in the world — are:

• There’s a urgent need to stablish an index covering the whole range of the digital divide and not just infrastructures: digital literacy, content and services use and policy, legal framework.
• Disturbing content and Diverted to bad sites stands for only 7% of the greatest online fears, being cibercrime (in its many faces) up to 91%. This makes me think about the unbalanced efforts made in censorship apps, filters and regulation by paternalist Governments in front of the real needs as perceived by users.

• World Information Society Report (main site)
• Full Report (8.5 Mb)
• Executive Summary (600 Kb)
• Map of Digital Opportunity Worldwide, 2005 (2.7 Mb)

Yesterday I had the lucky chance of taking part in a meeting (and dinner!) with Eben Moglen (middle of snapshot), organized by the UOC’s Vicerector of technology, Llorenç Valverde (left) and the UOC’s Law professor Raquel Xalabarder (right).

There were plenty of things in what he said, most of them following my own
line of thought. My selected quote is, however, maybe quite unusual in the free software movement speeches: birthright bandwidth. Just a concept.

A concept, nevertheless, that just points to the same issue Enrique Dans deals with today, after two articles by Tim Berners Lee and Robert X. Cringely. Put it in my “own” words, the question is whether the internet, or access in general, is a public good and, furthermore, a human right. Dans says “the Net has become too important to be ruled by telcos and the entertainment industry”. Moglen spoke about birthright bandwidth, i.e. the right, by the simple fact of being born, to communicate with others – needless to say “through the internet” in this way of no return to the digital era.

So, right? public good? both? neither?

Update:
The review IDP publishes in its 4th issue the full transcription of the speech (, 152 Kb)

In an effort to counter the once borderless Internet, states are seeking to create informational boundaries in cyberspace. This is accomplished through a combination of technical and regulatory means — including laws, licensing regimes, industry self-regulation, national filtering, and content removal — thereby creating a matrix of controls.

The OpenNet Initiative: Internet Filtering Map is a quickview way to show this matrix of controls

In other words, it reflects ONI’s work, that is:

The ONI mission is to investigate and challenge state filtration and surveillance practices. Our approach applies methodological rigor to the study of filtration and surveillance blending empirical case studies with sophisticated means for technical verification. Our aim is to generate a credible picture of these practices at a national, regional and corporate level, and to excavate their impact on state sovereignty, security, human rights, international law, and global governance.

[via John Palfrey]

The Economist Intelligence Unit 2006 e-readiness rankings have been published: the world in early 2006 may be proclaimed ever more “e-ready”. This year’s e-readiness rankings reflect such progress, as all but two countries have improved their scores from the previous year.

I absolutely disagree with this following statement: Just as encouraging is the apparent narrowing of the “digital divide” in some facets of e-readiness. This is particularly evident in basic connectivity.

Just out context, the only thing I can say is that "digital" is not only about wires, and that "divide" is a relative indicator, not an absolute one. Actually, basic connectivity is absolutely different than broadband connectivity. Thus, while e-readiness might be actually improving (i.e. there’s more connectivity for more people), the digital divide could be simply widening (i.e. the connectivity for the less developed is, again, less good than the developed ones’): taking part in the race is good; winning a medal, much better.

On the other hand, that developing countries are also enhancing their e-readiness in other ways — for example through the growth of information technology (IT) outsourcing capabilities is good news. I strongly believe that there’s no possibility of having rich digital content and services (actually, the goal of the information society, ain’t it!?) without a strong IT and/or ICT sector.

• The report: The 2006 e-readiness rankings (159 Kb)
• Some comments about Latin America at Mouse.cl
• e-Readiness bibliography

[read at UN ICT Task Force and Tecnología y Desarrollo]