Talk:Information and Communication Technologies for Development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Merge with UN ICT Task Force

These are the same thing, right? - Nabla 22:30:24, 2005-07-12 (UTC)

!?!?!? Is Physics the same as Albert Einstein? The UN ICT Task Force is a group of people - not even an organism, I dare say - whose aim is fostering ICT4D, which a policy. Two very different things, IMHO. ICTlogist 11:43 2005-07-25

ICT4D Platform is part of WSIS. Most other ICT4D programs are carried out by corporations, NGOs, and UN agencies not directly involved with the task force (UNDP, UNESCO, MDG Project). The UN ICT Task Force has no development programs of its own, and is there primarily for information sharing. User: Edward Cherlin 16:29 2005-08-09 (UTC)

Don't Merge ICT4D is a type of development work, done by IDRC and DFID among others. --tranquileye 11:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

So, I'll remove the merging proposal, ok? Too long since this thing started and this is sort of a stalemate not worth keeping it longer :) ICTlogist 10:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Even though the two are related, they are not the same. The UN ICT Task Force is a time-limited grouping of people to advance the issues surrounding ICT for Development. Thus, they should be kept related, but separate. -- phellmon 03:23, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't even understand how this entire debate of merging arose. For International Development Agencies, ICT4D is considered a sector for development assistance programming - much like electoral reforms for governance, or microfinance for proverty reduction. The UN ICT Task Force is simply that - a group of people who make policy advisory recommendations, often in the sector of ICT4D among other sectors such as Internet Governance. Merging the two would be like saying lets rename Internet Govenance to ICANN. -- Dhakaite 09:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly discourage the idea of merging. As dhakaite wrote, ict4d is a sector of international development activity, not a specific bureaucratic organization. In the same way you wouldn't merge the issue of Hunger into the World Food Program or Nuclear Proliferation into the IAEA, it makes no sense to merge ict4d into the taskforce - particularly since the taskforce no longer exists yet the sector continues its work. Acarvin 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link

This Low cost computer guide at Appropedia, a wiki focused on international development. was added to the external links section by Chriswaterguy who appears to be one of the main editors of the site. Our external link guidelines ask editors to refrain from adding sites they are connected with directly to the article page, asking them instead to post to the talk page and get links assessed by other editors.

The link and site look interesting to me, but it seems to be a wiki with just a few editors and has not yet built up a significant reputation. So I think it fails our guidelines - see #12 of our links normally to be avoided - and shouldn't be added for now.

Other opinions? -- Siobhan Hansa 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

Hello, we would be interested in getting a link to our website. We are the World Bank's eDevelopment Thematic group. We run events aimed at raising the profile of ICT and its role in World Bank operations. Our website is: http://www.worldbank.org/edevelopment. Many thanks for your consideration

[edit] Major revision

Hi, I am about to post a major revision. Look forward to the discussion. My purported next steps:

  • Finally merge this topic with the ICD article.
  • More pictures
  • More refs
  • Add a section on innovation. Can I cite my own paper? [1]

- EKhayaICT 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comment on major revision

The current split between this entry and Information and Communication for Development makes little sense. In essence they represent different approaches. This entry stresses technology but many theorists argue that technology is not an independent force for change but is itself a product of social, economic and military forces. The overall emphasis in this revision is on technology, with some attention to social forces that block its adoption (lack of education, lack of infrastructure such as reliable electricity, harsh climate, etc.) In other words the difference between this entry and ICD represents a debate within the field rather than two separate fields and obviously they should be merged with proper emphasis to the debate over technology vs. social structure. As it stands this entry -- like the article on which it is based -- gives too much emphasis to technology and is therefore unbalanced. The article by Wertlen is useful but should not be considered a definitive summary because it has all of the problems just outlined.

[edit] Clean up

I was working through this article trying to do some clean up to bring it into line with some of our manual of style guidelines. The latter half of the article provides no standalone insight to the reader, being more of a directory to internal and external articles, websites and resources. This really isn't what our articles are supposed to be about. I was wondering if we could change some of it into a better ICT4D List that points to the organizations we have articles on and puts them in context. Any thoughts? -- SiobhanHansa 13:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagged for clean up (did not you place it?). The article may need a complete rewrite, as it is not well organized. I did some cleanup myself - please do not revert it as a whole as it was quite some work. Instead, if you disagree with some edits, try to correct only those smaller ones. I simplified the categories as they were very confusing. --Kozuch (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Information and Communication for Development (ICD)

I suggest merging these two articles together. Their isn't much actual info in the ICD article (note I have just deleted an entire section about an in-progress evaluation), and the subject area clearly overlaps. Also, I don't think there is a clear, widely accepted difference between the two terms. Any thoughts? -- SiobhanHansa 12:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

it really makes sense Ictlogist 10:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Merged. Redirect set up.--Kozuch (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I agree

I´m a professional in the field of ICT4D since many years. The term ICT4D is the older one, and comes from the tradition of technology and (physical) infrastructure. However, in the development cooperation business, where this term is mostly used, the interest is mainly in applying ICTs, not (only) the platform on which ICTs can be applied.

The term ICD more emphasis the purpose od using ICTs. The T (for Technologies) is dropped. It´s simililar to taking about Electricity and not Energy Technology, which one guesses might be more common in the end of the 19th Century.

In this sense ICT is an older term and ICD is a more modern term.

The British aid agency DFID renamed their ICT activities to ICD many years ago; hence the two terns are used more or less the same, or at least very much overlapping. It´s no advantage to have separate articles. --Boberger¨08:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Boberger. Thanks for responding. It's always good to get more input, especially from someone who works in the field. I just want to check I understand you fully - you think the article would be better situated under the ICD title with this article's title redirecting there rahther than the article sitting here and the ICD page redirecting here?
I'm checking because I had thought it more likely it should sit here - partly because I thought the lack of the T (technology) and use of a C (communication) is much more common in Europe than the the US (which tends to use Information Technology more than Information and Communication Technology so this would make a good amalgamation. It would be good to get your input on that if you have much dealings with US folk in the field. Also this article seems to have had much more traffic than the ICD one - which makes me wonder if the ICD thing is a bit too new yet. I don't think this is a big deal (so long as we use redirects, it doesn't matter that much where the article sits), just wondered if Wikipedia was behind the curve (very likely considering the lack of good content these articles get) or if you were looking to the future more than the present. It might even be good to include something on how the field's view of itself is changing if we can source it appropriately. -- SiobhanHansa 13:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi BoBerger and Siobhan,
I am currently working on ICT projects in rural marginalised areas in Africa - ICT4D. That's why I felt qualified to rewrite what was there in the article. I also consult in the academic world. The prevailing term used here is ICT, as far as Government and Academia are concerned. 10 years ago the term was IT. IT has a very holistic computerised connotation, referring to hardware, software and general computing infrastructure. With the introduction of the "C", mobile, cellular and convergent technologies like VoIP have also been included. This refers to the great promise that the internet holds, I guess, to destroy communication monopolies prevailing in Africa! Before coming across the DFID I had never heard of the term ICD.
For these reasons, I would definitely put this article under ICT4D.
The ICT4D arena is changing very rapidly - I don't think that wikipedia is behind. I help supervise several Masters students who are writing software projects and deploying them in the field and there is very little academic work done till now. The leading publications all have been coming from Aid Agencies (World Bank, UNDP, etc.). Since about 2003, more and more emphasis has been put on measuring the effect of all the ICT4D aid that has been poured into pilot projects. However, because the conditions on the ground are so heterogeneous, irreproducible, uncategorised, and non-standard (not to mention heart-breaking in some circumstances), it has been very difficult to make comparisons or to make qualified comparable statements about results. This is changing now as academic programmes are casting their "scientific" and "neutral" eye on things. Besides that, there is still much hype about the field because of all the attention the topic gets (Bono, G8, OLPC, etc.) and my prediction is that it is going to increase, but not for small fly by night operators. -- EKhayaICT 07:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] embedded lists

I removed a section, headed "This is not an exhaustive list of projects, nor has it been selected by any methodical manner" That's the very essence of indiscriminate content. WP is not a collection of links. find a good place that lists all the projects, and link to it. DGG (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removing link fusion.lk

While Sarvodaya does seem to be Sri Lanka's largest NGO (and as such has definitely reached > 10'000 people), the website listed here seems to be link spam. The website is in bad English, talks about projects that have not ocurred yet, and mentions no facts or figures to substantiate it's claim that it has reached >10'000 people. EKhayaICT (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)