As I have previously mentioned (see Dec. 7th – “Seigenthaler and Wikipedia”): Wikipedia is no less reliable than other resources, and so says the journal Nature following a peer review of content in Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica.

There’s been an interesting discussion about Wikipedia since last weekend. The discussion was sparked by John Seigenthaler’s article in USA Today where he decries Wikipedia for allowing a false entry about himself to be posted on the site and go unnoticed for several months.
I should start by mentioning that I like Wikipedia. I think it exemplifies everything that an information society should strive to be. It’s democratic, it promotes critical thinking, it involves interaction with a large community to construct and share knowledge, it promotes transparency in knowledge construction, it promotes mediation, it’s dynamic, and so on and so forth. Some might still ask how this relates to this blog’s overall topic of development. I think that there’s an obvious connection – let’s face it, a lot of the “knowledge” that has been collected on the Internet is “Western” and therefore reflects the views of a minority of the world population. Every society should be considered a knowledge base, able to make a valuable contribution to our shared knowledge, no matter what their “level” of development. Tools like Wikipedia are ideal for giving a voice to those with a different perspective that can expand our common understanding of many issues.
Back to Seigenthaler. Seigenthaler’s method of dealing with this situation, once he discovered it, illustrates an emerging digital divide – between the “get its” and the “clueless”. First of all, why didn’t Seigenthaler just change the entry and get on with things? Yes, he’s 78 years old, but he had the intelligence to be able to find out when the entry was created, how long it has been on the web, how many times it was edited, and the IP and ISP of the originator, but he couldn’t just change the entry? Secondly, Seigenthaler rails against Wikipedia stating “I am interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool.” Wikipedia is no more flawed than any other resource. Face it, information is man-made. Creators may have an agenda or may not have a sufficient understanding of what they are talking about. This goes for any information. What is irresponsible is relying only on one source of information, be it Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia Britannica. If we keep this in mind, we minimize the risk of being misinformed. What is remarkable about information technologies today is that when you encounter suspect information, you can actually do something about it. Not doing so, is irresponsible.
The “get its” are the ones who are creating content on the Internet – on Wikipedia, on their blogs, in podcasts, and elsewhere. They know that the relationship between “truth” and information is a shaky one at best. They know that the only way to avoid misinformation is for every individual to share as much as they “know” on topics of relevance. The “clueless” are still waiting to be served the ultimate “truth” – à la carte and on a platter.

Having not been in Tunis, it’s hard to see the WSIS as a resounding success. I’m sure that for the people who were there the networking and social factors are very meaningful. But, let’s face it, the Internet governance matters are unchanged and the Digital Solidarity Fund remains unfunded.
The developed countries have defended their position concerning the Digital Solidarity Fund, stating that they prefer to rely on established programmes, like the World Bank’s. Is this rational? In a certain sense one would have to say, “yes”. There are many programmes that are well established, where valuable experience has been gained, and this should not be underestimated. On the other hand, giving the intended beneficiaries and their geographical and social neighbours a more prominent role in the direction of the programmes increases relevance. If the intention with the Digital Solidarity Fund is to promote this type of local responsibility and cooperation than surely it is justified.

Negroponte showed off his laptop, “the green machine”. Looks pretty snappy. What I’m really happy about is the choice of going open source (OS) and the reasoning behind that choice. The idea, as I understand it, is that using OS permits more flexibility to adapt the system and software to the needs of each user. This is certainly in line with my own thinking, as evidenced from this paper.
In other news, the BBC’s WSIS blogger claims that “The answers to bridging the digital divide are already here. The challenge is in their implementation.” My question is, which digital divide is he referring to (developing countries, rural areas, the illiterate, the elderly, the poor in developed countries, this list could go on and on and on), and what is it that these “solutions” acually solve? Claims like this over-simplify the issues and are certainly not helpful.

The WSIS has started and it’s everywhere. Most major news related web sites have stories about some aspect of the digital divide issue and ICTs for development. Imagine if it were always this way…
Luckily, the Internet Governance issue was resolved (for now) before the summit started. The US retains its control. Whew! Don’t want to lose that stability and innovation! I fail to see the logic in these arguments, as do others apparently. Nevertheless, I’m glad they got it out of the way because I do think that there are more pressing issues that need to be addressed and this could have overshadowed the whole summit.
I assume the press coverage will continue over the next few days and I’ll be following it closely. After that… Back to obscurity?