[Foundation-l] Opinions/suggestions for "outside" members of the board?

Sun Jun 25 06:45:38 UTC 2006

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>   
>> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>  
>>
>>     
>>> I have always viewed Jimbo's suggestion that we "distribute a paper  
>>> encyclopedia to African children" as quixotic but I have in  
>>> connection with a possible board member wondered if we could create a  
>>> series of documents which focus on public health which would prove  
>>> useful in Africa, possibly also in China and other regions, and be  
>>> worth distributing as part of a public health education campaign.  
>>> There was lately a cholera epidemic in Angola which affected most of  
>>> the country. There is a lot of ignorance involved in this sort of  
>>> situation. I don't see this project so much directed to children as  
>>> to local decision makers. It would contain information about disease  
>>> and disease prevention, etc. The question, bottom line, is would a  
>>> project of this nature actually prove effective? Or should we first  
>>> see if we could even mobilize around it? One of the good aspects  
>>> regarding this possible board member is that he is a hands on,  
>>> computer literate guy with experience in give and take.
>>>    
>>>
>>>       
>> Regarding "would a project of this nature actually prove effective", I 
>> am giving a presentation end of august in an international health forum 
>> (http://www.hcuge.ch/genevahealthforum/) and this is exactly the type of 
>> question I hope can receive a beginning of an answer.
>>
>> I do not really believe we can mobilize around it before setting up a 
>> framework around. We need partners for such project and these partners 
>> input will be essential to define which content should be included or 
>> not included, and what the audience would be.
>>
>> However, admittedly, what I would worry about is, if a framework is set, 
>> with partners and of course, a deadline, I am not sure we would succeed 
>> to mobilize enough and in a sufficiently effective way to respect the 
>> limits. I think we can do huge things, but generally, we are bad with 
>> deadlines because a volunteer may come and go.
>>
>> Also, one of the reasons why Wikipedia typically is successful is that 
>> it can be build by tiny bits. Doing just a bit is easy. A little step 
>> that most of us can climb without too much efforts. It is much more of a 
>> problem to participate to a long term project, in which significant 
>> amounts of efforts must be brought be each contributor.
>>
>>     
> The idea is commendable but strikes me as well beyond the scope of the 
> things we do.  We are more in a kind of educational publishing business 
> rather than a vehicle for mibilising health care.  Our information could 
> include medical information, but publishing that information is not 
> enough.  We could include "The Barefoot Doctor's Manual" in Wikisource.  
> (The English translation was published by the National Institute of 
> Health in 1974, and that would likely make it copyright free as a US 
> government publication despite the claims of subsequent reprinters.)
>
> But the advances in Chinese medical practice at that time involved more 
> than just publishing a book.  It was a textbook for teaching.  Putting 
> it on-line won't do much for people who don't have computers.  What the 
> barefoot doctor mobilization did in China was was bring medical care to 
> rural areas where no care at all was previously available; one should 
> not, therefore, judge the skill of these practitioners by reference to 
> the medical personel in developed countries where there is access to 
> sophisticated equipment and drugs. 
>
> What's needed is to mobilize local people, give them a basic level of 
> medical training, and send them out through the country  where, as much 
> as possible, they can use indiginous supplies in the practice of 
> medicine.  This may seem like quackery by Western standards, but it's 
> better than the nothing that that public currently has.  Our role in 
> this can only be very limited.
>
> Ec
Hoi,
If we want to make a difference in Africa, we should make Africa more 
relevant. This is something that is not impossible, we should however 
consider the issues that we face to support Africa.

* Our user interface is not localised for the many African languages
* Many people are reluctant to edit and have a bias against their own 
language
* Due to "peering agreements" traffic from Europe or America is REALLY 
expensive and slow to reach Africa
* We should spend more effort on African subjects in the Arab, English 
and French wikipedia

Localising the MediaWiki user interface is a job that takes in between 
two days and a week. It takes a week when the vocabulary does not exist 
in language. This means some research. Particularly the languages where 
Microsoft or Open Office have done there thing should be in relative 
good shape for the many other languages it is just a lot of work. This 
work can be done by people we pay or by people an NGO pays. In my 
opinion it is best when we do not pay and that it is done within 
existing organisations. When an NGO organises this, it is software that 
they are likely to use as well.. This helps a lot.

Many people who are literate in one language are semi-literate in their 
mother tongue. When they edit, they expect the same level of 
completeness, the same consistency of spelling. Many languages however 
do not have one formalised orthography and for many people this hinders 
rather than helps. When an NGO uses MediaWiki to spread its own message, 
people will see how it can be done. Getting a message in their own 
language is really powerful from a marketing point of view. It will also 
help make it easier for people to start contributing.. (Wikipedia is 
very much monkey see, monkey do)

We could have some servers in Africa... There is some reluctance of the 
developers to overcome.. We could hope that the project of the Vrije 
Universiteit bears fruit.. and help it where we can. With this project 
successful, it would mean a peer to peer MediaWiki whereby content is 
near the people that want it.

When we want to make Wikipedia itself more relevant, there is nothing 
stopping us, we can enrich the content about Africa. It is still very 
poor compared to what we know about the first world.

Oh yes, and when you want medical information, it is good to know that 
medical subjects have a mondial relevance. Would it work? Sure, but do 
not forget that people are looking for sex, sport and politics first in 
Wikipedia and it is important to get all the eyeballs that we can get.

Thanks,
    GerardM