8 THEME SECTION 1 yHLYAHE,JNCRET AEJNS E ASD n ICM RAMBALDI GIACOMO and GARSIDE BEN JONES, DAVE CORBETT, JON ASHLEY, HOLLY by Web 2.0fordevelopment Change athand: perspectives’ ( participate in‘weavingawebof knowledge,informationand transparent andaccountable,becauseusersthemselves 1). – usingtoolsthatare typically free orlow-costtouse(seeBox to amore participatoryapproach toonline approach toinformation-sharing, shiftingfrom atop-down contrast, Web 2.0toolsheraldanew, more informal on emaildiscussionlistsandweb-basedmessageforums.In either thecontentoritsproducers. Interactivityresided mainly websites were static,withusersunabletointeractonline archical approach todisseminatinginformation.Most through theInternet. create, share, collaborateonandpublishdigitalinformation Web 2.0.Together, theyare radicallychanging thewayswe ‘social’ or‘read-write’ web,butmore commonlyknownas applications, sometimesreferred toasthe‘participatory’, There are dozensofemerginginteractivewebservicesand Introduction nology (ICT)thatwascreated for–andthrivesonthe includes applications, platformsandservices. 1 Throughout this specialissue,wemakereference toWeb 2.0‘tools’,which 1 The firstgenerationofwebsitesrepresented amostlyhier- Web 2.0isaformofinformation communicationtech- For Web 2.0advocates,theseapplicationsare alsomore Christian Kreutz , thisissue). was heldatthe FoodandAgriculture Organisation (FAO) Participatory Web 2.0forDevelopment, or‘Web2forDev’ conferencemulate. InSeptember2007,the international on andexperiencehas startedtoaccu- work, abodyoflearning patory developmentandtoexperiment withthemintheir the hugepotentialofWeb 2.0toolsforpromoting partici- • thechallenges,and critical analysisofthelessonslearnt, • the practicaloutcomesofsuchapproaches; and • how theseare integratedwithWeb 2.0applications; • the qualityofmethodsandprocesses ofparticipation • the underlyingprocesses involved inimplementingand and informedchoices: better understandandgraspinorder tomakeconsidered tunities forchange–aswellchallengesthatweneedto Web 2.0toolsandapproaches present uswithnewoppor- communication. Yet asthetitleforthisspecialissuesuggests, appropriate thanmore traditionalICTs oranyotherformof not tosaythatWeb 2.0toolsare somehowbetterormore participation ofpeopleandempowermentusers.Thisis ways forward. used; of powerintheprocess and theimpactofparticipation; using Web 2.0applications,givingconsiderationtoissues As developmentpractitionershavebegantorecognise 9

1 THEME SECTION Change at hand: Web 2.0 for development 2.0 for Web at hand: Change For the guest editors, this special issue was an opportu- Part III, the articles focus on the integration of multiple Web specific issues. The articles in Part IV 2.0 tools to address on practice, including lessons discuss theory and reflections identified, and ways experience, challenges learnt from In Part V Tips a collection forward. for trainers, we provide in- 2.0 tools, which give more to Web of short introductions depth descriptions of how some of the most commonly- used tools work, including tips on getting started and links is a glossary of to further information. Also included here 2.0 terms. Web and share 2.0 and Web2forDev nity to help ‘demystify’ Web hope that it will help to bring We learning and reflections. development practition- to a wider audience of Web2forDev 2.0 tools a go ers and academics: inspiring you to give Web your successes and challenges. and share Guest editor and organiser conference Giacomo Rambaldi at the Fair Share Web2forDev participants’ space. . The Web2forDev conference The Web2forDev 2 Participatory Learning and Action

For a full list of conference organisers, see Editorial, p.3 (this issue). For a full list of conference

2 sought to bring practitioners together to further explore how sought to bring practitioners together to further explore are we can exploit this potential. Most of the articles here developed espe- participants. All were written by conference cially for Structure of the special issue This special issue is divided into five parts. Although the arti- 2.0 cles include some technical information about the Web tools used, we have deliberately chosen to focus on how they have been integrated with development approaches. 2.0 tools and the concept both Web In Part I, we introduce In Part II, the articles examine some of the of Web2forDev. purposes. In 2.0 tools for development uses of specific Web headquarters in Rome, Italy. Photo: Jon Corbett Jon Photo: 10 THEME SECTION 1 Holly Ashley, JonCorbett, DaveJones, BenGarsideandGiacomoRambaldi content fordevelopment. improve information-sharingandcollaborativeproduction of short –isawayofemployingwebservicestointentionally Participatory Web 2.0fordevelopment–orWeb2forDev for What is Web2forDev? • Online socialnetworkshelp connectcommunitiesofprac- • • Interconnected networksofbloggerswhoshare common fortrainers, thisissue. sary andTips how thesetoolsworkandwhere togetstarted,seetheglos- examples ofhowthiscanbedone.Formore informationon mation, ideasandperspectives–there are multiple generating, moderatingandmediatingdevelopmentinfor- Web2forDev isaboutintegrating,combining,aggregating, redistribute piecesofcontentreleased byothers. own material,decideonlevelsofaccesstoinformationand and connecttootherstakeholders,produce andpublishtheir development. Itisabouthowdevelopmentactorscanrelate is thatWeb2forDev isabouttheactiveuseofthesetoolsin 4 3 development work.See: www.web2fordev.net become thehubforWeb andsharingexperienceinthecontextof 2.0learning Box 1: What is Web 2.0? • They havea share severalkey elements: Internet Protocols). websites, RSS, wikis, blogsandsome VoIP services(Voice over websites, -andphoto-sharingwebsites, socialbookmarking platforms thatsupportthem, forexample, socialnetworking includes web-basedcommunities, hostedservices, applications and sharing, cooperationandcollaborationonthe . It design thatfacilitatesinteractivity, communication, information- end-users utilisethe Web. Web 2.0referstowebdevelopmentand specifications, buttochangesintheways software developersand Wide Web, itdoesnotrefertoanupdateanytechnical Although theterm ‘Web 2.0’suggestsanewversionofthe World • They are • They • Theyare • They createa Adapted fromsources: Wikipedia andKabissa Wiki • Contributors allow • They • They The Web2forDev DevelopmentGatewayisanew initiativewhichaimsto See glossaryp.121. tice, especiallythosethatare dispersed,in order toshare particular developmenttopicsorthemes. interests canimprove thespread ofideasanddiscourseon free lowesttierofservice); According toKabissa, successful Web 2.0websitesappearto The distinctionbetweenWeb 2.0toolsandWeb2forDev connect easy andfun free touse anonymous clear purpose own andcontrol community to orbuildonother Web 2.0sites; 3 or veryaffordable(usuallytieredpricingwith to joinanduse; (or pseudonymous)use; around thatpurpose; and realutility; 4 their contentandidentity. • Mobile phonescontinuetodevelop as devicestoreceive • The increasing useofRSSfeeds andwidgetsisallowing • There are toolswhichallowyoutofilterandmanipulate • RSS feedsallowcontenttobeautomaticallydistributed enable Social bookmarkingwebsitessuchasDelicious.com • • Web 2.0toolsallowuserstoattributetheirowntagsor development.” about theactiveuseofthesetoolsin is that Web2forDev is and Web2forDev “The distinctionbetween Web 2.0tools integrate them withWeb 2.0platformsandservices. developed tosupporttheiruse, increase theirpotentialand ects beingbuiltaround them.More applicationsare being themselves cando,andnew support structures andproj- and sendinformation–bothin termsofwhatthephones sources. that combinesdatafrom two ormore online external multiple sources. Amash-up isawebpageorapplication users tocreate theirown‘mash-ups’ofonlinedatafrom context. filter newonlinecontentaswelltranslatingandadding such asGlobalVoices usepeople–aswellsoftware –to find relevant information.Somedevelopmentwebsites content from RSSfeeds,using keywords orsearch termsto with others. to improve theirownwebsites,aswellshare theirwork Many developmentwebsitesare utilisingthispowerfultool information, thereby addingvaluetotheoriginalcontent. relevance –orthrough mash-ups–tocombinesources of one place,ormanipulatedeitherusingfilters–toincrease Contentcanbeaggregatedof thewebsitesinturn. into are delivered directly to themwithouttheneedtovisiteach and newcontentfrom multiplewebsitesbecauseupdates phones. RSSfeedsallowuserstoeasilykeeptrackofnews between websites,platformsanddevicessuchasmobile practitioners. ingly developmentcontentisbeingbookmarkedby ing orofrelevance inorder toshare withothers.Increas- people to‘bookmark’webpageswhichtheyfindinterest- popular developmenttagsusedbyothers. known asfolksonomies).There are manycollectionsof system ofbottom-up,collaborativesocialclassification(also keywords toonlinecontent–andcollectivelycreate a in oneplace. relevant information andresources related todevelopment 11

1 THEME SECTION 8 7 58 ‘Democracy walls’ Tips for Trainers PLA Change at hand: Web 2.0 for development 2.0 for Web at hand: Change (this issue) describes, the concept of These spaces were often occupied by a group of often occupied by a group These spaces were 6 Chris Addison There was a tangible sense of excitement about the was a tangible sense There As A democracy wall is a structured open space where people can post their ideas open space where A democracy wall is a structured See: http://blog.web2fordev.net conference, article summarises the final plenary session at the Web2forDev Chris’s “There was a tangible sense of “There the potential for what excitement about with these applications. people can do than just ways more 2.0 tools are Web highly social They are of communicating. tools.” and opinions in a free, focused and concise manner. Participants write their focused and concise manner. and opinions in a free, pool of It generates a written, shared observations on large sheets of paper. on-the- which can be used for further participatory analysis and provides reflections spot feedback during an event, helping to rapidly adjust facilitation to emerging See and changing circumstances. realities online: http://tinyurl.com/c8gkn3 (Rambaldi, 2008). Read free made by the participants. which was based on comments and reflections potential for what people can do with these applications. potential for what people can do with than just ways of communicating. more 2.0 tools are Web help foster new networks highly social tools. They They are how can improve and build communities of practice. They information with one and share we organise, structure 2.0 is not just about laptops and Above all, Web another. was the A striking element of the conference broadband. emphasis on the power of mobile phones. Mobile repeated that is bring- telephony is a global revolution all over the inclusion to people from and more ing more unforeseen. world in ways previously visualised as an image of two hands. can be Web2forDev journalists and other bloggers – writing reports, interviewing journalists and other bloggers – writing reports, learntother participants and sharing what they almost imme- . diately via the Web2forDev 6 7 8 The left hand represents key Web 2.0 tools. The right hand key Web The left hand represents when using them, the issues we need to address represents considering people, access, participation, content, and useful insights based on the partici- impact. Chris provides including issues such as access and pants’ own reflections, and presentations allowed participants to share information, to share allowed participants and presentations began, the conference experiences and ideas. The day before to learna ‘taster day’ allowed many participants about and 2.0 tools, such as wikis, mobile experiment with some Web also were There phones and a host of other applications. A democracy Fair. busy participants’ spaces including a Share with one their reflections wall enabled participants to share another. The conference 5 , this issue). Journalists Brenda Zulu, Brenda Journalists Gnona Ramata Soré, Afangbedji and Noel Kokou the blogging during Tadégnon conference. Web2forDev Giacomo Rambaldi and Prior to the event, the organisers adopted a host of Web The conference itself was unlike any event held at FAO The conference opment approaches? pation and decision-making? tion? and oversight? inequalities?

Participants included ICT specialists, information and communication experts, Anja Barth

2.0 and other ICT tools to create online collaborative spaces. 2.0 and other ICT tools to create able to jointly elaborate the structure The organisers were using tools such as wikis, for the conference and programme applications such as Skype and online discussion groups VoIP ( focused specifically on how Web 2.0 tools could be used to focused specifically on how Web the advantage of Southern development actors, operating in development and natural rural the sectors of agriculture, aimed to address management. The conference resource issues such as: 2.0 applications be integrated with devel- can Web How • partici- How can they facilitate and contribute to people’s • participa- the challenges and barriers to people’s • What are control, factors such as access, equity, • How do we address 2.0 applications challenge fundamental social Can Web • before. It had a vibrant and informal atmosphere. The It had a vibrant and informal atmosphere. before. sessions combined use of plenary discussions, small group The Web2forDev The Web2forDev conference was the first international event of its kind and Web2forDev over 40 coun- from than 300 people together more brought America. and Latin tries in Africa, Europe 5 developers, policy software trainers, application and system providers, researchers, makers, enablers and others working in the agricultural, rural development and management sectors. natural resource Photo: Holly Ashley Holly Photo: 12 THEME SECTION 1 Holly Ashley, JonCorbett, DaveJones, BenGarsideandGiacomoRambaldi Image: Regina Doyle and Andy Smith 9 practice. to formandmaintainanewWeb2forDev communityof on changingthewaysofworkingparticipantsandhelping have helpedtoassesswhatimpacttheconference hashad ence surveys,immediatelyafterandoneyeartheevent, nity ofpractice’(BarthandRambaldi,thisissue).Two confer- a new‘more committed,interlinkedanddedicatedcommu- approaches tousingWeb 2.0needtobeinterdisciplinary. connectivity, the‘scaleofchange’ astoolsdevelop–andhow tion demonstrate,despitethe potentialofWeb2forDev, isstillverylimited.Asthearticles inthiscollec- the Internet In manypartsoftheworld,access tothetechnologiesand Beyond thedigitaldivide: towards goodpractice Read theone-yearpost conference survey results online:http://tinyurl.com/656qyn power intheprocess. selection anduseshouldbebasedonconsiderationsof Web 2.0toolsarelikeanyothersetof–andtheir [to myorganisation]ininvestigatingthesenewtools. evidence tobackuptherecommendationsIputforward Attending theconferencegavemeconfidenceand A keyaimoftheWeb2forDev conference wastofoster 9 As onerespondent wrote, change isathand. these toolsappropriately for you will, isthatthepowertouse associated withit. The analogy, if widely-used keywords or ‘tags’ Web2forDev andsomeofthemore issue represents thetwohandsof The coverimageofthisspecial lives? As what are theyusingthemfor, andhowisthatimproving their issues ofusageandbenefits:whoisusingICTs/Web 2.0tools, of privilegethatmanyare denied.Soweneedtounderstand being abletoparticipateinusingWeb 2.0toolsimpliesalevel actors becauseofthedigitaldivide.There isasensethat tries, Web 2.0toolsare increasing exclusionofSouthern much informationonlineisdominatedbydevelopedcoun- using Web 2.0technologies.Onecouldarguethatbecause ences to‘people’and‘anyone’beingableparticipatein Editorial Board memberscommentedontherepeated refer- 2.0 toolsfordevelopmentpurposes. tools forsmartpeople’–selectingthemostappropriate Web to-face meetings.Zuckermanemphasisestheuseof‘simple more appropriate –from emaildiscussionliststoregular, face- Other, more accessibleformsofcommunicationsmaybe the firstplace,youare stillexcluded(seee.g.Deh,thisissue). without theliteracyskillstoaccessthatinformationonlinein address. targeted servicesare challengeswemustcollectivelyseekto different audiences(bothlanguageandstyle)creating capacity tousethetools,appropriateness ofcontentfor fundamental issuesremain. Access,connectivity, people’s of contentavailableonline(Zuckerman, thisissue).Inthe aggregators willhelpuserstomanagethehugeproliferation and theemergenceoftrusted,expertonlineeditors meaning andcontextisbecomingincreasingly important– several keyways.Filteringonlinecontentforrelevance, connectivity’ (Esterhuysen,thisissue).Thisishappeningin mation –offering usan‘opportunity forbetteruseoflimited time peopleneedtobeonline–and is aparticularlyimportantissue. where accessandconnectivity isbothlimitedandcostly, this do Iwanttohear?Howcanfindthosevoices?Forusers users feelingoverwhelmed.Whatisimportant?Whosevoices net accessisstillmostlylimitedtourbanareas. using Web 2.0toolsincountriessuchasGhana,where Inter- issue) alsodescribessomeoftheseinherent challengesin width activitiesthatweare talkingabout.’ make itverydifficult toparticipateinmanyofthehighband- world isstillsuffering from basicinfrastructure problems that ownership ofthedesign process. ideally bedoneinaparticipatorywayto give theusercommunitiesinputintoand according toa‘needs assessment’withusergroups. Theneedsassessment would 10 Targeted servicesare bundlesoftoolsthatare puttogetherdifferently During theproduction ofthisspecialissue,onethe In fact,Web 2.0toolscanhelpto In addition,thesheervolumeofonlinecontentcanleave 10 Ethan Zuckerman Even withtheuseofe.g.audioandvideoblogs, (this issue)pointsout,‘lotsofthe improve reduce Prince Deh access toinfor- the amountof (this PLA 13

1 THEME SECTION Mary Nakirya and explores the lessons explores can do with them. So it is people Change at hand: Web 2.0 for development 2.0 for Web at hand: Change Ednah Akiiki Karamagi Anriette Esterhuysen For example,

settings than others. and Open Source describe the work of the Busoga Rural BROSDI works Development Initiative (BROSDI) in Uganda. to generate, collect with a network of farmer organisations agricultural prac- local information about effective and share 2.0 tools and more tice. BROSDI integrates a range of Web , mobile phones and – from traditional approaches Forums and Knowledge Sharing digital radio to regular working with Village Knowledge Brokers. People before technology People 2.0 tools and applications for development, When using Web it is important not to become sidetracked by a technology- excitement about the tools drives their driven hype, where usage, rather than what previ- on some of the lessons learnt from important to reflect ous experiences of using information communication tech- nologies for development – and consider the strategies, 2.0 tech- to integrating Web issues and challenges related nologies into development approaches. learnt in the paradigm shift from information communica- learnt in the paradigm shift from tion technologies for development (ICT4D) to Web2forDev. into development thinking ICTs ICT4D helped to mainstream and highlight the scale of the issues of access and connec- ICT4D was ultimately, tivity in the developing world. Yet to the approach driven by technology hype and a narrow of the tools, with ‘too much emphasis on new appropriation technologies, and too little on the need to integrate with other tools and skills, and with development theory and prac- 2.0 tools have enabled many people tice’. In contrast, Web these new technologies ‘on their own terms’ – to explore focus on social mostly because these tools have a stronger and decentralised networking rather than on strategic imple- Author Ednah Akiiki Karamagi Author Ednah contact details with exchanges participant another conference on after her presentation enhancing knowledge-sharing using communities in rural 2.0 tools. Web Photo: Holly Ashley Holly Photo: , this , this issue). Kado Muir and Ory Okolloh Guy Singleton , , this issue). Across the world, the mobile , this issue). Across Jon Corbett Jon As the impacts of this new ‘revolution’ are starting are As the impacts of this new ‘revolution’ 11 One example is the way in which integrated online plat- For example, through improved access to market information, they are helping to market information, they are access improved For example, through Roxanna Samii issue). Particularly in Africa, as the cost of services and hand- increasingly mobile phones are sets continues to reduce, tool for accessing and sharing infor- becoming the preferred mation. The rising popularity of the mobile phone also demonstrates in some appropriate more 2.0 tools are how some Web phone is becoming a more accessible, affordable and accessible, affordable phone is becoming a more convenient means of communication than the Internet and in telecom- of service provision computers. Expanding areas costs and is helping to reduce munications infrastructure access to both mobile phone services and the Inter- improve net (see also The mobile phone revolution The is another growth The rising popularity of mobile telephony the digital divide. In developing that is helping to bridge area innovative uses of mobile making countries, people are bypass ‘the land- phones, enabling them to simultaneously to the Internet’line, the laptop and the need to connect ( same way, the use of websites is helping same way, people where of information, valuable repositories to create helping to signpost bookmarking development content is RSS feeds information for easier access and retrieval. relevant keep track of news and new easily allow users to more multiple websites – and information is also no content from These tools have helped longer confined to its original source. of information and ideas – as well as the spread to increase and producers shifting the balance of power between consumers of information. forms can blend the use of the Internet and mobile phones information (see to send and receive to be assessed, Samii argues that mobile phones have the potential to become the first universally accessible informa- tion communication technology. 11 to reduce transportation and transaction costs and introducing new forms of transportation and transaction costs and introducing to reduce income-generation (Samii, this issue). information.” “These tools have helped to increase “These tools have as of information and ideas – the spread the balance of power well as shifting of and consumers between producers 14 THEME SECTION 1 Holly Ashley, JonCorbett, DaveJones, BenGarsideandGiacomoRambaldi something that weallhavetounderstand.’ the appropriate tools,fortherightjobat righttime,is standing whattheycanoffer. AsZuckermanwrites, ‘using whatthetechnologiescandoas wellasunder- learning factor incapacitybuilding–adopting Web 2.0toolsinvolves inequalities,’ (Esterhuysen,this issue).Thechallengeisto platforms inthecontextofchallengingfundamentalsocial tions. We needtoensure thatwebeginto‘appropriate these to flourish–infrastructure, accessandappropriate applica- that marketforces willprovide thebasicsforWeb 2.0tools ment inourworkwithpeople,informationandtechnology.’ priate, adaptandintegratethesetechnologiesfordevelop- 2009). Esterhuysenarguesthatweneedto‘holisticallyappro- able, technologiesneedtofactorinsocialrealities’ (Garside, into locallanguagesare nottaken intoaccount.‘To besustain- numbers. Contextualfactorssuchastranslationofmaterials cate becauseitisbasedonsimplisticindicatorssuchasuser acceptance. Thesuccessofapilotproject isoftenhard to repli- that workinconjunctiontobuildlocalcapacity, contentand access withoutbuildingcommunityoutreachInternet services acy andlanguage.Pilotprojects oftensupplyequipmentand issues stillremain: access,connectivity, capacity-building,liter- technology supplywithoutfosteringdemand.Clearly, key focused anduser-driven. fromlearning earlymistakesandare becomingmore people- arguably they, alongwith theICT4Dfieldingeneral,are experienced theirfairshare oftechnology-drivenhypeand mentation byorganisations.Web 2.0technologieshavealso In developmentcircles, there isalsotheriskofassuming Many donor-funded projects haveahistoryof focusing on message. sending anSMS Elizabeth Chikusu Maize farmer

Photo: Alex Price activists andcampaign organisers–couldpublish theirown radically altered thewayinwhichanyone –individuals, newswebsites, networkofcitizenjournalism international the widespread useofblogs,Indymedia,avolunteer-run Okolloh; Zuckerman;Kreutz, thisissue).Forexample,before andinstitutionstoaccount(seee.g. help holdgovernments ities, experiencesandperceptions, whichcanalsobeusedto ical activism–helpingtogenerateanoverviewofshared real- promote thespread particularlyinpolit- ofcitizenjournalism, to alertpeoplecauses. appropriating thesetoolsto networkwithoneanotherand friends andfamilyonline.Yet campaigninggroups are also –were created sothatpeople could networkwith global community. Socialnetworks–such asMySpaceand people mightotherwisebeunabletocommunicatethe sharing websitesthatdocumenthumanrightsabuses One exampleispublishingphotoswithcaptionsonphoto- tools havea‘socialcost’toattemptcontrol orprohibit. reluctant toprevent peoplefrom usingthembecausethese vative purposes.Zuckerman’s are viewisthatgovernments for recreational purposes–canalsobeusedformore inno- erman, thisissue).Web 2.0tools–manycreated specifically their ownuseordevisingnewtoolstosatisfyaneed(Zuck- opment havebeenactivists,eitherappropriating thetoolsfor to gainpopularity, there are relatively fewofthem. Yet whiletheuseofbloggingfordevelopmentisbeginning engage abroader publicsphere inthedevelopmentsector.’ social, economicalorpoliticalissueshasthepotentialto Kreutz, ‘thisbottom-upapproach tospeakingoutabout information aboutongoingworkandexperiences.For the formofinterviews,thesevlogshelpmemberstoshare watch onlinewithouthavingtodownloadthem.Usuallyin – containsshortsegmentsofvideocontent,whichyoucan (GINKS). Similartoablog,videoblog–or‘’forshort the GhanaInformationNetworkforKnowledgeSharing blogging forinformation-sharingandadvocacypurposesby access.Dehalsoreflectswith Internet ontheuseofvideo Itisaneasywaytopublishcontentforpeople online journal. one. Ablog(shortfor‘web’and‘log’)isawebsitelikean communication toamore ‘publiclyopenandtransparent’ radical shiftfrom amore traditional,top-downmodeof online ‘conversations’.ForKreutz, bloggingrepresents a parency andaccountability thatWeb 2.0toolscanbringto Proponents ofWeb2forDev pointtotheincreased trans- governance Web 2.0toolsforimproving advocacyand Web 2.0toolsandmobilephonesare alsohelpingto In fact,mostearlyadoptersofWeb 2.0toolsfordevel- 15

1 THEME SECTION Change at hand: Web 2.0 for development 2.0 for Web at hand: Change Increased transparency also presents its own challenges also presents transparency Increased It should be remembered that a tool does not make a It should be remembered activists created the Ushahidi website. Ushahidi (meaning the Ushahidi activists created ‘testimony’ in Swahili) enabled citizens to send in news either via the Internet ‘crowd- or mobile phones. This reports an immediate overview of events, helped to create sourcing’ Ushahidi has of reports. as well as a time-indexed repository its potential for applica- to improve now been redeveloped tion in humanitarian crisis situations – an excellent example 2.0 applica- of a mash-up, which integrates a series of Web tions including e.g. web-based interactive maps that allow specific locations to monitor from users to track reports hotspots of activity. like any other and mobile-based advocacy, campaign. Web- people, planning, time and advocacy campaign, requires Web commitments, and capacity building. Arguably, resource and misinforma- 2.0 tools can also be used for propaganda tion – by activists, corporations and the state alike. Particularly also issues of verifying data are with mass participation, there as Okolloh of information. Yet trusted sources and creating You writes, ‘Information in a crisis is a patchwork of sources. by having as many can only hope to build up a full picture as possible.’ sources Jon Corbett and Tim Corbett and Jon on the panel of Kulchyski a plenary session at the conference. Web2forDev 12 13 (this issue) describes how in Kenya Ory Okolloh Similarly, Similarly, The New Statesman is an award-winning UK current affairs magazine. The affairs UK current The New Statesman is an award-winning See: www.indymedia.org.uk

an innovative website was developed for sharing informa- tion. During the election crisis in 2007, a media blackout unable to access information about meant that citizens were of Kenyan So a group events unfolding on the ground. news online and share information. By providing a news plat- information. By providing news online and share form that allowed anyone with Internet access to instantly without the need to regis- and pictures publish their reports they opened the doors to self-publishing. Then, as now, ter, and often demonised in the press demonstrators were platforms dissenting voices marginalised. Indymedia provided people could collab- alternative voices could be heard, where and reports, news and protest orate in publishing breaking made space for political discussion and discourse. Volunteers use of wikis and online to widespread phones and SMS for gath- and mobile reporting coordinate in citizen jour- ering and distributing news. This revolution nalism earned Indymedia UK the New Statesman New Media for Advocacy 2002. Award 12 13 New Media Awards celebrate UK new media projects that benefit society, celebrate UK new media projects New Media Awards See: www.newstatesman.com/nma governmentdemocracy. or Photo: Guy Singleton Guy Photo: 16 THEME SECTION 1 Holly Ashley, JonCorbett, DaveJones, BenGarsideandGiacomoRambaldi ware development. in manycasestoamuchmore openprocess around soft- they are designed,orwhattheyare designedfor. participate inusingthem,butmostlyhavenocontrol inhow these tools–whichare oftenlessparticipatory. Manycan ipatory usethere isalsotheissueofdesignprocesses for purposes. AndalthoughmanyWeb 2.0toolshaveapartic- and ifnecessarydevelopnewtoolsfordevelopment also oftenunrealistic todesigncompletelynewtools. Given theresources involvedinsoftware development,itis applications, forexampleonlinephoto-sharingplatforms. ment canbemore cost-effective thandevelopingwholenew as Zuckermanargues,appropriating thesetoolsfordevelop- Many Web 2.0toolsare free orlow-cost‘off-the-shelf’ and Developing andadaptingappropriate Web 2.0 tools interests, andtheindividualsorgroups publishinginformation. applies equallytorepressive states,organisationswithvested tially globalonlineaudienceisextremely threatening.’ This (Zuckerman, thisissue).‘Lettingeverybodyspeaktoapoten- integrated intotheoriginalproduct. Inasimilarwaythere ons) whichenablenewfunctionality tobeeasilyaddedor development ofthird partyapplications(plug-ins andadd- ers oftools,software, andplatformsencouragethe stream activityforsoftware developers.Increasingly, publish- an immediateneed.Thisapproach hasnowbecomeamain- hacking andcombiningtoolstoproduce newservicestofulfil the software developmentprocess. ing toproblems andengagingindialoguewithusersover blogs, informingusersofplanneddevelopments,respond- it isnowalmostobligatoryfordeveloperstohavetheirown back from usersthrough emailandonlinediscussionforums, progressive software developershavealwayssolicitedfeed- potential foruserfeedbackandcollaboration.Whilemore ipatory culture insoftware development–withgreater been developedusingOSS. make thempubliclyavailable.ManyWeb 2.0platformshave ment forward: peoplemakeimprovements tosoftware and to rapidlyaddandadaptthesetoolsdrivesdevelop- non-commercial nature ofthesoftware allowsotherpeople common programming interfaces.Theseinterfacesplusthe public domainithasencouragedthedevelopmentof 14 For more informationonOSS seeglossary, p.122(thisissue). The increasing useofopensource software (OSS)hasled However, wemayalsoneedtoconsideradaptingthem Activists were oftenthefirstpeopletostartplayingwith, In fact,Web 2.0hashelpedtofosteranincreasing partic- 14 Because OSScodeisavailableinthe 15 opment. aiming torevitalise culture andenhancecommunitydevel- issue). can editandcontributetotheproject (Zuckerman,this connectionandwhoisliterate anyone whohasanInternet created byliterallyhundreds ofthousandspeople–and multiple different hasbeen languageversionsofWikipedia strates thepowerofwikis.Thecontentgeneratedon isaphenomenonthatclearlydemon- this issue).Wikipedia online resources andmaterials(seee.g.RambaldiBarth, interaction e.g.ondocumentsordevelopingcollectionsof together online.Applicationslikewikiscanfacilitategreater enhanced abilityforpeopletocollaborateandwork One fundamentalbenefitofusingWeb 2.0toolsisthe Learning toshare: collaborative onlinespaces and topositivelyengageyouth insuchactivities. demonstrating thepowerof toolsforadvocacypurposes acclaim, video subsequentlywenton to wininternational which wasthenpublishedon video-sharingwebsites.The worked withagroup ofyouths toproduce ashortvideo video project, where theproject teamandcommunityelders digital tools.Particularlysuccessfulwasaparticipatory elders andyouththrough the useofWeb 2.0andother the generationaldividebetweenAboriginalcommunity how aninnovativeproject sought tofindwayshelpbridge new resource. themselves are addingvaluetoexistingdataandcreating a online maps(seee.g.Okolloh,thisissue).Inway, users example ishowdataabouteventscanbecombinedwith (or necessarilyintended)bytheoriginalpublisher. Agood produce anewsetofdataorservicethatwasnotprovided mash-up isonethatactuallycombinesdatasources to pages, suchasPageflakesoriGoogle. designed specificallyforcreating customisablepersonalstart- . Userscaneitherdothisthemselves,oruseaplatform content from multipleRSSfeeds,beittext,pictures, or mash-up couldbejustcreating apagethatpullsindifferent ‘mash-ups’ ofdatafrom multiplesources. Atitssimplest,a allowinguserstocreateportable ontheInternet, theirown be combinedtocreate newfunctionalities. canalso tional functionalityanddynamiccontent.Widgets tions whichcanbeeasilyaddedtoawebsiteprovide addi- has beenanexplosionin‘widgets’:miniportableapplica- See: www.pageflakes.com andwww.google.co.uk/ig Web 2.0toolscanalsobeparticularlyusefulforprojects Web 2.0toolshavealsomadecontentmuchmore Jon Corbett , Guy Singleton and 15 A more advanced Kado Muir discuss 17

1 THEME SECTION Tim Kulchyski and Jon Corbett Jon Change at hand: Web 2.0 for development 2.0 for Web at hand: Change Building and maintaining vibrant online communities for Building and maintaining vibrant online Increasingly, commercial sectors are using these tools for sectors are commercial Increasingly, experience, allocating adequate resources to maintaining and experience, allocating adequate resources is crucial to updating information on blogging websites in using it. Likewise, interest ensuring the community’s the success of the Ushahidi Okolloh (this issue) compares deployment in the platform in Kenya to its less successful have been for a Democratic Republic of Congo. This may motivation to participate; a lack of public number of reasons: humanitar- of or a reluctance wariness of possible reprisals; crisis information. ian agencies to share time and resources capacity building, development requires the arti- identified throughout are – and these requirements to understand and cles in this collection. One challenge is for development, to contribute to collaborative online spaces above all timely and and holistically generate relevant, share other fundamental issues we are there useful content. Yet of. also need to be aware Intellectual property, privacy and security Intellectual property, 2.0 tools have the potential to As we have seen, Web information online. enhance the ways we interact and share Issues such as who is required. of caution a word However, consid- has access to the information generated need careful eration. It is also important to consider issues of safety in the Is the information being uploaded culturally sensi- process. the implications of making this information tive? What are audience? Who may be put at risk by available to a broader sharing this information? Who is using this information without your knowledge – and for what purposes? brand images. Often, social marketing and to promote people concede their privacy and/or intellectual property without rights over information to online service providers it, for example when content is uploaded to realising data or location-specific websites like Facebook or YouTube on Google Maps. is entered discuss the importance of intellectual property rights when discuss the importance of intellectual property for development. In this new era of 2.0 tools using Web on the Inter- ‘social computing’, information that is shared net is usually publicly accessible. The authors describe a working with Hul’q’umi’num’-speaking communities project “Building and maintaining vibrant “Building and for development online communities and time building, capacity requires resources.” Duncan 17 Members of the interna- 16 describes the development of the Forest Connect describes the development of the Forest Many Web 2.0 websites are established with the best of 2.0 websites are Many Web Because the tools are easy to use and accessible, Web 2.0 use and accessible, Web easy to Because the tools are Online social networking websites are another phenome- websites are Online social networking See www.forestconnect.ning.com. to social networking, social bookmarks and RSS See also our short introductions tional Forest Connect Alliance had expressed a strong demand a strong Connect Alliance had expressed tional Forest prac- information-sharing about state-of-the-art for greater Since its enterprises. tice in small and medium-sized forest an increasing the online social network has attracted creation, addition, the website number of genuinely active members. In and RSS feeds to utilises the power of social bookmarking able to categorise, find enhance the ways in which people are information via the website itself. relevant and share intentions, yet care needs to be taken that they are kept perti- to be taken that they are needs intentions, yet care and moderated. Good intentions and the nent, resourced to in themselves not sufficient low cost of establishment are of the services the long-term upkeep and relevance ensure to blogging, ‘Atten- in relation emphasises As Kreutz offered. need to persevere not guaranteed. You tion and visitors are to find the audience or help the audience find you.’ This is also echoed by Corbett and Kulchyski (this issue). In their tools can quickly fulfil a need, e.g. in response to crises or an tools can quickly fulfil a need, e.g. in response however useful the urgent or clear need for information. But participate in using tools, people still need to be motivated to development agencies, donors, them – whether they are Simply making these community organisations or individuals. – and also need to create tools available is not enough. We The appli- of information-sharing. learn to value – a culture cation of these tools needs to have a clear utility and purpose and demand-driven. For example, that is both appropriate has conference of organising the Web2forDev the process contributed to building a community of practice (Barth and the organisers also faced chal- Rambaldi, this issue). However, new tools, choosing from lenges such as hesitancy to explore available, and the steep learn- 2.0 applications the many Web ing curve involved in testing and adopting them. Macqueen non that development practitioners are recognising as increas- recognising practitioners are non that development a new generation of social networks are ingly useful. Online similar to websites but offer which are community platforms social and tools. An online features specific interactive them to find network brings people together and enables and/or activities and who common interests others who share each other and what about in learning more interested are or enhance create they do. They can be used to target, example, networks or communities of practice. For online social networking website. feeds, Tips for trainers, this issue.. 16 17 18 THEME SECTION 1 Holly Ashley, JonCorbett, DaveJones, BenGarsideandGiacomoRambaldi 20 19 their ownprofile page.SeealsoSocialnetworking,thisissue. permanent archive ofallmaterialuploaded–evenafterdeletedbythememberfrom uploaded bymembers.Inaddition,somewebsites suchasFacebookretain a 18 recall/delete yourdata. terms ofusingyourdataandwhatrightsyouhaveto permission. Findoutwhatrightstheserviceprovider hasin providers retain therighttouseyourmaterialwithout service before joininganonlinenetwork–someservice uploading personalinformation.Alwayscheckthetermsof alwaysbecarefuland aswithanythingontheInternet about that weenteranduploadonoursocialnetworkingwebsites outside oftheHul’q’umi’num’communities. limited accesstotheseimportantculturalresources forpeople was limitedtoregistered usersonly. Inthisway, theproject sharing websites.Inaddition,accesstothecommunity'sblog selected videosegmentswere uploadedonpublicvideo- knowledge withintheirowncommunities.Forexample,only strategically chosetoretain muchoftheirvaluablecultural Here, theauthorsdescribehowproject participants Web materials. 2.0tools–todeveloplanguagelearning a rangeofapproaches –includingparticipatoryvideoand based inCanadatorevitalise theirlanguage.Theproject used party platforms. own serverspacemaybemore appropriate thanusingthird content managementsystem(CMS)thatcanberunonyour securing dataisamajorissue,usingmore sophisticated community, youcannot‘backup’asocialnetwork.Soif online socialnetworkingplatformscancreate avibrantonline what happenstotheirinformation.Andwhilethird party pear –insuchinstances,subscribersare notincontrol of tions andservices,theservicemayalter, malfunctionordisap- there. Inaddition,whensubscribing tothird partyapplica- trust thatinformationyouhaveuploadedonlinewillremain ‘backed up’)somewhere elseoffline –it is notadvisableto tice isthatdigitaldatashouldalwaysbesafelystored (or tries forpromoting criticismofauthorities. states havealsobannedtheuseofFacebookintheircoun- (seee.g.Lee,2007;Mishra,2009).Some without warning shut theaccountsofparticularindividualsoronlinegroups addition, there havebeeninstanceswhere suchservices have imprisoned asaresult ofinformationtheyhavepublished.In – peoplehavebeenblacklisted,losttheirjobsandeven social networksasameansofsurveillanceanddatamining expressed regarding theuseofFacebookandmanyother For more informationaboutCMSseeSocialnetworking, p.112(thisissue). For more discussion,seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook For example,FacebookandYouTube retain therightsto useanyinformation We needtobeclearaboutwhoownstheinformation There isalsotheissueofbackingupyourdata.Bestprac- 20 18 There havealsobeensomeconcerns 19 from thesetoolsandinwhat way?Forexample,whatare at outcomesratherthanjust outputs –whohasbenefited Analytics. and third partywebsitestatisticsproviders suchasGoogle tools (uniquevisitors,number ofdocumentdownloadsetc.) type ofmonitoringthere are arangeofwebsitestatistics to monitoroutputssuchasnumbersofusers?Forthissimple are wetryingtomonitorand evaluate–are weattempting information resource, theimportantquestionhere iswhat niques putinplacetomonitorthe‘success’oftools. ing, aslowintroduction to newtechnologies,andtech- them. Thisinvolvesastrong elementoflocalcapacitybuild- owning thecombinationsoftoolswhichare appropriate for technologies –importantlydrivenbythemdefiningand nities haveastrong, sustainedinterest inICTs andWeb 2.0 mobile textmessageservicesandnewsletters.ALINcommu- access,across-networkers withInternet onlinewebportal, radio anddrama,focalgroups, participatoryvideo,comput- of ICT-based andtraditionaltools,includingcommunity as ‘info-mediaries’–are available,alongwithawiderange needs. Localoutreach volunteers–whobothtrainandact empowers communitiestodrivetheirowninformation nity trustbyinvolvingexistingtraditionalsocialnetworksand (ALIN) withinEastAfrica.TheALINapproach buildscommu- ties isprovided bytheAridLandsInformationNetwork approach toadoptingWeb 2.0toolswithinlocalcommuni- and whattoolsare appropriate inindividualcontexts? projects andprocesses are key. Howdowedecidewhether approaches tointegratingWeb 2.0toolsintodevelopment participate –andwhowillbenefit.Multidisciplinary tools requires acareful considerationofwhocanorcannot ateness ofthesetoolsisfundamental.Implementing Monitoring andevaluatingtheeffectiveness andappropri- Evaluating effectiveness are key.” development projects andprocesses integrating Web 2.0toolsinto benefit. Multidisciplinaryapproaches to cannot participate–andwhowill careful consideration ofwhocanor “Implementing thesetoolsrequires a A more nuanceddefinitionof ‘success’meanslooking In termsofevaluating‘success’aparticulartoolor One exampleofapeople-focused,needs-based 19

1 THEME SECTION Change at hand: Web 2.0 for development 2.0 for Web at hand: Change These frameworks are useful in approaches to useful in approaches These frameworks are 21 We should also not assume that market forces will assume that market forces should also not We In addition, many within the development community may For example see ‘Impact Assessment of ICT-for-Development Projects: A Projects: For example see ‘Impact Assessment of ICT-for-Development 21 Compendium of Approaches’ www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/ Compendium of Approaches’ publications/wp/di/di_wp36.htm assessing outcomes where there is direct physical access to is direct there assessing outcomes where They are 2.0 tools on the ground. communities using Web used by a network of are the tools less useful where users – such geographically dispersed and often anonymous for advocacy as an NGO using an interactive website activ- the automated tracking, participatory purposes. Here aids to infer- are ity monitoring, and survey tools mentioned ring outcomes and development impacts. Ways forward Ways develop- to implementing The most successful approaches those that become self-sustaining – are ment programmes on donor funding to become a reliance shifting away from demand-driven. This would apply equally to initiatives using 2009). As the articles in this collec- 2.0 tools (Garside, Web tion demonstrate, this can happen if the services that these as rele- perceived are and tools offer 2.0 applications Web important and up-to-date information in vant, that they offer low-cost and a way that builds on technologies that are in use (such as mobile phones), and if the impacts already and evaluated for effectiveness. monitored are the basis for supporting the development and infra- provide 2.0 for development. Privately-run Web for Web structure But we cannot assume 2.0 services may become profitable. is a need. So there that these services will extend to wherever it is still vitally important for donors to continue to support the implementation of services beyond using simplistic indi- cators such as profitability. 2.0 tools. In the broader field of ICT for development there 2.0 tools. In the broader particularly in meas- some useful frameworks emerging, are on pilot commu- ICTs of newly introduced uring the effects nities. “The most successful approaches to approaches “The most successful development programmes implementing self-sustaining – those that become are on donor a reliance from shifting away This funding to become demand-driven. using would apply equally to initiatives 2.0 tools.” Web The reality is that because Web 2.0 is relatively new and 2.0 is relatively is that because Web The reality When it comes to more anonymous and widely When it comes to more Practical techniques to perform mapping have been Practical techniques to perform mapping One promising approach that has been used within local approach One promising impact is difficult to infer from the mere existence of infor- the mere to infer from impact is difficult formal mation networks, we have not developed mature mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the impacts of Web dispersed social networks with hundreds, possibly thousands dispersed social networks with hundreds, challenging. of users, measuring outcomes is extremely evaluation needs to at the very least infer direct However, involvement (e.g. leaving comments) or else how the tagged, bookmarked, linked website content is repurposed, down the line. This helps to to, mashed-up and shared a website and socially relevant demonstrate how interesting to users of the network. A variety of and its information are user surveys, to harvesting information from approaches data, and webpage visitor patterns can be user profile from information about the network users and used to gain more 2.0 tools many Web their changing behaviours. Additionally, and rank popu- the ability to order and platforms provide instances of use or the number of times items or pages larity, linked to. are pioneered by organisations such as the Consultative Group by organisations such pioneered are (CGIAR). And there on International Agricultural Research that can be used, a host of non-ICT workshop-based activities 2007). This makes (Schiffer, such as the Net-map Toolbox practi- social network mapping accessible to development have been mapped, tioners. Once the local social networks to these social we can better understand how changes 2.0 tools (such as SMS when new Web effected networks are introduced. and web-based market pricing systems) are communities to understanding outcome changes is to use communities to understanding outcome a provide These tools to analyse social network structures. flows. Within for a ‘knowledge map’ of information proxy social these business relationships, communities and across distribution networks. They are act as information structures Mapping them provides of new knowledge. a trusted source 2.0 tools in a socio-culturally Web a guide for introducing who a template to better measure as well as sensitive way, benefits uses the technologies and whether development it. arise from the outcomes of introducing new Web 2.0 market pricing new Web the outcomes of introducing understand this community? To tools in a local farming have knowledge of our existing (non- better it is useful to membership as a baseline reference 2.0) social network Web of techniques to monitor change in and applying a range then can be implic- outcomes (e.g. behavioural change) that itly linked to development impacts. 20 THEME SECTION 1 Holly Ashley, JonCorbett, DaveJones, BenGarsideandGiacomoRambaldi robust monitoringandevaluationtechniques. as wellcomputerscientiststodevelopbetterandmore groups ofpractitionersthatincludesocialscientists,economists, opment work.Thismeansbringingtogethermultidisciplinary practice ifthesetoolsare tobebettermainstreamed intodevel- to demonstratethebenefitsandidentifybothbestworst academic evaluationofsuchfindings.’Furtherworkisneeded Web 2.0usagewithinthecommunity, andthecomparative evidence tosupportwhattheyseeastheimpactofICTand is agapbetweenwhatcommunitymembersconsidervalid change.AsCorbett,SingletonandMuirwrite,‘Thereto harness still needfurtherconvincingaboutthepowerofWeb 2.0tools [email protected]. Email: [email protected] The Netherlands Wageningen Cooperation EU-ACP(CTA) Technical Centre forAgriculturalandRural Giacomo Rambaldi Email: [email protected] UK London, WC1H0DD 3 EndsleighStreet, Development (IIED) InstituteforEnvironmentInternational and Sustainable MarketsGroup Ben Garside Email: [email protected] Independent mediaconsultant Dave Jones Email: [email protected] Canada University ofBritishColumbiaOkanagan Community Culture andGlobalStudies Jon Corbett Email: [email protected] UK London, WC1H0DD 3 EndsleighStreet Development (IIED) InstituteforEnvironmentInternational and LearningandAction Participatory Holly Ashley CONTACT DETAILS series Web2fordev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/oecdWeb2 social networking and User-Created Content:Web 2.0,wikisand Vickery, G.andWunch-Vincent, S.(2007) Brighton presented toDSAAnnualConference 2007, Studies: Towards Development2.0.’Paper Thompson M.(2007)‘ICTandDevelopment See: http://netmap.wordpress.com Food PolicyResearchInternational Institute. mapping ofsocialnetworks. Schiffer, E.(2007) facebook-on-digiactive DigiActive.org. See:http://tinyurl.com/ hackers.’ Blogarticle,17thApril2009. Activism: walledgardens, serialactivistsand Mishra, G.(2009)‘ThePerilsofFacebook (1.6 MB) www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-ict-web.pdf rural areas Web:Participatory NewpotentialsofICTin Matthess, A.andKreutz, C.(2008) buzzwords_faceb.html www.ericlee.info/2007/11/bandwagons_and_ Buzzwords.’ EricLeeblog.Online: Lee, E.(2007)‘Laborstart:Bandwagonsand http://wiki.kabissa.org/web_2.0/start Attribution-Share Alike3.0License.Online: licensed underaCreative Commons Lindenberg Center. is ThecontentofthisWiki Civil Society.’ Areport prepared fortheMarc Kabissa wiki(Ongoing)‘Web 2.0in African http://tinyurl.com/IIED-ICTbriefing Briefing Papers.IIED:London.Online: inclusive informationtechnologies Garside, B.(2009). REFERENCES . GTZ:Germany. Online: . OECD.Online: Net-map Toolbox: Influence Village voice:towards and waysforward. potential aswellcriticalreflections onthechallenges collection ofarticleswilldemonstrateboththewider spread withindevelopmentcircles –butwehopethatthis the useofWeb 2.0toolsfordevelopmentisnotyetwide- ence are more mature thanothers.Whatisclearthat tice, lessonsare Someareas stillbeinglearnt. ofexperi- new. Aswithanynewandemergingcommunityofprac- using Web 2.0toolsfordevelopmentare stillrelatively apparent isthat formanyofthem,theirexperiences to create thiscollectionofarticles,whathasbecome CGIAR/ In fact,from ourexperienceinworkingwithauthors . IIED The Web