My World

We are living in a time where the phenomenon exists of the digital divide. The fact that not everyone has access to and is not benefiting from digital technologies creates problems in the face of globalization. Therefore, solutions have to be thought of to narrow the gap between the people who have access to new technologies and those who have not. IGADD, the Investor Group against Digital Divide, collaborates with governments to share costs and risks of bringing broadband to everyone. This is an important initiative, which recognizes that action has to be taken now, before it’s too late.

So here’s what the world looks like today in terms of world internet penetration rates. As of December 2007, 71.1% of North America is connected to the internet, with Oceania/Australia coming in second with 57.1% and Europe third with 43.4%. On the opposite end there’s the Middle East with 17.4%, Asia with 13.7% and Africa with a mere 4.7%[1]. These are huge differences that not only show how big the digital divide is, but also that we have a lot of work to do!

So why is it important that we do something? First and foremost, globally we are driven by new technologies. Almost everything we do today is related somehow to the internet. We are being informed online about issues on our economy, legislation, and events across the world. Many of us are being educated online, and communicate online daily with clients, vendors, customers, colleagues, peers, friends, and family. Then there’s e-commerce, too, that plays a large part in our lives. Our world is getting smaller through new technologies, and if you’re not participating in this, you’re basically left out.

Luckily, statistics show that over the last several years, internet penetration has seen a large increase, even in the areas where penetration is low. In fact, of the three regions where penetration is the lowest, two of them show the largest growth globally; Africa with 882.7% and the Middle East with 920.2%! However, considering that these rates reflect the growth between 2000 and 2007, and that the penetration rates mentioned earlier reflect the situation as of December 2007, it still means that we are nowhere close to being done.

IGADD found that the digital divide is widening, rather than narrowing. So even if some regions in the world show an incredible growth with regard to access to the internet, if it’s widening it means that other regions have a continuous growth, as well, and it is hard to keep up with this growth for those places where internet is still scarce. Speaking of scarcity, IGADD believes that the best staging ground for the innovations needed to close the digital divide is in Indonesia, the fourth largest country in the world. It, for some reason, was excluded in Asia from the surge in technology, but actually has great potential due to its democratic society, its openness to foreign investment, and its source of intergovernmental investors that can help generate subsidies[2]. In Indonesia they plan to close the digital divide through a model that formulates business models, policies, and the like, needed to achieve a reduction of preexisting pricing structures and to commercialize a new line of products geared to low-income consumers in emerging markets.  With this, investors are shown how to get a good return on their investments supporting ICT’s that serve the poor, and how alliances between them and governments and NGO’s benefit poverty-alleviation and market development agendas. This model was implemented in Thailand, which proved very successful and later led to other project including One Laptop per Child.

The digital divide is a problem, but luckily governments collaborate with investors and NGO’s to jointly work on this. Though it may take years for the effects to show, it is important that we do something now. Globalization affects everyone, and no one should be left out.

After hearing so much about VoIP, I decided to take a closer look and see what it would cost me.

Vonage offers some different plans, from basic ($14.99 a month) to unlimited ($24.99 a month). Given that I would only get Vonage to call to Europe (after all, I have free minutes already to call anywhere within the U.S.), I looked more closely at the unlimited plan, as it was the only residential plan that mentioned international calling. Apparently, with this plan you already get free minutes to certain European countries such as the U.K. and France. Unfortunately, the Netherlands and Germany aren’t included, which are the two countries I would call the most. So, I would have to get an add-on package if I want this to be an affordable option for me. They have five different international calling plans with a cost varying from $6 a month to $15 a month, depending on which countries you would want included in your plan. For the Netherlands and Germany the Basic World Plan of $6 a month would suffice, so the total monthly cost (before taxes, fees, etc.) would be $30.99. The first month is more expensive, however, with some additional fees you’d have to pay, such as activation fees, shipping and handling, and the adaptor to make it all work (although you’re not forced to purchase this through them directly). With Vonage you are able to keep your current number (provided you have one, of course), but you are also able to choose any available area code within the U.S.

Speakeasy works in a similar way, but is much more expensive (could that be why I hadn’t heard of it before?). Or, that was my first thought. They actually offer plans that include broadband service, so even though a price of $83.90 a month might scare you away, you have to realize that you will no longer have your current monthly fee through your broadband provider – this will now go through speakeasy. They also offer plans of VoIP in combination with DSL or cable, which are a little bit cheaper, BUT these don’t include the “worldwide free calling” (which is free to 22 countries really…). I wondered what you could do if you didn’t want broadband, DSL, or cable through them. Apparently, you can also get a “simple” VoIP line that cost about $34 a month. Unfortunately they don’t advertise this very well, so I couldn’t find too many details on it. I guess they just want you to sign up for the broadband, as well! Just like Vonage, speakeasy also lets you keep your current number, if you so choose.

There is still something about VoIP that makes me hesitant about signing up. I worry that there are some hidden fees that they don’t tell you about unless you happen to ask the right questions. With Vonage that worry isn’t that prevalent, since it seems like they have a lot of information on their website. But, on speakeasy.com this isn’t the case. Maybe excluding information isn’t intentional on their part, but it seems odd that we are so used to finding everything on the internet and then coming across this site that doesn’t follow this standard. I just want to know what I’m getting myself into… without any BS. Doesn’t seem possible yet…

Most websites have some sort of interactive component in their design that allows and encourages readers to do an activity with the news they read. It has become clear to me, however, that we’re nowhere near where I think we should be with regard to consistency throughout news organizations. This is especially true when you consider that the consumer has become more demanding in quality.

That being said, I feel that the Knoxville News-Sentinel was by far the best website among the six I looked at. This had mostly to do with the design, easy navigation, and the professional look I was hoping to find. I’m not a big fan of typical gossip papers or magazines, so that ruled out a couple of websites that had a gossipy feel to it and had very busy looking imagery. My senses like being tickled, but on some of these sites there was a big, BIG sensory overload.

I was happy to see that all sites had RSS feeds. Though very basic, given other options that are out there, at least it’s something. My suggestion for all online newspapers is to look at your competition. Having a large subscriber base no longer has to do with just news quality, but also with other aspects (i.e. your WEBSITE!). So please, look around, and find out what your target audience is interested in. I don’t believe for one second that an online paper is only interested in having high school students as its audience, but their site would certainly suggest that…

According to the National Delegate Summary report on the Seattle Times’ website on February 26, 2008, Obama is in the lead to represent the Democratic Party in the next election, and McCain for the Republican Party. As such, I thought it would be interesting to see their different approaches in using their website in communicating their position on issues.

Looking first at Obama’s website, the opening page immediately caught my attention; it showed Obama with his family in what clearly reflects family values. The page is headlined “Change we can believe in,” and has two fields information can be entered, along with a “LEARN MORE” button. It seems as if many people would easily enter their information in there, because none of it is too personal, and it takes little time. However, by saying you want to “learn more,” you’re actually joining Obama’s movement. Only by going to a small blue button on the bottom of the page, which is well disguised due to the page’s blue body color, can you get around this.

McCain has a similar opening page, but with slight differences. Whereas Obama used the Democratic blue color in its body, McCain did not use the Republican red color. This may not seem like a big deal, but in a race to become the next United States’ President, it would be helpful to do as much as you can to create an identity. Another big difference is in that what grabs your attention first on the opening page. Whereas on Obama’s site the focus is on joining his movement, on McCain’s website the focus appears to be to “Donate Today.”  

Both websites are well organized; all the major topics can be found at the top and bottom of the page that allows for quick navigation through the sites. McCain’s website looks very “military,” due to its dark colors, use of stars throughout the site, and a picture of a jet placed prominently on the home page. The words “Ready to Lead on Day One” therefore seems to be in reference to the Iraq war, though it’s not clear what McCain’s viewpoint is on that issue until you reach the “On the Issues” page. This page briefly outlines his standpoint on every major issue, such as taxes, healthcare, government spending, immigration, and national security. Obama’s website has such a page as well, but not only addresses the problems we are dealing with, but also our values on family and faith.

Both websites also allow for citizen interaction. McCain’s site offers “McCainSpace” in which you can connect to other supporters. Though it’s great for people to have this option, those of us who don’t want to be forced to sign up and give out our information (and thereby being added to the mailing list) will not like this feature, as you can’t openly browse through the space to see what it’s all about. From a campaign standpoint this, of course, is great for luring in new supporters. It, then, comes as no surprise that Obama uses this sign up requirement as well.  However, you are able on this site to view members’ blogs without doing so, which enables more people, especially the undecided, to access and view opinions.

Speaking of target groups, McCain’s website has a special section for those who are undecided. There are also two other groups of people who get special attention; veterans and women. On Obama’s website, however, there’s a section for women and veterans, but also for students, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, African Americans, Americans abroad, Environmentalists, kids, Latinos, people of faith, and so on. Addressing so many people on a website makes you feel acknowledged and important. It seems, therefore, that Barack Obama wants to address issues that affect everyone, and not just limited groups.

Because I am a permanent resident, and therefore cannot vote this election, I haven’t looked specifically at the issues that each candidate present, but have purely looked at the content and marketing to the people in the United States. Though some similarities can be detected, it will likely be the differences that will affect the outcome of this election. Which website will prove more effective? 

The second pair of websites I analyzed were very similar. I would say the best website so far is the Knoxville News-Sentinel, just because it offers everything I expect from an online newspaper. It was easy to navigate, the links were where you’d expect them, loading pages didn’t take too long, and it offered quite a bit of interactivity. What made this site stand out more was the fact that the other sites just weren’t as good; some were slow, others had links that didn’t work and actually required me to manually manipulate the URL to get to my destination, and the worst one so far, the Albuquerque Journal, wasn’t even able to play video without forcing me to install yet another player on my computer.

What blows me away when looking at these websites critically is that some of these newspapers apparently have no clue how hard it is to navigate through their site. I had one site where I had to actually scroll down to get to the different news sections – classifieds were the first visible links on the home page. How many people actually go to a newspaper without looking at the news first? It seems as if their priorities were a little “different.”

It is amazing to me how different the two websites are that I analyzed. The first one, the Albuquerque Journal, is horrible; slow to load, all over the place, chaotic… It gave me a feeling like I wanted to exit the site as soon as I could. I also had trouble viewing the videos, as I apparently didn’t have the “right” player installed on my computer – how peculiar!

 The second one, however, which was the Journal News, was much better. It was very well organized, and their use of colors was much more pleasant. It did surprise me that they only had four RSS feeds, and that it didn’t have a designated election page.

Internet technology is seen as a very positive technology, but there are actually also some negative aspects that aren’t talked about very much. In my role of a discussion leader this week I pointed to some of these negatives.

First of all, there is an inequality between people, because not every one has internet access, and even if they do, they don’t all have the same amounts of time available, or the intellectual capital to make rational decisions.

Secondly, the issue of transparency comes up. Many of us feel that there should be no secrets, especially when it’s related to our government and community. However, there is a danger of having uncontrolled information, as well. Not everything should be made public, simply because it doesn’t help the greater good. And of course there is also the issue of information overload.

There are plenty of negatives of internet technology in political campaigns, and the future will tell how we deal with those. In my personal opinion, I think the internet greatly helps in enabling people to participate in a democracy. But not every technology is the right one for everyone, so we should leave everyone a choice.

This article “Digital Preservation” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation) talks about the preservation of digital information over time, as it is in danger of being lost, creating a digital Dark Age. There are 89 contributors to this article, from the origination date of January 17, 2005 to February 9, 2008. This article seemed to be of interest in light of the increasing volume of digital information all over the world, and the great worry that we’ll end up in a digital Dark Age. 

Browsing through the history of the article, I started looking more closely at those users that had provided more than one entry on the article. Most of them actually don’t have their own user page, so it’s hard to make a fair judgment about their credentials and level of knowledge. Others appear to be “bots” which Wikipedia explains to be “automated or semi-automated account[s] for making repetitive edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually.” This would make me assume that these edits aren’t about the content necessarily, but more on code and rules regarding copyright, proper citations, etc.  There were also some contributors whose credentials appear legitimate; one author teaches at Virginia Tech on internet and information policy in a political science department. Another author is a professor at Harding University in Arkansas, whose scholarly interests are directly related to the topic of digital preservation (i.e. digital libraries, search engines). Based on these facts I would say that the article appears to be credible. This credibility is also supported by the different references that are provided; several scholarly articles, journals, University libraries, and even a report from the Commission on Preservation and Access and the Research Libraries Group, whose contributors come from Yale University, the University of Michigan, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, and IBM. There are also a few articles by Jeff Rothenberg referenced, who is a senior research scientist at RAND Corporation, a non-profit organization that offers research and analysis for goernments, and is known for its ”rigorous, often-quantitative, and non-partisan analysis and policy recommendations.” Despite this, the topic seems a bit controversial, given the small discussion about the “proposed merger of digital obsolescence with digital preservation.”

The article “The KB e-Depot digital archiving policy” also addresses digital preservation, but focuses on the policy and ambitions of the digital archiving of electronic documents at the Koninklijke Bibiotheek, KB, which is the National Library of the Netherlands. The difference between this article, and that of Wikipedia, is that Wikipedia addresses the concept of digital preservation, whereas “The KB e-Depot digital archiving policy” looks at a specific way of digitally preserving documents. The latter, therefore, presents objective data surrounding the KB; why it was created, how it works, and what drives the content of the e-Depot. Wikipedia, on the other hand, writes about the necessity in general, and gives several examples. Of course the main difference between the two articles is that “The KB e-Depot digital archiving policy” is written by two people who have done extensive research about the topic, whereas on Wikipedia anyone can add content, even those who don’t really know too much about the topic.

Neither of the two articles seems more or less credible than the other. In fact, I would say they both seem to come from reliable sources because of number and type of references used. Personally, I still have some hesitation in using articles from Wikipedia in a paper or essay, because it has a reputation of being less trustworthy. But, by looking at such an article more closely (i.e. sources and references) you will be able to tell whether the content is biased or based on objective data. By developing your critical judgment skills, you are able to avoid information overload, thus be a better digital consumer.

References

Digital Preservation,(2005), Wikipedia Retrieved on February 12, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation.

User: SmackBot (2005), Wikipedia, Retrieved on February 14, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SmackBot.

RAND (2003). Wikipedia. Retrieved on February 14, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND.

Erik Oltmans,  Hilde van Wijngaarden. (2006). The KB e-Depot digital archiving policy. Library Hi Tech, 24(4), 604.  Retrieved February 13, 2008, from ProQuest Database. (Document ID: 1168375171).

Technology and society have a very interesting relationship; society has created the technologies because there was a need for change, but at the same time technologies force a way of living upon society.

Look back at the Roman era, for example, where there was a daily newspaper (Acta Diurna), but it wasn’t distributed to everyone. Mostly, in Rome, it was hung in a public place where people would gather and read it, or get it read to them. All across the empire, that news wouldn’t arrive until days or weeks later, because it took a while to distribute. Then distribution became much easier as transportation improved, and cost went down, and more and more people had the opportunity to be kept up to date with current events. Today, the distribution of news only takes a second when it gets published online, and everyone with a computer and internet access can read it.

All these changes, however, also changed people’s attitudes and expectations. Whereas before people were grateful to have access to news, today we have the expectation to be kept up to date. Not only that, we expect to receive the news when we want and need it. So society has become more demanding, of itself, and of its technologies.

What could this mean for the future? More access, faster access, and a lot of it on demand. We will create our own news outlets, and pick and choose what we’re interested in. Personally, I think there is a great danger in that, as there will be a lot of news that we used to have a little bit of exposure to, and if that changes, we will just ignore its existence, and perhaps also a little piece of society.

For many authors, musicians, or other artists it can be very difficult and frustrating to be successful at what they do, simply because the market is saturated with similar products that it becomes hard for them to stand out. There are just too many products that stores can’t carry, so your success depends on a manager’s opinion whether your piece of work is worth shelf space.

With Long Tails this has changed, as they enable unlimited products in a “store.” It may still be difficult to get noticed because of the large competition, but if people search for certain keywords and your book or album meets those search criteria, then you may even have more chance at popping up on top of that search results list, as opposed to being pushed in a corner. This means that your odds of “breaking through” have increased dramatically, and all this because of a new technology!

Of course those odds are worthless if your product is .