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