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

[Anthere]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> 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.

Hello

How having servers in Africa would help the goal ?

Ant


> 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