After hosting this crowdsourcing site for a little more than three months, Jonathan and I have decided to shut down the experiment. The paper has been accepted at M4D 2010 in Uganda, so we want to stabilize the data and take this chance to provide some brief reflections on the experience.

We began this small research project curious about what we feel is the next stage in connectivity for the developing world: prepaid mobile Internet. Business models, amongst other subtle factors, will have influential roles in how this next stage unfolds. In exploring the availability of prepaid mobile Internet, we discovered that the African landscape is mottled, with different operators in different countries at various stages of offering the mobile Internet. But given the nature of the desk survey we conducted, we were unable to conclusively determine the offerings in every country, so we decided to open up the data collection to outsiders. The experience was a mixed one, but here are some thoughts:

Make Sure the Technology Fits the Project

Although we initially planned to use a publicly editable Google Map, we quickly switched to an Ushahidi instance because it was designed for mapping crowdsourced data. We found, though, that the initial purpose of a project may make it less flexible than two researchers with limited coding capability may hope. Ushahidi is great for mapping crises information, but that means its categorization and language used may make collecting information on mobile phone plans a bit confusing. For example, as is appropriate and understandable for crisis mapping, but confusing for our needs, is the hard-coded language of “Report an Incident” on Ushahidi. This slight barrier may make people less likely to participate.

The Importance of Personal Networks

During this experiment, we uncovered some great insights from individuals – far more nuanced than the simple “yes mobile Internet is prepay here” that we initially sought. In particular, the complicated nature of Africa mobile Internet was explained by Linda Raftree from her personal experience. Katrin Verclas, of Mobile Active, provided the initial introduction, but via email, not the platform we expected. These types of personal, pre-existing contacts are likely to be very helpful for efforts like this.

Unclear Nature of Selection Bias

Researchers take great pains to make sure they study replicable and fairly sampled groups. Because we were using personal networks and open crowdsourcing, we had to consider what, if any, bias this exploratory study had. Using the convenience of these tools, are there data being systematically excluded? Given that we had a well-defined population (African mobile network operators), this was less of a problem, but for researchers navigating new methodologies, it is worth considering. More specifically, Jonathan and I operated within the English-language blog and Twitter networks; did we miss Francophone Africa through crowdsourcing?

Summary

Putting the experience together, we might propose that crowdsourcing success is a function of (a) the ease of the task, (b) distribution of knowledge, (c) accessibility of the population with knowledge, (d) the willingness and capacity of researchers to drive the message and effort. If any of these fall short, the critical mass may never be reached.

Update – We are crowdsourcing the data on a website here.

Mobile Internet is going global and the newest chapter is taking place in developing countries. In order to better understand the paths towards widespread adoption of mobile Internet, Jonathan Donner and I have written a brief note on the availability of prepaid mobile Internet in Africa. Because prepaid models are more appropriate for poorer consumers, we argue that the availability of prepaid mobile data will be a key driver of inclusive mobile Internet usage.

Starting in late 2009, we collected data on the availability of prepaid mobile data in all 53 African countries. Unfortunately, without the budget to travel the continent, we have been unable to conclusively determine the presence of this form of connectivity in every country. So, we’re asking you to help build the database of prepaid mobile data in Africa.

Available here (in PDF) is a draft version of our paper where you can get a sense of our project.

For the crowdsourcing, we’ve created an editable Google Map with entries for each country. Green indicates existing knowledge that prepaid data is offered by at least one provider. Yellow means we have been unable to determine the presence of prepaid mobile data. And Red suggests confidence that it is not available in that country (though if you know otherwise, please do correct us!).

If you know for certain that prepaid data is available for mobile phones from at least one network provider in one of the countries marked Yellow, you can either get in touch directly or login with a Google account to the African Prepaid Mobile Data map and, in the upper right of the left-hand sidebar, click “Edit” to create your citation (the more supporting evidence, including links or your name/affiliation, the better).

This is a small-scale experiment in crowdsourcing data for use in an academic paper, so we’re not sure how much detail we will be able to gather, or what end-state the map will be, but we’re grateful for your help. Thanks!

]]> http://blurringborders.com/2010/06/22/prepaid-african-data/feed/ 2 http://blurringborders.com/2010/03/24/in-order-to-splinter-mustnt-the-net-have-been-unified/ http://blurringborders.com/2010/03/24/in-order-to-splinter-mustnt-the-net-have-been-unified/#comments Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:34:52 +0000 kevindonovan http://blurringborders.com/?p=770 The Google/China back-and-forth that has played across the media for the past few months has raised the specter of a fragmenting Internet, catchily known as the “splinternet.” The fear, raised in various forms, is that proprietary networks and devices, in addition to censorship and corporate withdrawal from certain nations, are fracturing the unified, standardized Internet that made it such a promising medium for international communication. To add to these fears, exacerbated by the withdrawal of Google from China, GoDaddy has just announced that it will no longer register domains in China due to onerous regulations. This has many arguing that China’s Internet will be a separate entity from the rest of the world.

But was the Internet ever all that unified? Or was it merely a potential, a hope?

The potential to speak, or even the potential to link, does not mean that potential is met. This may seem like an obvious point, but it is often missed in the rhetoric surrounding the transformational effect of the Internet.

The barriers to a unified Internet are far more numerable – and long-standing – than proprietary code or government censorship (though these certainly do have an impact). For one, language is a significant barrier to communicating on an international medium. More fundamentally (and less cured by technological advancement), most people lack either the time or interest to meet the potential of a unified Internet. Even more, as UCT Professor Marion Walton notes, the billions of people excluded from the Internet due to poverty have never been connected to even the hope of a unified Internet.

It is important to be aware and attempt to counteract new divisions between the communicative capacity of humans – among which are censorship and technical incompatibility – but valuing interconnectedness requires a far broader view than most pundits have right now.

Since the 1990s, television has been the censors’ Achilles heel. Thousands of Cubans, mostly in Havana, watch Spanish-language telecasts from Miami. U.S. State Department officials estimate that 10,000 to 15,000 parabolic antennas are in use in Cuba.

Will two-way communications empower more than TV broadcasts? Or will traditional power structures bring about changes in Cuba?

–

Lots of good statistics about Internet usage in China.

–

Another piece on the trade vs. aid debate, but with a heavier focus on African entrepreneurship. [For more information, see infoDev's page on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, including this report on the SME Financing Gap.]

Cyberspace has clearly become one of the liveliest public forums in China, despite the efforts by the Chinese government to control online access and content. China’s netizens have become more skillful and assertive in utilizing the Internet to voice their opinions and, occasionally, force the Chinese government to become more responsive.  But the Internet has also allowed more nationalist and radical views to contend for influence and sway public opinion.  How is online public opinion changing Chinese society? Will the new freedoms found in the virtual world lead to greater political participation or help fuel resurgent nationalism? How is the Chinese government responding to online activism?

I was able to attend it and greatly enjoyed the event. Rebecca’s slides and my notes from the event are below. I embedded them with Scribd because the formatting was funky.

RMack Speech Notes

Update: Here is the link to the video of Rebecca’s speech.

Also, here’s the paper I wrote last semester about the role of American Internet companies operating in China. Rebecca’s work was instrumental in my research.
Freedom Fighters – The Role of Internet Corporations in Promoting Digital Freedoms by Kevin Donovan [Updated]

First, let’s take a look at the Wall Street Journal, who I’ve criticized in the past for confusing the issue at hand. Their article on McCain’s policy lacks real balance and is essentially just rephrasing his policy without substantive critiques. But when you read technology experts, it is clear that they think McCain is woefully incorrect.

David Weinberger, one of the smartest philosophers on the meaning of the Internet, compiles a list of words you won’t find in McCain’s policy. He points out that McCain sees the Internet as a broadcast medium, not an interactive communicative tool.

Harvard computer science professor Harry Lewis says of the policy, “It’s mostly vague, aspirational statements, many of which are in flat contradiction with each other.”

Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist, has been a driving force behind making the net what it is today. He says in reaction to McCain’s positions, “Obama embraces the Internet as a means of cleaning Washington up, but McCain/Bush sees it as a threat which might make them accountable.”

Harold Feld, the tech policy wonk, calls the policy “a joke.”

David Isenberg, a Berkman fellow, says “to McCain, the Internet is yet another technology by which America can compete against the world.”

Former FCC Chairman, Reed Hundt, lists numerous problems.

Wharton Professor Kevin Werbach calls it a “non-plan.”

OneWebDay organizer and ICANN member, Susan Crawford, notes “This isn’t vision.  It’s more like a wistful memoir about times gone by.”

The list goes on, but it is important to note that these are the people who understand the Internet better than anyone. Many of them have been fundamentally involved in the development of the Internet. They are on the front lines, so to speak, and McCain is admittedly nowhere near them in expertise. If technology and innovation is something important to you, then the choice seems clear in November.

Update: Lessig weighs in via video.