Talk:Information and communication technologies for development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

abhishek singh (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge with UN ICT Task Force[edit]

These are the same thing, right? - Nabla 22:30:24, 2005-07-12 (UTC)

!?!?!? Is Physics the same as Albert Einstein? The UN ICT Task Force is a group of people - not even an organism, I dare say - whose aim is fostering ICT4D, which a policy. Two very different things, IMHO. ICTlogist 11:43 2005-07-25

ICT4D Platform is part of WSIS. Most other ICT4D programs are carried out by corporations, NGOs, and UN agencies not directly involved with the task force (UNDP, UNESCO, MDG Project). The UN ICT Task Force has no development programs of its own, and is there primarily for information sharing. User: Edward Cherlin 16:29 2005-08-09 (UTC)

Don't Merge ICT4D is a type of development work, done by IDRC and DFID among others. --tranquileye 11:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

So, I'll remove the merging proposal, ok? Too long since this thing started and this is sort of a stalemate not worth keeping it longer :) ICTlogist 10:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Even though the two are related, they are not the same. The UN ICT Task Force is a time-limited grouping of people to advance the issues surrounding ICT for Development. Thus, they should be kept related, but separate. -- phellmon 03:23, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't even understand how this entire debate of merging arose. For International Development Agencies, ICT4D is considered a sector for development assistance programming - much like electoral reforms for governance, or microfinance for proverty reduction. The UN ICT Task Force is simply that - a group of people who make policy advisory recommendations, often in the sector of ICT4D among other sectors such as Internet Governance. Merging the two would be like saying lets rename Internet Govenance to ICANN. -- Dhakaite 09:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly discourage the idea of merging. As dhakaite wrote, ict4d is a sector of international development activity, not a specific bureaucratic organization. In the same way you wouldn't merge the issue of Hunger into the World Food Program or Nuclear Proliferation into the IAEA, it makes no sense to merge ict4d into the taskforce - particularly since the taskforce no longer exists yet the sector continues its work. Acarvin 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

External link[edit]

This Low cost computer guide at Appropedia, a wiki focused on international development. was added to the external links section by Chriswaterguy who appears to be one of the main editors of the site. Our external link guidelines ask editors to refrain from adding sites they are connected with directly to the article page, asking them instead to post to the talk page and get links assessed by other editors.

The link and site look interesting to me, but it seems to be a wiki with just a few editors and has not yet built up a significant reputation. So I think it fails our guidelines - see #12 of our links normally to be avoided - and shouldn't be added for now.

Other opinions? -- Siobhan Hansa 15:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The link is OK, it is not a commercial site, but a GFDL wiki...--Kozuch (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

External Link[edit]

Hello, we would be interested in getting a link to our website. We are the World Bank's eDevelopment Thematic group. We run events aimed at raising the profile of ICT and its role in World Bank operations. Our website is: http://www.worldbank.org/edevelopment. Many thanks for your consideration

Major revision[edit]

Hi, I am about to post a major revision. Look forward to the discussion. My purported next steps:

  • Finally merge this topic with the ICD article.
  • More pictures
  • More refs
  • Add a section on innovation. Can I cite my own paper? [1]

- EKhayaICT 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

comment on major revision[edit]

The current split between this entry and Information and Communication for Development makes little sense. In essence they represent different approaches. This entry stresses technology but many theorists argue that technology is not an independent force for change but is itself a product of social, economic and military forces. The overall emphasis in this revision is on technology, with some attention to social forces that block its adoption (lack of education, lack of infrastructure such as reliable electricity, harsh climate, etc.) In other words the difference between this entry and ICD represents a debate within the field rather than two separate fields and obviously they should be merged with proper emphasis to the debate over technology vs. social structure. As it stands this entry -- like the article on which it is based -- gives too much emphasis to technology and is therefore unbalanced. The article by Wertlen is useful but should not be considered a definitive summary because it has all of the problems just outlined.

Clean up[edit]

I was working through this article trying to do some clean up to bring it into line with some of our manual of style guidelines. The latter half of the article provides no standalone insight to the reader, being more of a directory to internal and external articles, websites and resources. This really isn't what our articles are supposed to be about. I was wondering if we could change some of it into a better ICT4D List that points to the organizations we have articles on and puts them in context. Any thoughts? -- SiobhanHansa 13:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagged for clean up (did not you place it?). The article may need a complete rewrite, as it is not well organized. I did some cleanup myself - please do not revert it as a whole as it was quite some work. Instead, if you disagree with some edits, try to correct only those smaller ones. I simplified the categories as they were very confusing. --Kozuch (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Information and Communication for Development (ICD)[edit]

I suggest merging these two articles together. Their isn't much actual info in the ICD article (note I have just deleted an entire section about an in-progress evaluation), and the subject area clearly overlaps. Also, I don't think there is a clear, widely accepted difference between the two terms. Any thoughts? -- SiobhanHansa 12:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

it really makes sense Ictlogist 10:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Merged. Redirect set up.--Kozuch (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree[edit]

I´m a professional in the field of ICT4D since many years. The term ICT4D is the older one, and comes from the tradition of technology and (physical) infrastructure. However, in the development cooperation business, where this term is mostly used, the interest is mainly in applying ICTs, not (only) the platform on which ICTs can be applied.

The term ICD more emphasis the purpose od using ICTs. The T (for Technologies) is dropped. It´s simililar to taking about Electricity and not Energy Technology, which one guesses might be more common in the end of the 19th Century.

In this sense ICT is an older term and ICD is a more modern term.

The British aid agency DFID renamed their ICT activities to ICD many years ago; hence the two terns are used more or less the same, or at least very much overlapping. It´s no advantage to have separate articles. --Boberger¨08:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Boberger. Thanks for responding. It's always good to get more input, especially from someone who works in the field. I just want to check I understand you fully - you think the article would be better situated under the ICD title with this article's title redirecting there rahther than the article sitting here and the ICD page redirecting here?
I'm checking because I had thought it more likely it should sit here - partly because I thought the lack of the T (technology) and use of a C (communication) is much more common in Europe than the the US (which tends to use Information Technology more than Information and Communication Technology so this would make a good amalgamation. It would be good to get your input on that if you have much dealings with US folk in the field. Also this article seems to have had much more traffic than the ICD one - which makes me wonder if the ICD thing is a bit too new yet. I don't think this is a big deal (so long as we use redirects, it doesn't matter that much where the article sits), just wondered if Wikipedia was behind the curve (very likely considering the lack of good content these articles get) or if you were looking to the future more than the present. It might even be good to include something on how the field's view of itself is changing if we can source it appropriately. -- SiobhanHansa 13:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi BoBerger and Siobhan,
I am currently working on ICT projects in rural marginalised areas in Africa - ICT4D. That's why I felt qualified to rewrite what was there in the article. I also consult in the academic world. The prevailing term used here is ICT, as far as Government and Academia are concerned. 10 years ago the term was IT. IT has a very holistic computerised connotation, referring to hardware, software and general computing infrastructure. With the introduction of the "C", mobile, cellular and convergent technologies like VoIP have also been included. This refers to the great promise that the internet holds, I guess, to destroy communication monopolies prevailing in Africa! Before coming across the DFID I had never heard of the term ICD.
For these reasons, I would definitely put this article under ICT4D.
The ICT4D arena is changing very rapidly - I don't think that wikipedia is behind. I help supervise several Masters students who are writing software projects and deploying them in the field and there is very little academic work done till now. The leading publications all have been coming from Aid Agencies (World Bank, UNDP, etc.). Since about 2003, more and more emphasis has been put on measuring the effect of all the ICT4D aid that has been poured into pilot projects. However, because the conditions on the ground are so heterogeneous, irreproducible, uncategorised, and non-standard (not to mention heart-breaking in some circumstances), it has been very difficult to make comparisons or to make qualified comparable statements about results. This is changing now as academic programmes are casting their "scientific" and "neutral" eye on things. Besides that, there is still much hype about the field because of all the attention the topic gets (Bono, G8, OLPC, etc.) and my prediction is that it is going to increase, but not for small fly by night operators. -- EKhayaICT 07:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

embedded lists[edit]

I removed a section, headed "This is not an exhaustive list of projects, nor has it been selected by any methodical manner" That's the very essence of indiscriminate content. WP is not a collection of links. find a good place that lists all the projects, and link to it. DGG (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

removing link fusion.lk[edit]

While Sarvodaya does seem to be Sri Lanka's largest NGO (and as such has definitely reached > 10'000 people), the website listed here seems to be link spam. The website is in bad English, talks about projects that have not ocurred yet, and mentions no facts or figures to substantiate it's claim that it has reached >10'000 people. EKhayaICT (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Peacock[edit]

I would like to remove the peacock. I don't understand why it has been applied to this article. Nowhere in the article is the relative importance of the relief of world poverty and attainment of MDGs through ICTs claimed. While specific portions of the article do contain flowery language (my fault as well, I concede), it is my opinion that the article is mostly free of gratuitous adjectives and where appropriate these enhance the experience of the reader and make the article easier to understand. For instance things like "this is a must read for someone beginning on the topic" are helpful and not peacockish. So whoever marked this article as peacockish, please let us know what bothered you right here on the discussion page.

Am now removing the peacock sign.

Response from someone who finds the article peacockish[edit]

 [ please fill in here] 

EKhayaICT (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation[edit]

If ' "Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) is a general term ' as the lede says, then it should be Information and Communication Technologies for developmentcomments? (assuming ICCT still warrants the capitals)DGG (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


English?[edit]

In English, titles may be capitalised according to the rule that all words excepting articles and prepositions are capitalised. A common mistake among German speakers is to think that verbs, adverbs, etc. do not become capitalised. "Development" must definitely be capitalised. Information and Communication Technologies for Development is a title and is correspondingly capitalised. 13:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EKhayaICT (talkcontribs)

not in WP. We only capitalize proper names. See WP:MOS. I have accordingly changed it. DGG (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Reducing prominence of Inveneo[edit]

Am reducing the prominence of Inveneo. I don't think they have the same impact on the scene as does OLPC, and their hardware is for ICT4D projects prohibitively expensive. EKhayaICT (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont agree that much. OLPC was a bubble with a lot of media attention due to a non-sense goal of USD100 machine. Inveneo is a YEARS-long-existing project that grows slowly and naturally. They have been featured in number of medias lately, so why the exclusion. I am putting the stuff back. Thank you for understanding.--Kozuch (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that Inveneo should have reduced prominence - indeed should be removed from the list of organisations. It has nothing like the prominence of any of the others listed. Anyone reading the page at present will think one thing only - that whoever put this page together works for Inveneo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.46.61 (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge with ICTD[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge ICTD into Information and communication technologies for development. Reason was General Consensus followed by long silence

I can't figure out why the Ictd page was created (and the corresponding redirection it gets from ICTD), but I think it should be clearly a redirect to this page ict4d. Cabra montesa (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support.--Kozuch (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


Agreed, ...signed, proud supporter of wiki inc. Besides, doesn't ICTD stand for Information and Communications Technologies for Development?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.8.26 (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree - and I've amended the ICTD entry to help explain the issue a bit more. It is likely that, as time goes on, a clearer difference between ICTD and ICT4D will emerge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellorophony (talkcontribs) 23:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO - The ICTD page points to a crisis in the academic community about the closely related fields of community infomatics, ICT4D, ICTD, etc. While researchers struggle to pin down a fast moving, fragmented and chaotic field, the rest of the world just wants to be able to turn to wikipedia to get a no-nonsense in-depth introduction (which is obviosuly difficult). The ICTD post is based on a blog article, which says one shouldn't use the terms. That doesn't help anyone. I think we should merge, and for researchers add a lay-persons taxonomy as a chapter in this article. EKhayaICT (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with EKhayaICT and Kozuch, and would note that the "crisis" of terminology is not only in the academic community, but also amongst practitioners and related policy makers. I have been working in this field for over 10 years, and most of us have learned to live with this as a part of the field's dynamic growth as well as various factions. The day may yet come when we can clearly distinguish between these terms and they will then have substance deserving separate entries. Until then, however, Wikipedia's intent to give impartial information would be best served by keeping these highly related terms together, in line with content related to their similarities/differences. --Mongkolroek (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of OLPCs do you guys think that it would also be a good idea if we put a link in this article to the "NetBook" page? since it seems that the idea of OLPCs and the netbook are very similar? --Bgomez1201 (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


I agree that ICTD should be merged with ICT4D under the ICT4D banner because ICT4D is, by far, the more commonly used abbreviation for an admittedly ill-defined field. Some people use the following distinction: ICT4D involves the intentional use of ICT for development (e.g., OLPC). ICTD allows for any topic at the intersection of ICT and development (e.g., whether the presence of mobile phones causes as much harm as benefit in context X). As much as I am sympathetic to making a distinction (I pushed for "ICTD" in the naming of an eponymous conference), it makes no sense from Wikipedia's perspective to maintain both. For most people inside and outside the field, there is no real difference between the two phrases.

So, my suggestion is this: ICT4D and the current ICTD are merged under ICT4D. ICTD then lists two (or more) possible links: the current ICT4D page; and "Information and Communication Technologies and Development," the conference.

Incidentally, I agree with many of the comments that are discussing the current ICT4D page. I have written many introductory articles on ICT4D with an eye to comprehensibility and neutrality. I would be happy to revise the current ICT4D page. --Ktoyama (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to push this forward and get the merge and copyedit done. The ideas above seem to make the content accessible on the whole (by describing the two related terms together, not reducing the paths to reach the article). Is there consensus? –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 13:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

abhishek singh (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


Finished merging and setting up appropriate redirects
abhishek singh (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Downgrade 4P Computing[edit]

It is completely bizarre that the first main entry on this page is 4P computing - I've read hundreds of ICT4D papers and articles and I've never seen this mentioned. I'm shifting it to a lesson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellorophony (talkcontribs) 23:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is Wayan Vota's personal idea. Actually it is completely silly, because there is only 1P - Price. I am completely removing it. EKhayaICT (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

References Cleanup[edit]

Inline with the please cleanup comment, it seems this page needs some combing of the references, which are starting to look like a link spam collection.

If noone else does it, I will soon start to remove the references to "publicity" type materials that are being used as references, am looking fwd to discussion.

EKhayaICT (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont think there is much spam among the references... it is mostly articles from quite notable media. Rather than refs cleanup, I would suggest removing unsourced content and general article cleanup and copyedit. Maybe splitting this page into two (ICT -> IT + C(ommunications), both for development - they are not essentialy the same) wouldnt be a bad idea, because the matter is starting to get tough. I simply dont like deleting content, please consider moving it elsewhere first. We could also potentially create a list of ICT4D organizations as a new article...--Kozuch (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"PC World - Business Center: Inveneo Braves Goats, Killer Bees for IT" - along with "AMD brings Linux to East Africans"... these sound like media articles one does not associate with an encyclopedia reference. I agree about starting an organisations page, however, I am completely for deleting content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, or does not fulfill the spirit of objective information. (There is also versioning, and the articles themselves are still out there to be found by whomever). 196.210.160.52 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC) --> wasn't logged in sorry EKhayaICT (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I replaced a couple of missing references in the article. Progressing slowly! Looking around I noticed, that Inveneo and Microsoft have absolutely ridiculous entries. I must say that I am so against Inveneo, because their computers are EXPENSIVE for absolutly no reason, they have no recycling policy that I have heard of, and are no better than other thin client computing platforms (so why do they deserve to be mentioned so prominently?). Recently a comparison by ComputerAid.org bore out my experience - the Inveneo solution was found to be too expensive among other problems. (http://www.computeraid.org) EKhayaICT (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


examples[edit]

I have tried several times to remove "A good example of the impact of ICTs on development are African farmers getting better market price information and thus not being impoverished by unfair corps buy-out people. [2] Another example includes mobile telecommunications and radio broadcasting fighting political corruption in Burundi.[3]" I think individual trivial examples like this amount to promotion for the projects involved. If they are notable, let articles be written on them. why Burundi in particular? is it the most successful of similar projects? Is there sourcing to that effect? I think there are a good number of similar ones in the article. -- it is not encyclopedic. This is a similar question to the one raised just above about references. This articles is getting much too expansive in this direction. DGG (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

DIY supercomputer from old PC's[edit]

Perhaps the building of a better computer (by the creation of a "supercomputer") from several old pc's can be mentioned. This allows old pc's that are eg incapable of running a contemperary regular operating system to still be reused. The flashmob computer cluster is suiable for this (allows pcs of any architecture to be hooked up) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.13.194 (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Make things a little bit simpler[edit]

I think there's a need to make the entries a little bit less "technical" (wordy) and more understandable for students and common people.

Like let's say this part of the article:

"Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) is a general term referring to the application of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) within the field of socioeconomic development"

We could make it something like this:

"Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) is a term referring to the application of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for Socioeconomic Development."

or

"Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) is a term referring to the application of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to promote Socioeconomic Development."


--Bgomez1201 (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Major revisions needed[edit]

I feel this page needs a lot of work... I'd be happy to do it but just want to see what others think first. For example, i am not sure about some of the terminology: i.e., "anatomy", "virtual organization". Also, the "problems" and "critics" sections need to be more distinct. Maybe "Problems" is really meant to be "development challenges that ICT4D is trying to address", and "Critics" section should be "Challenges and critiques".

Overall, I would like to see less focus on externally-driven projects and more on the development assumptions, sectors of applied ICT4D, and examples of successes in those areas.

Chluke (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to motion that the "Elements of Successfull ICT4D Projects in Africa" section be removed, as it is not fully developed and contains awkward syntax. I propose replacing it with an example of a successful ICT4D project in Africa instead and am interested in writing that section.--Norad87 (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I also feel that the "criticism" section needs a lot of work. It should be updated to include more information on current debates and challenges within the field. --Norad87 (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chluke on changing the title of the "problems" section. This seems much generalized as some of the listed barriers can be applicable not only to ICT4D but to other development projects as well. In order to make this more specific and relevant to ICT4D, citing case studies under these barriers would help, and I started this off by including a case from India in the "problems" section. Also I like the Ulwazi section, an example of a successful ICT4D project in Africa posted by Norad87. It is the only example with web 2.0 technology that addresses how an African community uses technology to preserve their culture and mobilize their community. Good work. Deciphersophia (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit Nov-Dec 2010[edit]

Any copyeditors who are considering editing this, I am trying to push the merge through before CE. You may comment on the merge above. Thanks! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 13:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Potential merge[edit]

To my embarassment, I've just found Information and communication technologies for development. After some skimming of this longer article, I'm going to propose a merge of Technology for developing areas into it. Simesa (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Upon examination, it was better to merge some of Computer technology for developing areas into this article but keep the original article as a specialized sub-article. Simesa (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I third the call for this page to be merged with Computer technology for developing areas - I came here to make that suggestion, and see that it's already here. I've added the merge tag to Computer technology for developing areas, since it wasn't there. -User:Jcravens42 (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of Peer Learning, Each One Teach One[edit]

I wonder if someone working on this article could comment on the potential relevance of peer learning for this field? I'm reminded of the African American proverb Each One Teach One, which has been deployed more recently in literacy efforts. I wonder if there are additional applications of the peer learning idea in contemporary development work? One concrete suggestion is this book, "The Power of Peer Learning: Networks and Development Cooperation". Arided (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

computer science.a[edit]

A topical essay about a contempolary computer science solution to a difficult ict development — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.46.199 (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation to basics needed[edit]

This is a strong, possibly completely correct statement. It would gain a lot from a reference. The current statement "The declared goal of ICT-for-development is to make use of this ongoing transformation by actively using the enabling technology to improve the living conditions of societies and segments of society" sounds almost like a direct quote. But from where? --Färjaren (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is replete with copyright violations. This quote is lifted from here. Jojalozzo 05:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

using mobile phones for internet access in Nigeria[edit]

In the article it is stated: "In Nigeria, for example, 77% of individuals aged 16 and above use their mobile phones to access the Internet as compared to a mere 13% who use computers to go online.[56] ". When looking at the source "http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/backgrounders/general/pdf/5.pdf", page 110, chart 5.4 it is only stated that 77% of Nigerians own mobile phones and 13% use the internet. Which obviously is a very different statement. I am not experienced with editing in Wikipedia, so maybe someone could double-check and edit accordingly. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.173.112 (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Class projects??[edit]

There is a lot of participation recently by new, redlinked users pasting content copied from other sources and adding ungrammatical and poorly constructed content. Has editing this page been assigned as a class project somewhere? Jojalozzo 05:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Good point. If a class is editing this, I would strongly recommend that the instructor start here: Wikipedia:Education program. If you need any help, you can also ask here. bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
This page recently received semi-protection at my request which will allow more experienced editors some control of new user participation. Jojalozzo 22:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Information and communication technologies for development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Information and communication technologies for development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Addition on Applications --> Agriculture[edit]

Hi there!

I am about to make an addition on the Agriculture sub-section of this article's Applications section. To sum it up, it's one of among the many reports of the World Bank regarding their eTransform Africa project, which centers on ICT applications on, well, agricultural efforts in that continent. I am aware, though, of the content under Country and region case studies --> Africa, which may have points regarding the aforementioned region-wide project.

Cheers, 37chassu (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC) / 21:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC+8)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Information and communication technologies for development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2017[edit]

Please change

"Education is one of the main factor that is very important asides from agriculture. With the more improved and developed technology we had and we have right now, education is a lot better. Some schools allow their students to use gadgets such as tablets as a substitute to their books and notebooks or also known as E-books."

to

"Education is one of the main factors that are very important in the application of ICT besides agriculture. With the evolving technology and equipment, education is becoming better. As ICT evolves, education will evolve with it and it is still becoming better. New technology has been implemented in most schools to aid students and teachers. With ICT, learning and teaching methods of students and teachers have improved. Images and Videos have helped students learn, and interactive education has increased the motivation of the learner. However, with all these advantages there are still disadvantages, one of which is the capability of the school to apply the ICT teaching and learning methods to their systems. Some may find the ICT confusing and may negatively affect the school rather than improve it. Nonetheless, after considering pros and cons of the compatibility for the school, it is much easier to implement it to new schools and introduce the new and better teaching methods."[1]

without quotations ShadouKarasu (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: That paragraph is pretty bad and the proposed text isn't much better. I have instead removed the paragraph. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "What is ICT in education?". www.elmoglobal.com. Retrieved November 02, 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2017[edit]

I would like to contribute this information to this topic about ICT4D.

How far are we to achieve ICT4D?

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) considers that the ICTs can "fast forward progress on the SDGs".[1] Below are the 7 ICT indicators covering 6 targets under Goals 4, 5, 9, and 17 as discussed in the Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal (Feb. 2016). Target 4a: Proportion of schools with access to computers for pedagogical purposes Target 4.4: Proportion of youth/adults with ICT skills, by type of skills Target 5b: Proportion of individuals who own a mobile telephone, by sex Target 9c: Percentage of the population covered by a mobile network, broken down by technology Target 17.6: Fixed Internet broadband subscriptions, broken down by speed Target 17.8: Proportion of individuals using the Internet[2]

Interconnection is vital for all countries to reach ICT4D. It means that people are able to communicate despite the differences in telecommunications networks. It also enables activities such as electronic banking, e-commerce, mobile roaming, and e-mail.

“Interconnection means the physical and logical linking of public electronic communications networks used by the same or a different undertaking in order to allow the users of one undertaking to communicate with the users of the same or another undertaking, or to access services provided by another undertaking.”[3]

How connected are we?

As of early 2017, an estimate of 428 submarine cables are in place and connects us globally. However, this number constantly changes as new cables are built and old cables are replaced by latest technologies.

Anyone accessing the internet, regardless of the device they are using, are part of the interconnection provided by these submarine cables. Through this, we are able to share data and information around the world. [4] Jhing0813 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The proposed text is not written in an encyclopedic manner. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Zhao, Houlin. "How ICTs can fast forward progress on the SDGs". itu.int. Retrieved 26 October 2017.
  2. ^ "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development". itu.int. Retrieved 26 October 2017.
  3. ^ Chiang, Eric. "What is interconnection and why is it important?". http://regulationbodyofknowledge.org. Retrieved 27 October 2017. External link in |website= (help)
  4. ^ "Submarine Cable 101". telegeography.com. Retrieved 1 November 2017.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017[edit]

History Added/Edited texts to paragraphs in History section

ICT4D 0.0 (mid-1950s to late-1990s): One of the earliest computers used in developing countries was a HEC machine installed in 1956 to undertake numerical calculations in the Indian Institute of Statistics in Kolkata.[8] The focus of this earliest phase was on the use of IT (before it was called ICT) in government and public sectors in developing countries. IT was also found to be a key actor in public administration development then. It was not until the 1980s when multinational and international firms found IT as an essential tool – with the advent of microcomputer and its corresponding software – in driving the economic growth of private sectors up. This period also christened as IT4G – information technology for government; and was shortly coined as information technology for growth.

ICT4D 1.0 (late-1990s to late-2000s): The advent of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) combined with the rise and spread of the Internet in industrialized countries led to a rapid increase in investments in ICT infrastructure and projects in developing countries. The Internet was a huge catalyst for ICT interest during this period. It has since moved political agendas back up again which paved way for the emergence of the International Development Goals in 1996, then formalized as the MDGs by the September 2000 Millennium Declaration which sought after reducing poverty, improving health and education and gender equality. Since the digital technologies of the 1990s were relatively new tools then, it began targeting development goals to establish its purpose. Thus the birth of "ICT4D". Which spurred studies, publications, events, programmes and project funding such as: the 1998 World Development Report from the World Bank funded highlighting the role of information, knowledge, and ICTs in the development sector, the creation of the Digital Opportunities Task Force in 2000, and the World Summits on the Information Society held in Geneva in 2003 and Tunis in 2005, serving as key learning and policy-formation phases in the development of the ICT4D. [9]

The most typical application was the rural telecentre, where ICT was used to cast information on development issues such as health, education, and agricultural extension, into poor communities. Later, telecentres were also used to deliver government services [citation needed]. While ICT4D 1.0 was not solely restricted to telecentre projects, it was then its archetype until the mid/late-2000s. [9]

References: 9. Heeks, Richard. "The ICT4D 2.0 Manifesto: Where Next for ICTs and International Development?" (PDF). Development Informatics Group Institute for Development Policy and Management University of Manchester. Jump up ^ Dyamoy (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This is both WP:UNDUE emphasis on one source and on a small part of the history. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017[edit]

ICTD Education in Asia[1]

The lack of quality and non-formal ICTD programmes caused a deficiency in trained ICTD manpower in Asia. Although some related programmes such as information technology (IT), communication sciences and development studies are being offered, the convergence of these programmes that captures the true essence of ICTD is still lacking.

Information Technology Programmes. The popularity of IT services outsourcing in Asia resulted in public and private institutions offering baccalaureate and graduate programmes that cover hardware, software, networking and system management of IT. These programmes include information science, information technology, information systems, computer science, computer engineering and software engineering.

Communication Programmes. Due to Asia’s strong media, entertainment and advertising environment, Asian academic institutions started offering baccalaureate, master's and doctorate programmes in communication science and communication arts.

Development Studies. Academic programmes on rural sociology, community development and development studies are also starting to emerge. Most of these studies are influenced by the development studies and economic programmes of UK while some are patterned after the rural sociology, community development and agricultural economics of US.

ICTD Courses. Only a handful universities in Asia offer Information and Communication Technology Development courses. In the Philippines, University of the Philippines Open University offers two courses related to ICTD under the ICT4D or Information and Communication for Development and KM4D or Knowledge Management for Development programmes while University of the Philippines Los Baños has Telecommunications for Development. Singapore also has an ICTD graduate course under the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information of Nanyang Technological University.

Please add this information under 8 Mainstreaming and Sidestreaming of the Information and Communication Technologies For Development Article. Thank You. Maurer156 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This information seems promotional in nature. ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Harris, edited by Arul Chib, Roger (2012). Linking research to practice strengthening ICT for development research capacity in Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. ISBN 978-981-4380-01-0.CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2017[edit]

Please include this in the contents of 'Agriculture':

On November 17, 2016 Elvin Jerome Laceda won 2nd prize in a contest hosted by Brigham Young University-Hawaii Willes International Center of Entrepreneurship for developing RiceUp. This application was created to connect farmers directly to the local market, leading to fair market competition. It was designed to create a direct access from the farmers to the local markets and local markets and consumers without the intervention of middlemen. [1] CastielMorgendorffer (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This edit does not look like it would have the appropriate weight and additionally looks like promotional. Izno (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Information and communication technologies for development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Information and communication technologies for development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Information and communication technologies for development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent flurry of edits[edit]

42 edits by 22 users in 1 day is remarkable. Is some editing workshop or other coordinated activity going on? It would be nice of the users to discuss/notify that here. Nemo 10:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)