1 / 34

UNESCO-ITU Global Symposium on Promoting the Multilingual Internet Geneva 9 -11 may 2006

UNESCO-ITU Global Symposium on Promoting the Multilingual Internet Geneva 9 -11 may 2006. Daniel Pimienta pimienta@funredes.org NETWORKS & DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION http://funredes.org http://funredes.org/LC. Linguistic & Cultural Diversity in Cyberspace.

isabella-fuentes
Download Presentation

UNESCO-ITU Global Symposium on Promoting the Multilingual Internet Geneva 9 -11 may 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UNESCO-ITU Global Symposium on Promoting the Multilingual Internet Geneva 9-11 may 2006

  2. Daniel Pimientapimienta@funredes.orgNETWORKS & DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATIONhttp://funredes.orghttp://funredes.org/LC

  3. Linguistic & Cultural Diversity in Cyberspace • A framework to understand the complexity of the digital divide. • Its application to the understanding of the diversity issue. • Analysis of different approaches for measuring linguistic diversity on the Internet

  4. APPLICATION OF THE PREVIOUS FRAMEWORK ICT4HD TO CULTURAL & LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY HOW DOES THE HURDLES TRANSLATE IN TERMS OF LANGUAGE AND CULTURE?

  5. ACCESS/INFRASTRUCTURE Technological neutrality is a myth (ref.) however the interfaces concentrated most of the probmes realted with cultural and linguistic diversity. Ref: Charles Ess, (2005) “Can the Local Reshape the Global? Ethical Imperatives for Human Intercultural Communication Online, in Capurro, R & al (Eds), Localizing the Internet. Ethical Issues in Intercultural Perspective, Ver http://icie.zkm.de/congress2004

  6. ACCESS/AFFORDABILITY Universal access must include the consideration of a price coherent with the level of revenues of the target population • Lenguages & cultures of poor segments of population (basically in the South but also immigrants in the North)

  7. ACCESO/SUSTAINIBILITY Telecenters’ organization scheme should be coherent with local cultural practices. Maintenance documentation in local language.

  8. ACCESS/LOCALIZATION Interfaces shall allow access in mother tongue and be natural to user’s culture. • IDN • Keyboard layout • Alphabet codification • Online dictionnaries and other support software (Ref) • Automatic Translation (in the future) Ref: José Antonio Millán, “How much is a language worth…” - Ver http://jamillan.com/worth.htm

  9. ACCESS/LITERACY The aim of universal acces is to reach knowledge and then start by a a functional literacy at 100%

  10. USE Here starts the requirement for digital literacy which shall be conceived as a process which pays tribute to local languages and cultures.

  11. TECHNOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP How to really own a tool which does not understand your mother tongue?

  12. MEANINGFUL USAGE Local content production and virtual communities in local languages.

  13. SOCIAL OWNERSHIP Network & Information’s Culture & Ethic no are neutral and shall go thru a process of sincretism with local cultures.

  14. EMPOWERMENTSOCIAL INNOVATION The closer we get to Human Development more the importance switch into the cutural aspect. What is the meaning of those concepts in a given cultural context?

  15. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT We will get close to this goal only if people’s participation has been a reality along the described process, if persons are subject and no object of the process. ¿What meaning has “participation” and how does it get real in a given cultural context? ¿Does real participation exists if a language different form mother tongue is imposed?

  16. THE NEED FOR RELIABLE MEASUREMENT HOW TO ESTABLISH POLICIES AND FOLLOW-UP THEIR IMPACT WITHOUT RELIABLE INSTRUMENTS FOR MEASUREMENT?!!!

  17. SITUATION OF LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY IN THE INTERNET FROM RESULTS OF FUNREDES DIVERSITY OBSERVATORY HTTP://FUNREDES.ORG/LC METHODOLOGY CREATED WITH CONTRIBUTION/SUPPORT OF UNIÓN LATINA AND SUPPORT OF FRANCOPHONIE 1998-2005

  18. INDICATORS 2005 (Sources: Global Reach & Funredes)

  19. EVOLUTION % WEB PAGES COMPARED TO ENGLISHFUNREDES 1998-2005

  20. EVOLUTION ENGLISH% WEB PAGES & INTERNAUTES 1988-2005

  21. OBSERVED TRENDS SINCE 1998 CONSTANT REDUCTION OF ENGLISH DOMINANCESLOW INITIAL GROWTH OF FRENCH COMPARED TO SPANISH & PORTUGUESE THEN SWITCHOBSERVATION LEFT TOMARKET … WITH LACK OF SERIOUSNESS MARGINAL PRODUCTION OFDEVELOPING COUNTRIES & NO PROGRESS

  22. SURVEY OF METHODOLOGIESFOR MEASUREMENT:INTERNAUTES PER LANGUAGE Global Reach http://global-reach.biz/globalstats/index.php3 • Unique • Transparent • Compilation of various not necessarily coherent sources therefore approximative • However stable and frequently updated

  23. SURVEY OF METHODOLOGIESFOR MEASUREMENTWEB PAGES PER LANGUAGE • SIMPLE USE OF SEARCH ENGINES • VARIOUS MARKETERS STUDIES • ALIS / OCLC STUDIES (1998 – 2002) • FUNREDES (1997 – 2005) • LANGUAGE OBSERVATORY (STARTING)

  24. SIMPLE USE OF SEARCH ENGINES • Complement of empty space method • Simple but not stable • Used by many after Funredes (1988) • Offer an approximation of the search engine own estimate based on language recognition algorithm • Gross estimation but unreliable and seems to favour English

  25. MARKETERS STUDIES • DOES NOT REVEAL METHODOLOGY THEN UNTRUSTABLE • INKTOMI (2001) : EXCELLENT MARKETING BUT GROSS ERROR!!! • DESINFORMATION CHANNELS WITH POWERFUL VOICE 

  26. ALIS/OCLChttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/april03/lavoie/04lavoie.htmlALIS/OCLChttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/april03/lavoie/04lavoie.html • TRANSPARENT METHODOLOGY (although not the result process) • BASED ON SAMPLING 8000 RANDOM IP NUMBER AND APPLYING LANGUAGE RECOGNITION ALGORITHM • STATISTICAL FLAW • NONE FREQUENT FOLLOW-UP • IMHO FAVOUR ENGLISH FIGURES

  27. FUNREDES/UNION LATINAHTTP://FUNREDES.ORG/LC • TOTALLY TRANSPARENT METHODOLOGY • BASED ON SEARCHING A SAMPLE OF 57 CONCEPTS CAREFULLY SELECTED FOR EQUIVALENT MEANING AND REACH IN THE 8 STUDIED LANGUAGES (3000 WORDS) • SOUND STATISTICAL PROCESS • METHOD ALLOW OTHER SPACES AND CREATION OF FURTHER RESULTS BY LANGUAGE OR COUNTRIES

  28. FUNREDES/UNION LATINAHTTP://FUNREDES.ORG/LC MANY LIMITATIONS THOUGH: • LIMITED NUMBER OF LANGUAGES • MARGINAL COST PER ADDED LANGUAGE • MEASURE THE INDEXED INTERNET • MEASURE % COMPARE TO ENGLISH • DEPENDANT ON SEARCH ENGINES

  29. LANGUAGE OBSERVATORY • UNIVERSITY NETWORK WITH STRONG TEAM • IN THE STARTING PHASE • WILL BE BASED ON LANGUAGE RECOGNITION AND CRAWLING • NO LIMITATION ON LANGUAGES • TRANSPARENT  A PROMISING AVENUE FUNREDES HAS CALLED FOR YEARS

  30. SURVEY OF METHODOLOGIESFOR MEASUREMENT:OTHER SPACES • FUNREDES/UL METHOD ALLOW TO MEASURE ANYTHING WHICH IS INDEXED AND SEARCHABLE (E.G. NEWSGROUP) • FUNREDES/UL HAS DONE A FIRST APPROXIMATION OF CULTURAL MEASUREMENT • FUNREDES/UL METHOD ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF SOME INTERESTING INDICATORS

  31. WHAT’S NEXT? • THE NEEDS GO MUCH BEYOND WEB MEASUREMENT. • HOW TO MEASURE LANGUAGES USE IN EMAIL AND MORE DYNAMIC LANGUAGE BEHAVIOUR? ALEXA INSPIRED METHODS COULD BE THE SOLUTION…

More Related