Hello Mario and Greg:
Hope this is not too late, but I wanted to try and at least put my
reactions on the table:
First, I want to thank you for the opportunity to review the draft
which I found to be very interesting and insightful.
I really agree with the notion that the real challenge goes beyond
access to what "people and institutions do with it...". I also
offer that issues of "content" are growing more and more
important, as meaning and relevance of the information the technology
perpetuates is critical to moving those who are on the fringes of this new
society.
I would like to expand the notion of the Digital Divide to more than
who has the tools, to who is involved in producing and creating the
technologies. Thus far, what is needed and accessible is a still a top
down notion that limits the scope of what will ultimately be important.
The WKKF is in full agreement with the notion of technology as simply a
tool, and hopes to integrate fully the idea of "tools for social
change"
As I viewed the document, I sensed there were some profound assumptions
being made about the most needy communities and their 1) readiness, 2)
acceptable views about technology and 3) their overall values. I kept
asking the question: Whose values are we talking about here""
Who is deciding on these outcomes as most paramount? What other social
factors will be necessary to remedy, manage, acknowledge? What human
factors are being potentially being ignored in the scope of the technology
paradigm?
The toughest question: (see page 3) Is society ready to concede to the
notion that we are creating a new underclass? Is this a sufficient
motivator for change within society at-large?
I thought you could reasonably expand (pg. 4) the factors contributing
to the cycle of poverty to external forces such as poor quality schools,
urban sprawl, relocation of businesses etc. Overall, I agree there is a
need to address the community infrastructure. This indeed calls for a very
multi-tier approach to understanding the dynamics of influence, external,
internal, social, financial, political and relational.
Phyllis Meadows
