This is an archive of past discussions about Digital divide. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Digital Divide

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

General

The term “digital divide” refers to disparities amongst people in regards to access to, use, and awareness of information communication technologies (ICT) based on existing socio-economic inequalities. The digital divide is a concept developed in an attempt to describe the gap between the information technology “haves” and “have nots.” The claim is in the modern, interconnected world disparities of access, ability and use of ICTs carry varying and often severe implications on a given society, further exaggerating existing inequalities.

Historical Background

A theoretical analysis of the digital divide can be traced back to the centre-Left social inclusion policy agenda of the 1980s and 90s of western nations . The theory is firmly founded on the assumption that knowledge is power. People with existing educational and socio-economic advantages have better access and opportunity to advance, further improving their standard of living and relative socio-economic status (SES). In the past, the ability to read and write provided the educated elite with access to information denied to the remainder of society. In the modern world, or the “Information Age” , this privilege is reserved for the ICT-literate. As the internet and other ICTs became more and more mainstream, a “communication revolution” ensued, providing people unprecedented opportunity to access, disseminate, process and share information. However, this opportunity was not granted uniformly, and there are those who maintain that the internet and other ICTs in fact exacerbate existing societal disparities as they grant the “haves” with unprecedented opportunities, leaving the “have nots” behind and essentially, worsening their relative SES . The term “digital divide” was first used in the mid-1990s by the Clinton Administration. It was a reaction to the understanding that the social and economic progression of a society in the modern world is linked to the access of and proper use of, ICTs. The ability to access and indeed, properly utilize ICTs is thought by many to be “the indispensable grammar of modern life". The uneven distribution of access to ICT can be seen both socially and spatially. Inequalities of access can be based on socioeconomic status, education level, income, gender, age ethnicity and geography . People lack access through different means. For example, lacking a home computer with Internet is different than a school (or other community-based center), lacking funding to equip libraries and classrooms with ICT. The assumption was that when one lacks access to the use of ICT, or the skills to use them, they lack fundamental understandings and connections to modern society. The Clinton administration believed that providing people with access and proper skills required to use ICTs, will empower lower SES’s.

Theoretical Background

The digital divide has been approached by many scholars in different manners, but a common conceptualization of the concept is that of “levels of divide”. Kling (1998) identified differences in technical access (the physical availability of the technology) and in social access (the knowledge and skills necessary to use ICTs). Norris (2001) pointed to divides at three levels: the global divide of differences among industrialized and lesser developed nations; the social divide of inequalities among the population of one nation and a democratic divide which refers to the differences among those who do and do not use digital technologies to engage and participate in public life. DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001) suggested five dimensions along which divides may exist: technical means, autonomy of use, types of use patterns, social support (availability of others one can turn to for assistance with use and encourage use) and skill to use the medium effectively . As ICT access in Western countries has become increasingly uniform, a consensus developed that simply ‘having’ or ‘not having’ access to ITCs does not suffice to explain the divide. Basic use of ICT does not mean a meaningful or consequential outcome of that use. Studies have shown that individuals’ engagement with ICTs is affected by a wide range of social, psychological, educational, economic and pragmatic factors that often lead to a nonproductive use of ICT. Such studies show that effective use of ICT is less about access and ownership and more about how people develop their personal relationships with ICTs make use of the social resources which make access useable. A usage gap can be noted. For example, internet users of higher SES are more likely to use ICTs for gathering information while those of lower SES have been noted to use it more for entertainment or other seemingly less productive activities. When one uses ICT to gather information they tend to be more likely to increase their political awareness, knowledge, participation, life chances and social inclusion. This gap in use widens the existing “information gap” between SES. These divides in use of ICTs, ability to access, understand and adequately apply information, exacerbates inequalities.

Sources:

Z. Papacharissi, “The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as the Public Sphere,” New Media and Society 4, no. 1 2002 E. Hargittai, “Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People's Online Skills,” First Monday, 7(4): 2002.N. Selwyn, “Reconsidering Political and Popular Understandings of the Digital Divide,” New Media Society 6 2004 J. Tichenor et al, “Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge,” Public Opinion Quarterly 34, no. 2 1970 L. Wei and D.B. Hindman, “Does the Digital Divide Matter More? Comparing the Effects of New Media and Old Media Use on the Education-Based Knowledge Gap.” Mass Communication and Society 14, no. 2 2011 D. Caspi, “Mass Communications, Vol. 2 1985.

Thank you!

Rmleslie (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

First, you need the sources to be inline (i.e., after each place you use them). Second, what is the rationale for replacing what is currently in the article with this version? Other than, of course, the fact that I know this is a homework assignment for you. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed content about MIT program

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:Wikiklrsc re-added some material that had been removed back when we did our large scale cut down of the article last year. This info was about a program run out of MIT. I re-removed it, because the only sources provided were connected to the program itself. That is, there was no independent corroboration that the program was notable, was famous, or was otherwise important enough for inclusion in this article. Wikiklrsc came to my talk page, and we had a discussion there, which you can read at User Talk:Qwyrxian#Digital Divide article. I'd like others opinions about whether or not the information should be included. As I mentioned there, I'm open to changing my mind if someone can show me how this information meets the requirements of WP:DUE. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This article has multiple issues, as does Global digital divide. It is suggested the latter be merged into this article. The digital divide may be local or global in scope. Meclee (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. Seems like a good idea to me. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I would probably oppose this--both articles are already quite long; how would we stuff it all into one? However, if you think there's stuff that's duplicated, or that could legitimately be removed, then I might be inclined to support. But we can't just double the size of one article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Some content is duplicated, some is out-of-date, and some is just plain erroneous. Yes, the length of the article would not be additive, but would be reduced to about the same as one of the articles, now. Meclee (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Fantasy and television

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why do children tend to believe that fantasy creatures,such as puppets and cartoons are alive in some way? Also,why do adults need special effects? In the early 1900s,people watched much simpler movies,yet they reacted very emotionally;for instance when seeing a moving train.public t.v.and radio.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.253.63 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but this is not a page for general discussion; we use article talk pages to discuss improvements to the article only. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Global digital divide is being merged into this article

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Done Completed - I am working on merging Global digital divide into this article. Meclee (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks! Much better now! ..I worked more on merging the content of both... for example, both articles "digital divide" and "global digital divide" had sections about infrastructure... this turned out to be repetitive and at disperse parts of the merged article... I joined some of it, but more work is needed... we are getting there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoCmplx (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for he edits! Meclee (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What is digital?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The era of specialist tools for work (IBM PC and MS-DOS) vs. the era of ubiquitous multimedia gadgets. Before this change you studied people from high income households with existing high motivation to learn the tools. After this change you study people from many levels of income who share their interest to any type of "media", including commercials.

The term "digital" sounds old school when we have digital radio, television and "intelligent" wristwatches. So this should be basically about how certain tools are used for news, communication (two-way or many-to-many) and education OR about bitrate, storage, firewalls, IT infrastructure etc., which is often the "global" aspect of the divide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beoldhin (talk • contribs) 09:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus building: Image in lead is no longer relevant

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

**Internet users in 2012 as a percentage of a country's population**
Source: International Telecommunications Union.^[1]

Personal computers are not the only way that people can have "access to, use of, or knowledge of information and communication technologies (ICT)" - mobile devices are now also used, more so in third world countries (through SMS)
Even in the West, some people see no reason to buy a personal computer if they can just use a mobile device. So it no longer makes sense to represent the Digital Divide using this statistic.
Image is from 2006, which is about 9 years ago. Between 2000 and 2008 (also a span of 9 years), the number of Internet subscriptions in Africa increased by 1030%
The map itself is outdated, not showing areas whose borders were changed between 2006 and today (most notably Sudan/South Sudan, Crimea, Kosovo).

So I propose the map about Internet connections is used instead.

It is the method most used to have "access to, use of, or knowledge of information and communication technologies (ICT)" using any device available to a person
It has more recent and relevant data, taking into account any Internet connection, not just desktop/laptop computer usage.

Does anyone have any disagreements or better suggestions?

--BurritoBazooka (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

=

To whom it may concern,

   First: I am not defacing the talk page. Second, I have no account with wikipedia and do not wish to have one. I take issue with the part regarding 'Second Level Digital Divide' under the criticisms section. I understand the idea and affirm the likelihood of its existence. Unfortunately, MOST OF THE CITATIONS AND LINKS PROVIDE NO SUPPORT FOR A GIVEN STATEMENTS CONTENTION. Please at least remove the citations.

With Respect,

    Anonymous  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.232.4 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Digital divide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071018164409/http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics to http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Digital divide in Third World countries

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Digital divide is most prominent in Third World countries. I think there should be a section on Third World countries and how far behind they are on the scale of the digital divide. Possibly, statistics of the amount of computers available in any region of a country. Having visited Haiti, I saw how there were few internet cafe's. Although, the rise up on the scale of the digital divide is also worth noting for these countries because smart phones are becoming attainable and affordable for the average citizen of Third World countries. Suggestion of splitting the section into a category of lack of access compared to other countries that are higher in socioeconomic status, as well as the rate of rise in access of technology for these countries. Bphelmch (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Nepelski's comment on this article

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dr. Nepelski has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

" Multiple regression analysis across countries has shown that income levels and educational attainment are identified as providing the most powerful explanatory variables for ICT access and usage.[37] "
"One telling fact is that "as income rises so does Internet use […]", strongly suggesting that the digital divide persists at least in part due to income disparities.[39] Most commonly, a digital divide stems from poverty and the economic barriers that limit resources and prevent people from obtaining or otherwise using newer technologies."
However, there is some evidence that conditional on internet adoption, the digital divide in internet use has been reversed. Low-income internet users spend more time on the internet than high-income users.
Source: Smaranda PANTEA and Bertin MARTENS (2013). Has the Digital Divide Been Reversed? Evidence from Five EU Countries. European Commission, Joint Research Centre.

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/has-digital-divide-been-reversed-evidence-five-eu-countries

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Nepelski has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Giuditta de Prato & Daniel Nepelski, 2014. "Mapping the European ICT Poles of Excellence: The Atlas of ICT Acitvity in Europe," JRC-IPTS Working Papers JRC85353, Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Rodriguez-Lopez's comment on this article

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dr. Rodriguez-Lopez has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

It's appropriate and oriented for Wikipedia users.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Rodriguez-Lopez has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference 1: Diego Martinez Lopez & Jesus Rodriguez Lopez & Jose Luis Torres Chacon, 2008. "ICT-specific technological change and productivity growth in the US 1980-2004," Working Papers 08.05, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.

Reference 2: Jesus Rodriguez Lopez & Jose Luis Torres Chacon, 2009. "Technological sources of productivity growth in Japan, the U.S. and Germany," Working Papers 09.09, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2010.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Digital divide. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

How to add more

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I plan on adding to this page by presenting specific concrete examples of genuine attempts to try and enclose the gap in the digital divide throughout our globe. I also plan to tie in a more ethical look on the topic and whether it is truly just that some people gain more access to technology than others. How can we fix this? Who should we blame for this ever coming into fruition. These are just a few topics I wish to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecgree6 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Digital divide. 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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20140422192031/http://www.nanjingmarketinggroup.com/blog/15-years-chinese-internet-usage-13-pretty-graphs to http://www.nanjingmarketinggroup.com/blog/15-years-chinese-internet-usage-13-pretty-graphs
Corrected formatting/usage for http://sociology.berkeley.edu/documents/newspage_docs/J.%20Schradie%20-%20The%20Digital%20Production%20Gap%20for%20Web%20Post%20Poetics.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826115838/http://www.uncg.edu/bae/jgitm/Vol4no3.pdf to http://www.uncg.edu/bae/jgitm/Vol4no3.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ntia.doc.gov/Ntiahome/Fttn99/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ntia.doc.gov/Ntiahome/Fttn99/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150121050122/https://dspace.lib.uom.gr/handle/2159/14899/6/ to https://dspace.lib.uom.gr/handle/2159/14899/6/%20

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge from Knowledge divide

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The much less popular term Knowledge divide is not notable enough for a stand alone article. It seems like a POV fork of this. I suggest merging this here. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Since you are proposing merging Knowledge divide to this, then it is there that you'll propose merge not here. And they're generally notable individually per se, if anybody believe they should be merged, it can be proposed again.–Ammarpad (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digital divide. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091024044752/http://ksghome.harvard.edu/%7Epnorris/Books/Digital%20Divide.htm to http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~pnorris/Books/Digital%20Divide.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.digitalbridgefoundation.org/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/25684/11973000111e-gov.pdf/e-gov.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)