Digitally Invisible Cultures: Part I, The Digital Divide

When I first started tracking Muhammad and the Wikipedia, I had a fair idea of what to expect. My Google Alerts triggered on every mention that Google found - and there were plenty. Admittedly, Google doesn't trigger on everything that is placed on the Internet - but if it hits Google, it means that it is at the very least findable by one of the most used search engines.

The reason I found this interesting to follow was along the lines of what I wrote of in Censorship vs. Bias: The Wikipedia. It quickly became more. Maybe it was that CARDICIS had made me more sensitive to cultural and language issues. Maybe years of participating on the DigitalDivide.net email list had something to do with it. Maybe it was because, though not Muslim, I'm around them almost every day and grew up around them. Maybe it was that I always feel compelled to speak out about fair play. Maybe it was reading Homo Ludens by Johan Huizinga. Likely that it was a combination of all of the above and more, but while reading Huizinga's work I came across this quote that gave me pause:

Fighting, as a cultural function, presupposes limiting rules, and it requires, to a certain extent anyway, the recognition of its play-quality. We can only speak of war as a cultural function so long as it is waged within a sphere whose members regard each other as equals or antagonists with equal rights; in other words its cultural function depends on its play-quality. This condition changes as soon as war is waged outside the sphere of equals, against groups not recognized as human beings and thus deprived of human rights - barbarians, devils, heathens, heretics and "lesser breeds without the law". In such circumstances war loses its play-quality altogether and can only remain within the bounds of civilization in so far as the parties to it accept certain limitations for the sake of their own honour.

Thus, 'fair play'. I'm not by any means equating War to what has happened and what continues to be said about the Wikipedia's portrayal of the Islamic Prophet, Muhammad. What I am saying is that there is a parallel, and discerning minds should be able to see it readily. Explaining it in a context outside of War is difficult as it is not as obvious - but it is there every day. The invisible people one walks past, who we get angry with when they intrude upon our little worlds as we go about our business. The unexpected guests, the people who disrupt the 'magic circle' of our world - be it the garbage man dropping the trash can before the alarm clock has a chance to wake up or the religious people who feel compelled to save you by ringing your doorbell repeatedly.

You know what I mean. Those people. But they are people. Because we don't always agree with them doesn't mean we should wipe them off the planet; it doesn't mean that we should ignore everything that they say and it most certainly doesn't mean that they are 'all alike'. That, you see, is the root of an ugly word called 'prejudice'. We all do it; it is an instinct that probably has saved some of our ancestor's lives in the distant past - but it hardly seeds itself as a root of a society that we speak of loftily. Well, at least a few of us.

The discounting of any middle ground in permitting the images to be optional by Wikipedia and thus allowing the article on Muhammad to be culturally representative and tolerant (thus, being a functional piece) drew me in. Trying to understand why took me through some rather odd places; and what I found disturbed me.

Why? Because it could be any group. And while this is related to how at least some Muslims who signed a petition felt, this could be any group. Even one you belong to.

The Middle East Digital Divide

Before we get into anything else, I want to point out how many people in the Middle East can discuss this issue. Globally, 20% of the world is on the Internet. The Middle East is at 17.4% internet penetration - and accounts only for 2.5% of the world's internet penetration.

But, interestingly, it is growing at the fastest rate: 920.2% between 2000 and 2007.

Drilling down, we see the Middle East national internet penetrations. Israel only accounts for 11% of the Middle East internet penetration, so it isn't as much of a factor as the larger countries where the majority of people are Muslim. Israel, as we are reminded every now and then, is a minority in the Middle East. But the Middle East, on the Internet, is a minority. Maybe we should treat it more like Israel is treated? Is there some prejudice? Perhaps, I digress.

Guess which country has had the most internet penetration growth between 2000 and 2007? Iran - 7,100.0%, standing at 27.5% internet penetration and accounting for 53.7% of the Middle Eastern internet penetration. In fact, 4 countries in the Middle East are well over 1000% growth between 2000 and 2007.

Guess which country has had the least internet penetration growth between 2000 and 2007? Iraq. 188.0% growth between 2000 and 2007. With 0.1% internet penetration on a national scale and accounting for 0.1% of the entire Middle East's internet penetration figures. Granted, there was an invasion/is an occupation, but wasn't there supposed to be some building of infrastructure? And, of the 36,000 people in Iraq with such access, how many of them are actually of Iraq instead of being foreign contractors and military? In the grand scheme of things, Iraq is in the Stone Age.

So now - 33,510,500 of the people in the entire Middle East - a population of 192,755,045 - have internet access.

It is unlikely that everyone speaks English, but there is no empirical data I have on hand to support this either way. Let us, at this point, simply consider it a factor.

Now - does it seem that internet penetration allows people in the Middle East to have as much of a say as in the rest of the world - especially compared to a demographic who by default does have internet access: Wikipedia editor/contributor/admin, bloggers, and media on the internet? No, they don't.

But they're growing fast. Maybe that is part of the rub. The clash. And the prejudice that I'll cover in Part II.

I expect at least one more part on this...