Web's Largest listing of crowdsourcing and crowdfunding events

Events

Advertise

Web's Largest Directory of Sites

2,339 crowdsourcing and crowdfunding sites

Toward a Credible Crowdsourcing System for Prevention (Reflections for Practice1)

document Distributed Knowledge

Christy
McConnell2
and
William
Tsuma3
04.07.2011

TOWARD
A
CREDIBLE
CROWD
SOURCING
SYSTEM
FOR
PREVENTION
Reflections
for
Practice1

This
report
is
an
outcome
of
a
one-‐day
reflection
and
brainstorming
session
organized
within
the
auspices
of
GPPAC’s
Action
Learning
–
Preventive
Action
Programme
in
collaboration
with
partners.
2
Christy
McConnell
is
Coordinator
of
ACCORD’s
Knowledge
Production
Department
and
GPPAC’s
Regional
Liason
Officer
for
Southern
Africa
Region.

3
William
Tsuma
is
GPPAC’s
Programme
Manager
–
Action
Learning,
Supporting
Preventive
Action
and
Human
Security.
He
also
coordinates
GPPAC’s
Southern
Africa
and
West
Africa
Regions
respectively

1

BACKGROUND
Social
change
is
actually
driven
not
by
technologies
but
by
ordinary
people
being
able
to
exert
an
authority
over
their
own
experience
and,
through
common
actions,
developing
the
courage
to
determine
their
own
destiny.4

Information
plays
a
central
role
in
the
field
of
conflict
prevention
and
peace
building.
If
accessed
on
time,
well
verified,
analysed
and
shared
to
the
right
stakeholders,
it
has
the
potential
to
shape
preventive
actions
while
also
guiding
the
interventions
of
those
seeking
to
contribute
to
positive
change
in
conflict
and
conflict
prone
contexts.
Traditionally,
systematic
conflict
analysis
has
been
the
primary
avenue
through
which
conflict
dynamics
are
diagnosed
and
information
made
available
for
policy
makers,
civil
society
organizations
(CSOs)
and
other
stakeholders
to
intervene
in
conflict
areas.
It
is
agreed
that
systematic
conflict
analysis
however
places
emphasis
on
long
term
unpacking
of
structural
sources
of
conflicts,
with
analysis
and
information
flows
requiring
long
time
investments.
In
some
cases
conflict
analysis
remains
a
costly
undertaking
both
in
time
and
resources.
Requiring
sufficient
time,
traditional
analysis
hinges
on
planning
that
does
not
always
meet
the
demands
of
fast
changing
operational
conflicts;
like
those
surrounding
elections
and
other
political
transition
phases.
The
election
violence
in
Kenya,
Ivory
Coast,
Guinea
and
the
pre-‐referendum
violence
in
transitional
areas
of
Sudan,
allude
to
the
need
for
a
complementary
conflict
information
generation
approach
to
strengthen
traditional
conflict
analysis
mechanisms
and
shape
timely
response
mechanisms.
In
addition,
alternative
communication
mechanisms
to
channel
information
and
share
incidents
are
needed
to
ensure
rapid
response
and
intervention.

CROWDSOURCING
(CS)

Crowdsourcing
(CS)
is
increasingly
being
used
as
an
alternative
system
to
the
traditional
mechanisms
of
generating
conflict
information
to
shape
response
and
peace
building
interventions.
Through
gathering
information
from
a
number
of
newer
and
widely
used
systems
–
such
as
social
media
communication
ecosystems,
emails
and
mobile
phone
technology
–
CS
acts
a
hub
for
information
generated
voluntarily
and
anonymously.
Pioneered
by
the
works
of
Ushahidi
and
others
in
the
field
of
crisis
mapping,
CS
has
played
a
central
role
in
crisis
awareness
and
elections
monitoring.
The
question
that
remains
to
be
answered
and
explored
further
is
the
role
that
crowdsourcing
can
play
in
anticipating
conflict
and
generating
information
that
can
shape
and
inform
the
prevention
of
the
more
operational
violence.

On
27th
June
2011,
a
multi-‐stakeholder
brainstorming
session
was
convened
by
GPPAC
in
collaboration
with
other
partners
to
reflect
on
the
conditions
under
which
credible
crowdsourcing
for
prevention
(CCS4P)
can
be
utilized
in
conflict-‐prone
areas
to
inform
violence
prevention
interventions
and
peace
building
efforts.
This
one
day
round
table
brought
together
a
small
team
of
representatives
from
CSOs
from
East,
South
and
West
Africa,
the
UN,
and
the
government
of
Kenya.
This
report
is
therefore
presented
in
the
form
of
key
reflections
from
the
meeting
with
the
intention
to
further
develop
a
background
document
that
will
inform
field-‐testing
in
selected
countries.
From
this
exercise
a
full
report
will
be
developed
on
the
findings
with
the
goal
of
informing
further
preventive
interventions
throughout
Africa
and
beyond.

4

Firoze
Manji
(Manji,
F.
(2008)
‘Mobile
activism,
mobile
hype’,
Gender
and
Media
Diversity
Journal,
no.
4,
January,
pp
125-‐32

TOWARDS
CREDIBLE
CROWDSOURCING
FOR
PREVENTION

Mobilizing
information
to
inform
early
warning
and
response
is
a
core
benefit
of
crowdsourcing
methods.
Within
the
context
of
conflict
prevention
and
peacebuilding,
credible
information
(in
this
case
information
that
is
verifiable,
analyzed
and
trust-‐worthy)
becomes
a
core
aspect
of
prevention.
This
is
information
that
can
be
acted
upon
and
that
can
lead
to
prevention
rather
than
exacerbating
conflict
and
violence.
There
have
been
examples
in
the
field
where
information
that
is
not
well
verified
or
validated
has
led
to
violence,
with
very
little
possibilities
of
shaping
prevention
efforts.
During
the
June
27th
meeting,
reflections
focused
on
the
aspect
of
credibility,
while
also
seeking
to
ensure
that
crowdsourcing
for
prevention
is
not
just
about
information
gathering,
but
also
for
prevention
and
action.

While
crowdsourcing
has
played
a
central
role
in
other
fields,
for
example
crisis
management
and
humanitarian
action,
there
is
need
for
caution
and
proper
reflection
when
seeking
to
apply
the
same
within
the
field
of
violence
prevention
and
peacebuilding.
A
key
aspect
to
be
considered
if
crowdsourcing
is
to
contribute
meaningfully
to
the
field
of
violence
prevention
is
credibility
of
the
information
and
credibility
of
the
process.
Credibility
in
this
case
becomes
an
end
in
itself,
but
also
a
process,
which
ought
to
be
believed,
plausible
and
verifiable.
The
legitimacy
in
the
process,
meaning
that
it
is
context
specific
and
not
a
straight
jacket
meant
to
be
a
one-‐size
fits
all,
suggests
rather
a
loose
spectrum
that
can
be
contextualized.
Credibility
of
information
also
implies
that
the
information
that
is
generated
is
properly
analysed
and
verified
by
various
key
stakeholders
and
rendered
plausible
for
action.
Finally,
that
credibility
of
a
process
is
also
determined
by
the
nature
of
the
response,
which
again
implicates
the
stakeholders
involved
and
their
roles.
The
following
brief
sections
attempt
to
discuss
some
of
these
issues
in
greater
detail
and
provide
food
for
thought
for
further
discussion
and
development.

Role
of
Multi-‐Stakeholders

From
the
perspective
of
preventive
action,
the
role
of
multiple
stakeholders
cannot
be
underestimated.
It
is
plausible
to
argue
that
preventive
action
is
a
sum
total
of
activities,
interventions
and
responses
by
various
stakeholders/actors
within
a
given
context.
For
example,
there
is
a
very
specific
role
to
be
played
by
civil
society
organizations,
the
UN,
government,
media,
and
regional
bodies,
amongst
others.
This
therefore
implies
that
these
stakeholders/actors
have
a
central
role
to
play
in
the
generation
of
conflict
information,
verification,
analysis
and
response.

For
example,
civil
society
groups
might
play
a
key
role
in
generating
‘grassroots’
information
depending
on
their
outreach
and
area
of
cover.
A
national
NGO
might
have
a
broad
outlook
on
one
hand,
while
a
CBO
might
give
a
more
localized
perspective
that
is
indeed
relevant
depending
on
the
conflict
requiring
attention.
Government
institutions
for
example,
Provincial
administration,
intelligence
or
Ministry
of
Interior,
might
on
the
other
hand
have
the
legitimacy
and
ability
to
respond
to
conflict
early
warning
generated
through
crowdsourced
mechanisms.
Engaging
these
government
institutions
in
a
collaborative
manner
to
mobilize
information
provides
the
much-‐needed
legitimacy
to
the
process
as
well
as
empowering
legitimate
institutions
the
space
for
response
to
the
warnings.
Another
example
touches
on
the
role
and
capacity
of
the
UN
and
other
international
organizations.
While
funding
is
a
key
consideration,
the
UN
has
through
its
mandate
established
extremely
useful
relationships
with
governments.
Engaging
with
and
collaborating
with
the
UN
in

processes
geared
towards
prevention
provides
most
conflict-‐prone
contexts
an
opportunity
to
access
spaces
for
decision-‐making
and
authority.
The
abovementioned
examples
provide
a
simple
yet
important
dynamic
of
stakeholder
involvement
that
contributes
to
the
credibility
of
information
generated
and
the
processes
set
in
motion.
The
responsible
stakeholders
within
any
CS
system
therefore
hold
a
very
powerful
tool
if
implemented
correctly.
The
realization
of
this
leads
to
the
need
to
develop
clear
accountability
structures
as
well
as
response
mechanisms.
What
is
still
important
is
to
determine
the
viability
to
domesticate
these
discussions
based
upon
on
the
country
context.
In
some
countries,
CSOs
and
the
public
enjoy
a
relatively
good
relationship
with
governments,
while
in
others
like
Eritrea
and
Ethiopia
for
example,
CSO
spaces
to
engage
is
limited
and
free
media
does
not
exist.
In
these
cases
if
government
were
to
initiate
or
even
be
involved
in
the
CS
process
how
would
they
be
deemed
credible
by
the
public
and
international
community?

Box
1:
Kenya’s
Conflict
Early
Warning
System

The
Kenya
National
Steering
Committee
for
Peace
Building
and
Conflict
Management
is
also
host
to
Kenya’s
Conflict
Early
Warning
System.
This
system
brings
together
multiple
stakeholders
who
play
different
roles
in
ensuring
that
the
system
generates
warnings,
but
also
leads
to
early
and
timely
response.
This
system
can
be
well
referred
to
as
a
hybrid
system
where
CSOs,
the
Kenya
Government
represented
by
the
Provincial
administration
and
Office
of
the
President,
UNDP,
bilateral
donors
for
example
USAID
and
others
converge
and
collaborate.

SOURCE:
Peter
Mwamachi,
(Program
Officer,
NSC)
Presenting
on
Kenya
Early
Warning
System
during
the
th Credible
Crowdsourcing
Roundtable,
27
June
2011

Role
of
Field
Monitors
Irrespective
of
the
name
used,
field
monitors
or
conflict
monitors
play
a
central
role
in
ensuring
that
information
that
is
generated
is
reliable
and
credible.
In
most
cases
they
are
locally
embedded,
meaning
that
they
belong
to
those
specific
communities
and
therefore
bring
in
an
aspect
of
legitimacy
to
the
process.
Generating
information
and
relaying
it
to
the
correct
stakeholders
requires
trust-‐building
measures
–
both
within
the
community
they
work
and
with
those
that
they
share
the
information
with.
One
way
of
doing
this
within
the
context
of
conflict
prevention
is
engaging
field
monitors
who
are
also
gatekeepers
with
good
reputation.
Trust
building
and
credibility
therefore
goes
hand
in
hand
and
is
vital
to
the
success
of
such
a
program.
Efficient
and
credible
monitoring
systems
rely
heavily
upon
reliable
field
monitors.
These
monitors
provide
a
dual
role,
especially
in
areas
with
poor
access
to
information
sharing
tools,
they
are
an
intermediary
for
the
people
to
the
CCS4P
as
well
as
an
on-‐the
ground
source
to
verify
information
received
to
the
CCS4P.
Monitors
report
through
an
information
tool
to
the
CCS4P
on
a
regular
basis
and
in
extraordinary
cases.
Furthermore,
they
are
the
eyes
and
ears
in
a
community
and
can
be
called
upon
to
verify
situations.

Box
2:
Key
Considerations
when
selecting
Field
Monitors

Identity:
Are
they
locally
embedded?
There
is
always
a
danger
when
conflict
or
field
monitors
are
external
individuals.

Legitimacy
and
Reputation:
Within
the
context
of
conflict
prevention,
legitimacy
and
reputation
does
play
a
central
role.
On
one
hand,
you
do
need
an
individual
who
brings
legitimacy
to
the
process.
She
or
he
is
known
to
be
honest,
not
biased
(politically,
ethnically
or
otherwise),
but
also
with
a
good
reputation.

Trustworthy:
All
these
are
aspects
that
are
difficult
to
measure
in
an
individual,
but
the
role
of
multiple
stakeholders,
networks
and
partnerships
become
important.
How
do
you
know
that
an
individual
is
trust
worthy?
One
can
use
recommendations
from
credible
institutions
for
example
NGOs,
UN,
Government
institutions
or
the
community
itself.
Individuals
who
can
be
trusted
at
local
level,
will
be
able
to
play
an
important
role
in
mobilizing
information,
verifying
and
can
be
trusted
to
relaying
it
without
altering
or
misrepresenting
it.

Incentives:
In
some
cases,
field
monitors
have
been
provided
with
incentives.
This
could
be
through
remunerations,
allowances
or
in
some
cases
salaries.
In
such
cases,
accountability
is
ensured.
The
flip
side
to
this
is
that
such
incentive
mechanisms
can
also
compromise
the
legitimacy
of
the
process
and
raise
questions
about
the
credibility
of
the
process.

SOURCE:
Plenary
Discussions:
Credible
Crowdsourcing
Roundtable,
27th
June,
2011

Figure
1:
Relationship
between
Key
Stakeholder,
Field
Monitors
and
the
Community
at
large

CCS4P

Responsible
Stakeholders

Monitors

Community

(e.g.
country)

Context
Specific
System
A
credible
system
should
be
appropriately
suited
to
the
needs
and
reality
of
the
country
it
is
to
be
implemented
in.
And
it
must
take
into
account
the
multiple
factors
and
stakeholders
within
and
surrounding
the
state
of
the
country.
In
an
ideal
scenario
it
should
be
developed,
implemented
and
owned
in
partnership
with
several
stakeholders
that
can
contribute
their
expertise
and
roles
where
necessary.
Box
3
below
briefly
presents
key
aspects
for
consideration
which
may
vary
from
country
to
country
and
yet
crucial
when
pursuing
credibility
of
process.

Box
3:
Factors
that
are
Context
Specific

The
State
of
the
Government:
Can
government
be
involved
or
will
it
jeopardize
the
credibility
of
the
credibility
of
the
program?
If
they
can
be
involved
how
much
information
should
they
be
privy
to?

Primary
Stakeholders:
Who
are
the
primary
stakeholders?
What
is
the
credibility
and
responsibility
of
each
of
these
stakeholders
in
light
of
the
current
state
of
the
nation?
Are
there
competing
and
conflicting
interests
amongst
these
stakeholders?
What
role
does
each
stakeholder
fulfill?
Who
has
access
to
what
information?
And,
how
do
you
create
cohesion
and
information
sharing
amongst
these
groups
and
still
ensure
real-‐time
information
sharing
and
rapid
response?

Role
of
the
International
Community:
How
should
UN,
AU,
RIGOs
and
INGOs
be
involved?
What
is
their
responsibility
in
the
current
state
of
the
nation?
What
can
they
contribute?
Telecommunications
Infrastructure:
What
is
the
extent
of
the
telecommunications
industry
in
the
country?
Does
the
government
regulate
it?
Who
are
the
providers
and
what
is
the
coverage?

Credible
Media:
Is
the
media
considered
free
and
fair?
What
role
should
the
media
play?
How
much
information
should
be
given
to
them?
How
will
they
disseminate
this
information
for
prevention
purposes?
Who
is
using
what
kind
of
media
(for
example
Radio,
Newspapers,
Internet,
etc)?

Incorporating
Traditional
Methods
of
Communication
and
Conflict
Resolution:
What
are
the
current
traditional
structures
at
the
grassroots?
What
roles
can
chiefs,
elders,
community
leaders
play?

Entry
Point
and
Outreach:
Who
will
be
the
initiator
–
or
what
is
the
entry
point
of
the
system?
Is
Government
or
CSO
more
reliable?
Who
will
oversee
the
outreach
and
promotion
of
the
system
all
the
way
down
to
the
grassroots
level?

SOURCE:
Plenary
Discussions:
Credible
Crowdsourcing
Roundtable,
27
June,
2011

th

Accessibility:
How
to
Access
the
Masses
Having
monitors
in
place
is
one
thing,
but
accessing
large
masses
of
people
to
mobilize
and
generate
information
is
another.
The
Internet
is
one
large
source
for
information
gathering
and
sharing.
The
truth
is,
it
remains
a
luxury
in
the
urban
areas
in
Africa
–
and
only
a
small
percentage
of
those
in
the
urban
areas
have
consistent
access
to
it.
The
CCS4P
system
must
consider
that
only
a
small
percentage
of
users
will
be
able
to
respond
using
Twitter,
Facebook
and
email.
However,
cell
phone
usage
in
Africa
is
growing
almost
twice
as
fast
as
any
other
region
in
the
world.
It
has
jumped
from
63
million
users
two
years
ago
to
152
million
today.
But
the
majority
of
cell
phones
in
Africa
are
pre-‐2003
models.
Therefore
there
is
an
urgent
need
for
low-‐end,
simple,
appropriate
technology
solutions,
which
are
easy
to
obtain,
affordable,
and
require
as
little
technical
expertise
as
possible.
CCS4P
tools
which
link
with
both
newer
and
older
models
of
cell
phones
must
be
just
as
easy
to
obtain
and
affordable
to
use.
Outreach
strategies
to
engage
communities
in
urban
and
rural
areas
must
be
assessed
as
these
two
areas
can
vary
greatly
in
their
communication
and
information
approaches.

This
brings
the
discussion
to
the
aspect
of
communication
infrastructure
within
each
country.
If
cell
phone
coverage
is
limited,
especially
in
rural
areas,
then
other
means
and
tools
for
communicating
must
be
explored.
The
whole
crux
of
crowdsourcing
is
that
information
should
be
easily
mobilized
and
quickly
relied
upon.
This
therefore
implies
that
traditional
modes
of
generating
and
sharing
information
might
slow
the
response
processes,
which
in
some
cases
do
require
urgency
given
the
short
interface
between
conflict
and
its
escalation
to
violence.
The
National
Steering
Committee
on
Peace
Building
and
Conflict
management
based
in
Kenya,
for
example,
have
found
an
alternate
to
cell
phones,
they
depend
on
High

Frequency
Radios
(HFR)
in
rural
and
remote
areas
to
open
up
communication
for
those
that
would
not
normally
have
access
to
other
communications
tools.
Using
HFR
compensates
for
those
regions
where
mobile
network
connections
are
not
accessible.
Simplicity
of
such
a
system
will
determine
the
category
of
people
able
to
access
and
share
information.
Furthermore,
in
most
cases,
conflict-‐prone
areas
still
depict
high
levels
of
illiteracy.
This
therefore
brings
the
dilemma
of
a
way
of
communication
for
those
that
cannot
read
or
write,
but
also
language
relevant
so
that
those
incapable
of
communicating
in
the
universal
languages
like
English,
French,
Arabic
can
still
be
able
to
be
participate
in
the
process.

Box
4:
Freedom
Fone
Tries
to
Beat
the
Illiteracy
and
Infrastructure
Barrier
in
Zimbabwe

Freedom
Fone
makes
it
easy
to
build
interactive,
two-‐way,
phone
based
information
services
using
interactive
audio
voice
menus,
voice
messages,
SMS
and
polls.
The
DIY
platform
is
accessible,
user-‐friendly,
low-‐cost,
global
and
does
not
require
Internet
access
for
users
and
callers
alike.
It
takes
advantage
of
audio
to
address
language
and
literacy
barriers
when
reaching
out
to
the
millions
of
people
living
on
the
margins
of
the
information
society.5

SOURCE:
www.freedomfone.org

While
discussing
the
question
of
field
monitors,
we
raised
the
issue
of
incentive
structures.
This
has
been
a
central
concern
especially
when
the
crowd
mobilizing
and
generating
information
for
prevention
has
to
incur
communication
costs
on
either
the
caller
or
receiver
end.
The
costs
of
cell
phone
usage
including
calls
and
SMS’
can
be
a
hindrance
to
individuals
living
within
extreme
poverty
circumstances.
Such
costs
therefore
need
to
be
considered
when
creating
information
tools.

Box
5:
WANEP
Nigeria
Seeks
to
address
to
Cost
Issue

In
an
attempt
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
related
to
information
costs,
WANEP
Nigeria’s
Conflict
Early
Warning
System,
which
also
employs
crowd
sourced
information,
has
secured
postpaid
mobile
phones
for
monitors,
specially
configured
and
networked
with
crisis
lines.
In
this
case
the
field
monitors
are
able
to
communicate
with
the
National
Secretariat
at
any
time
of
the
day
or
night,
without
the
cost
concerns.
In
addition
to
this,
a
token
of
appreciatiation
of
USD
23
is
paid
to
the
monitors
on
a
monthly
basis
to
offset
their
communications
costs.

SOURCE:
Ifeanyi
Okechukwu,
presenting
WANEP
Nigeria’
NEWS,
27th
June,
2011

In
more
poverty
stricken
areas
many
families
and
communities
rely
on
communal
phones.
How
this
affects
information
sharing
has
yet
to
be
known,
but
it
could
hinder
the
volunteering
of
information
regarding
sensitive
situations.
In
addition,
gender
dimensions
must
be
considered
as
in
some
communities
the
head
of
the
household,
often
a
man,
controls
the
household
phone.
In
these
cases,
how
can
information
sharing
and
sensitive
tools
be
developed
that
allow
women
to
safely
and
anonymously
share
information?
Another
dimension
is
battery
life.
In
most
rural
parts
of
Africa
and
other
developing
contexts,
electricity
and
other
sources
of
energy
are
not
highly
available.
It
is
there
important
that
technologies
that
are
generated
are
triangulated
to
ensure
flow,
but
also
accessibility.

5
www.freedomfone.org

Box
6:
Accessibility
Considerations

 Urban
and
rural
communication
tools
 Outreach
strategies
for
different
areas
and
people
 Alternative
communication
infrastructure
and
technology
depending
on
the
available
outreach
 Literacy
and
illiteracy
differentials
 The
question
of
language
 Costs
 Gender
dimension
and
roles
within
information
sharing

SOURCE:
Credible
Crowdsourcing
for
Prevention
Round
Table,
2011

Verifying
Conflict-‐Information

Conflicts
are
not
neutral
processes.
They
represent
spaces
where
competing
and
at
times
conflicting
interests
are
advanced
and
protected.
It
is
therefore
plausible
to
argue
that
violence
(destructive
conflict)
does
occur
once
these
competing
interests
can
no
longer
be
negotiated
or
compromised.
Without
proper,
legitimate
mechanisms
for
dialogue,
violence
becomes
one
destructive
choice
of
expressing
views,
but
also
advancing
interests.
Conflict
information
therefore
becomes
a
crucial
element
in
any
preventive
effort.
We
have
been
discussing
the
various
elements
of
ensuring
that
information
is
credible
and
that
the
process
of
collecting
it
is
legitimate.
In
this
sub-‐section,
we
bring
to
the
table
a
notion
of
verifying
this
information
before
it
can
shape
off-‐line
activities.

Crowdsourcing
is
a
useful
method
for
consolidating
perspectives
from
the
streets,
some
of
which
can
be
referred
to
as
rumors.
These
perspectives
have
to
be
verified,
analyzed
and
presented
to
responsible
stakeholders
and
the
public
for
action.
To
do
this,
modern
technologies
and
innovative
information
ecosystems
provide
opportunities
for
safe-‐ verification
of
raw
data
before
it
is
made
available
for
public
consumption.
This
is
of
course
to
support
and
compliment
the
off-‐line
verification
efforts
by
conflict
monitors
and
others.

Box
7:
The
Peace
Portal
(www.peaceportal.org)
and
Existing
Online
Possibilities

The
Peace
Portal
is
an
initiative
of
the
GPPAC
Foundation,
supported
by
the
Netherlands
Ministry
of
Economic
Affairs
and
the
City
of
The
Hague,
with
the
mission
to
share
and
integrate
information
leading
to
action
aimed
at
preventing
conflict
and
building
peace.
The
Peace
Portal
offers
a
neutral
on-‐line
platform
open
to
everybody
and
serves
the
peace
building
community.
Hence,
it
is
a
platform
where
multiple
stakeholders
can
verify
collected
information
as
well
as
initiate
dialogue
around
sensitive
information
On
the
Peace
Portal,
online
communities
are
given
space
for
information
verification
and
multiple
stakeholder
dialogue
which
can
be
completely
open
(accessible
for
everyone),
restricted
(requiring
access)
or
completely
closed
(private).
Behind
the
Peace
Portal
is
GPPAC
–
a
global
CSO
Network
that
seeks
to
contribute
towards
the
prevention
of
violence.
This
offers
a
credible
network
providing
spaces
for
verification
and
important
regional
gate
keepers
for
monitoring
and
global
advocacy
and
exchange

SOURCE:
Presentation
by
Vicky
Carreras,
Peace
Portal
Manager
at
the
CCS4P
Round
Table,
2011

Mobilizing
Response
and
Action

Finally
and
most
importantly
is
the
aspect
of
response
and
timely
action.
In
this
brief
outline,
we
have
reflected
on
some
of
the
key
considerations
and
conditions
under
which
crowdsourcing
can
play
a
role
in
violence
prevention.
We
argue
that
generating
information
is
just
one
aspect
of
violence
prevention,
though
an
important
and
increasingly
vital
one.
It
is
argued
that
being
able
to
have
an
early
warning
system
where
the
public
or
a
crowd
can
indeed
generate
information
based
on
any
given
sets
of
indicators
creates
greater
opportunity
for
prevention
of
conflict
and
violence.
Those
planning
to
engage
in
activities
that
might
lead
to
violence
can
therefore
be
deterred
by
the
mere
fact
that
such
a
system
exists.
Secondly,
raising
awareness
is
a
key
aspect
of
prevention
which
many
times
does
not
receive
much
attention.
When
people
are
made
aware
of
the
potentials
of
violence
or
conflict,
through
well-‐verified
information,
then
behavior
can
be
transformed
to
the
positive.
A
core
aspect
of
response
however,
and
which
we
have
spoken
about
at
the
beginning
of
this
brief,
is
the
role
of
multiple
stakeholders
in
mobilizing
response
and
forging
action
based
on
the
various
warnings
generated
through
crowd
sourced
information.

CONCLUSION
AND
WAY
FORWARD
It
is
obvious
from
the
above
discourse
that
multiple
factors
and
layers
within
those
factors
exist
when
developing
an
early
warning
system
with
a
focus
on
credible
crowdsourcing.
Two
vital
challenges
when
developing
such
a
strategy
include
the
accessibility
of
information
flows
and
the
extent
and
scope
of
the
actors
involved.
The
basis
for
this
brief
and
the
forthcoming
report
will
be
focused
on
developing
strategy
and
will
most
likely
generate
even
more
questions
around
the
role
that
crowdsourcing
can
play
in
anticipating
conflict
and
collating
information
that
can
shape
and
inform
the
prevention
of
violence.
The
result
from
this
background
report
will
thus
lead
to
its
practical
application
in
field
exercises
throughout
various
selected
countries
most
specifically
related
to
upcoming
elections
and
curbing
election
violence.
The
result
will
be
an
analysis
of
the
challenges
and
opportunities
that
exist
within
CCS4P
and
to
develop
a
standard
for
the
use
of
such
a
tool
in
early
warning
and
prevention
of
conflict.

As
more
and
more
stakeholders,
specifically
in
the
international
community,
are
keen
to
understand
the
opportunities
that
exist
within
current
technology
for
conflict
prevention
and
information,
it
is
important
that
we
examine
its
role
and
set
a
precedent
for
its
use
in
order
to
contribute
to
the
field
of
conflict
prevention.
Even
more
so,
stakeholders
who
were
involved
in
conflict
early
warning
systems
prior
to
technology
have
great
knowledge
in
the
idiosyncrasies
in
each
country
and
the
field
and
therefore
cannot
be
disregarded
but
must
be
involved
in
the
development
of
CCS4P
as
it
is
a
tool
to
further
their
work
and
not
replace
it.

The
role
of
this
particular
project
is
not
just
to
analyze
theories
of
intervention
but
to
actually
test
the
use
of
technology,
specifically
crowdsourcing,
in
the
field
for
prevention.
It
is
upon
this
foundation
that
we
will
seek
to
work
quickly
and
rigorously
in
the
coming
months
to
build
upon
the
meeting
held
on
the
27
June
2011
in
Nairobi.
The
next
steps
will
include
developing
the
necessary
tools
as
we
engage
in
pilots
around
CCS4P
around
possible
election
and
other
related
violent
conflicts
in
DRC,
Zimbabwe,
Liberia
and
Kenya.
It
is
through
doing,
that
key
lessons
on
how
such
modern
technologies
can
contribute
to
strengthening
peace
building
and
conflict
prevention
efforts
can
be
developed.

ANNEX
1:
List
of
Participants
Name
Anne
Kahl
Christy
McConnell
Ifeanyi
Okechukwu
Carol
Owegi
Peter
Mwamachi
Thomas
Odera
Rachael
Onyango
Erastus
Ethekon
Victoria
Careras
William
Tsuma

Organization
UNDP
-‐
BCPR
ACCORD
WANEP
–
Nigeria
Nairobi
Peace
Initiative
NSC
NSC
PACT
KE
UNDP
Kenya
GPPAC
/
Peace
Portal
GPPAC
Preventive
Action
Email
Contact
Details
Anne.kahl@un.org
Christy@accord.org.za
mails4tcelifa@yahoo.com
cowegi@npi-‐africa.org
peter.mwamachi@nscpeace.go.ke
Tom.odera@nscpeace.go.ke
Rachael.onyango@pactke.org
Erastus.ethekon@undp.org
v.carreras@conflict-‐prevention.net
w.tsuma@conflict-‐prevention.net

Summary On 27th June 2011, a multi-‐stakeholder brainstorming session was convened by GPPAC in collaboration with other partners to reflect on the conditions under which credible crowdsourcing for prevention (CCS4P) can be utilized in conflict-‐prone areas to in form violence prevention interventions and peace building efforts.

This report is therefore presented in the form of key reflections from the meeting with the intention to further develop a background document that will inform field-‐testing selected countries. From this exercise a full report will be developed on the findings with the goal of informing further preventive interventions throughout Africa and beyond.

Description The role of this particular project is not just to analyze theories of intervention but to actually test the use of technology, specifically crowdsourcing, in the field for prevention. It is upon this foundation that multi-stakeholders will seek to work quickly and rigorously in the coming months to build upon the meeting held on the 27 June 2011 in Nairobi. The next steps will include developing the necessary tools as we engage in pilots around CCS4P around possible election and other related violent conflicts in DRC, Zimbabwe, Liberia and Kenya.

Tags: CCS4P, credible crowdsourcing for prevention, crisis prevention, Crowdsourcing, key reflections, preventive interventions

Posted by Sebastian Blanca

Aug 01, 2011 07:39 pm GMT Viewed 1072 times

Author: Christy McConnell and William Tsuma Source

Contact us if you are owner of this content and want to make changes.

Download Flag This

Events

Toward a Credible Crowdsourcing System for Prevention (Reflections for Practice1)

Comments

Crowdsourcing.org

Categories

Content

Crowdsourcing.org, an initiative by massolution®

Events

Related Content

Toward a Credible Crowdsourcing System for Prevention (Reflections for Practice1)

Comments

Crowdsourcing.org

Categories

Content

Crowdsourcing.org, an initiative by massolution®