I almost agree here. What is missing for me is the dynamic nature of knowledge and, importantly, reputation. At any giving point in time, the conclusions below are fine, but it is over time, where ratings and rankings are  really important. It is the notion of creating a reputation market. As we hear over and over (yet seem challenged to heed) KM is about connection not collection. Giant monoliths like Amazon and enterprise repositories of documents are information, not knowledge.  It is fine to rate cataloged, indexed and codified information, the documents, but really what's happening is an implicit ranking of the author and the derivative or derived future of their tacit knowledge and, very importantly, their capability and willingness to get it used, e.g., the social networks, persuasive skills, etc.. It is the dynamic of knowledge creation and use where rankings and ratings really are an advantage. Reputation and identity are social systems that need the attention of KM. Remember, for KM it is less about how it is managed (library science, database management) and far more about how it is created, used, applied. If the author is unavailable, then it the social network and conversation that emerges around the ranked document, such as a wiki, that carries the value forward. Information needs to be socialized to release value. Yahoo! Answers is an example of a crude reputation system/market. There are more on the horizon. 

 

 

Cordially,

 

John

John Maloney

IM/Skype: jheuristic
ID: http://public.2idi.com/=john.maloney

Prediction Markets: http://www.kmcluster.com/nyc/PM/PM.htm

KM Blogs: http://kmblogs.com/

 

 

 

Points and Levels