toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I agree with you Stan, the fact is that this is clearly a compendium and it explicitly links back to to a diversity of background sources. Nor does it make any independent claims to authority in and of itself. It does, however have very high utility as a resource bank, and users should be able to assess the authority of its constituent parts based on their originating sources (and references where given), on their proven utility, and on their relevance to the users’ contexts.
I received this further reply to my response: "If a KM practitioner or client does find such a list helpful, if it solves a problem or fulfills a need, then by definition it is a positive thing. What concerns me is that, given your esteemed stature in the field, along with that of several other list contributors – these are some of the foremost minds in the field, IMO – I think such a list could 'in the wild' carry more weight than you give yourselves credit for. If that is the case, then the fact that some idea or technique is -- or is not -- on the list becomes a matter of considerable materiality in and of itself. Being on such a list inevitability implies recognition -- or even endorsement -- by these veteran experts. I urge you to use your considerable powers of thought leadership carefully!"
I appreciate the concern. My view is that the list is not likely to be viewed as gospel. Rather, I think it will be seen simply as an organic compendium of terms and links to articles with additional details on each one that can be used as starting point for learning more about the field. I was recently asked: "Do you have a taxonomy of knowledge management?" I was able to respond with a link to the list.