Re: New poll for sikmleaders - Create a wiki page? #wikis #poll

Yao Ge

I think one of the draw back of Yahoo Group is it is relatively closed participation in discussion. IMHO, we should have a team blogging environment that each member can post topics of interest or ask a question. The commenting of the blog post should be open to public this can potentially more effective as I have cases in the past that I forwarded the discussion to my co-worker, they want to causally join the discussion but no signed up as member.
Wiki is a knowledge base that are made up with topics that are contextually connected to each other (such as encyclopedia, or glossary). The wiki are more effective blogs when we have a need to co-author something (such as missions and objectives) or create something that a lot more neutral (within the group) such as summarizing an interesting topic by compiling our past discussions. However it can also used with stronger individual authorship (such as Google Knol). We just need to anwser this question - what are we missing with the current threaded discussion forum? I don't think we should put everything in Wikipedia as it is suited for discussion and exchange of point of views. We should, however, at least create a entry in Wikipedia definiting SIKM group and reference to our community site(s).
I think no matter what we do, we should keep all contents within one site (or two the most) so that we don't create fragementation and dilution to focus.

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Patti Anklam
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 7:20 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] New poll for sikmleaders

I agree wholeheartedly with Andrew (and Dave). I had the same feeling as he did with the mention of the wiki.  Contributing to Wikipedia has been problematic for many of us, I think, for various reasons. Any successful wiki starts with a shared, articulated goal and common sense of purpose. What is that for this group?

A wiki for SIKM could be a place to do both as Andrew suggests (focus on how you can achieve the goals of KM) as well as an organizing tool (for people to declare their intentions to work on specific topic areas, make commitments, and manage the work).


Patti Anklam
Leveraging Context, Knowledge, and Networks

Net Work: A Practical Guide to Creating and Sustaining Networks at Work and in the World is now available at and other online booksellers.

From: [] On Behalf Of Andrew Gent
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] New poll for sikmleaders

>> A new poll has been created for the sikmleaders group:

Hmm... unfortunately this poll doesn't really allow me to answer the question accurately. It is not a question of either/or.

  • Yes, I think we should contribute to the existing Wikipedia entries on topics related to KM.
  • No, I don't think we should enter all of the content we want to create into Wikipedia. It would be both inappropriate and not definitive enough for that much of an open audience.
  • Yes, I think there could be benefits to our creating our own wiki to develop other KM content.

When the wiki was first mentioned, I was not particularly fond of the idea. tehre seemed to be too much of the let's pool all of our knowledge into a definitive KM repository about the idea. Part of the reason I like the distribution list is because we can discuss things that we don't necessarily all agree with but we have sufficient experience and respect for each other that we can have an informed discussion about the details and alternatives. Sometimes we (or at least I) sit back and listen because I am not sure I agree, but I am interested in learning what others think.

If you then take that content and say "this is what we as the SI KM community think" to a larger audience, I may  be forced to come forward and state my objections. Or at least my doubts. Which would then tend to interrupt what I consider a very beneficial conversation.

That is not to say you can't also have active discussions within wikis. But that is not the best mechanism for back and forth.

So I guess what I am saying is this:

  • It is very important to me, as a member of SIKM, that we keep the discussion group for the discussions.
  • I also agree it would be useful (both to ourselves and others) if we, as Dave suggests, participate in the public articulation of the basic concepts of KM through the appropriate channels, most notably wikipedia.
  • I also think there could be uses for an SIKM wiki, assuming we start by agreeing, even loosely, to what the goals are for that wiki as distinct from the goals of the discussion and the public wikis.

Just as an example, an SIKM wiki might focus on how you can achieve the goals of KM (vs. the definition of what those goals are). I am not advocating that. I am just giving that as an example.

Andrew Gent
Knowledge Architect
Incredibly Dull

Join to automatically receive all group messages.