correction - I meant to say "Wikipedia is NOT suited for discussion
and exchange of view points".

--- In sikmleaders@..., "Ge, Yao (Y.)" <yge@...> wrote:

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.

-Yao

________________________________

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

Patti Anklam
Leveraging Context, Knowledge, and Networks

http://www.pattianklam.com
<http://www.pattianklam.com> (978)456-4175

Net Work: A Practical Guide to Creating and Sustaining Networks at

Work

and in the World is now available at Amazon.com and other online
booksellers.

From: sikmleaders@...

[mailto:sikmleaders@...]

On Behalf Of Andrew Gent
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 4:06 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
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 <http://incrediblydull.blogspot.com/>