Date   

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

sikmleaders@...
 

The following sikmleaders poll is now closed. Here are the
final results:


POLL QUESTION: We are looking at creating some KM content on a wiki page. Which approach would you want us to use?

Poll will be one week.

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- Add any KM content we want to develop to wikipedia, 10 votes, 55.56%
- I wouldn't take the time to contribute even if you set one up so it doesn't really matter to me. , 0 votes, 0.00%
- Create a new SIKM wiki page on a standalone free wiki service like Google sites. , 8 votes, 44.44%
- Wiki? What's a wiki?, 0 votes, 0.00%



For more information about this group, please visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders

For help with Yahoo! Groups, please visit
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html


Re: Wiki #wikis

Martin@Cleaver.org <martin@...>
 

Wikis might be considered to have a gravitational force: the larger
the number of articles the bigger the pull to view and contribute. The
wiki brings in both content and people.

Should we contribute to Wikipedia? Sure:

The broader the interest of the people, the more likely they are to
integrate topics from distant subject areas. The melding of
disciplines happens on Wikipedia for example because an
incompatibility between, say, a leading practice in KM and a leading
practice in Learning Management will be spotted as someone synthesizes
an overarching topic. Having every discipline in one place creates
conflict, which in turn spawns a process of reasoning, interweaving,
followed by negotiating, and spawning bridging topics and
cross-trained people. SIKM helping to generate knowledge is good.

Should SIKM have its own wiki?

Well, wikis can be used for any type of content. Maybe the answer to
this question rests in what kind of content we want to work on. Does
it make sense for our content to be melded with that of other groups?

I'd venture: some of it.

* For "definitional" best practices in knowledge management, why
would we want them separate?
* For meeting minute notes, why should they be shared?

There is not only our policy to consider, but also any public wiki we
plan on using. Wikipedia, for example, will delete content that does
not fit their mandate.

I don't really have answers to these, but I've plenty of questions...

Regards,
Martin

--
Martin@...
Chair, Wiki Symposium. Portugal September 2008.
http://www.wikisym.org
+1 416-786-6752 (GMT-5)

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 5:45 PM, noisedata <noisedata@...> wrote:
My point exactly... was aiming to get to this answer... if the goal is to
spread the word about KM and improve the quality of contributions in
"general public", wikipedia is the place to start... noone will look at yet
another wwwiki lost in the universe somewhere... people start looking at
wikipedia for answers... so there is the solution as David put it
straightforwardly... ;)

P


On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 7:04 AM, David Snowden <snowded@...>
wrote:

Of course there is another solution - contribute to the Wikipedia pages on
Knowledge Management, Community of Practice etc. At the moment only a very
small number of us look after those pages and I seem to spend most of my
time removing commercial promotion and vandalism.

That way the contribution would be to the wider community, of course it
would then be subject to scrutiny by a wider group of editors and might be
less comfortable in consequence.


Re: Wiki #wikis

Tom Condon
 

I think something like a wiki would be useful to capture the "golden
nuggets" of the various discussion threads, teleconferences, and
powerpoint files that are shared in this community so that the
knowledge can be organized in a way that makes it easier to find and
consume.

There are often great books, articles, website and services that are
discussed here but there is no list to go to and quickly look at them
all. You have to search through tons of threads to find those
nuggets. Same goes for answers to good KM questions.

So I would love to see a wiki with an often updated list of KM
references, a Q&A section, and perhaps a pofile for each of the
members.

Once possible wiki solution is discussed in this article:
http://blogs.bnet.com/businesstips/?p=1777

With that being said, I think those of us that are particular experts
in different areas of KM, such as CoP or business process
improvement, should share their general knowledge on the subject
through something like Wikipedia or Knol.

Thanks,

Tom Condon
Knowledge Management Officer
NATO HQ, Brussels Belgium
condontm@...

--- In sikmleaders@..., "Dale Arseneault"
<dalearseneault@...> wrote:


A colleague of mine pointed me to an interesting post titled
Resource
Fetishism <http://www.jonobacon.org/?p=1216> by Jono, who is Ubuntu
Community Manager for Canonical <http://www.canonical.com/> , and
looks
after the world-wide community of Ubuntu contributors and
developers.
(Ubuntu <http://www.ubuntu.com/> is a community developed Linux-
based
operating system).

In his post, Jono paints this common problem:

Its funny how the same approximate process seems to happen for many
communities, and sub-communities in projects. It happens a little
like
this:


* A new team forms from a small group of enthusiasts.
* They create a raft of resources - version control,
repositories,
mailing lists, IRC channels, bug trackers, councils, forums etc.
* A discussion happens on the new mailing list about which
website
CMS to use.
* The discussion lasts approximately a month. There are many
opinions. Bickering ensues. It turns into a Drupal vs. Wordpress
war.
* Two months pass, little has been achieved other than yet more
CMS
arguments archived to the Internet.

So, I read the thread that this post triggered, and I can't seem to
see
the core reason for the sikmleaders wiki in the first place. We
seem to
have gotten trapped in our own Resource Fetishism.

Can anyone enlighten me - what would we do with a wiki? why do we
need
one ? (regardless of the technology)
Dale Arseneault
http://reflectionskmoi.blogspot.com/


Re: Wiki #wikis

Peter Baloh
 


Re: Wiki #wikis

Martin@Cleaver.org <martin@...>
 

Heh. No worries then! Thanks, Martin. :-D

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Ge, Yao (Y.) <yge@...> wrote:
Martin, I don't see anything you said implied your ego. Actually I am really enlightened by your post :-)


Re: Wiki #wikis

Yao Ge
 

Martin, I don't see anything you said implied your ego. Actually I am really enlightened by your post :-)
I am just try to express my opinion towards the topic of wiki relevancy in general.
Sorry about the confusion.
 
BTW, for those still trying to understand the differences between wiki and discussion forum, try this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dnL00TdmLY
 
-Yao



From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Martin@...
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:48 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Wiki

Thanks Yao.

I apologize that what I said came across egotistically. That was not
my intention.

Martin.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Ge, Yao (Y.) <yge@...> wrote:
> In loose community like this. Most of us interact with each other through
> posting a question or thoughts and other response by expressing their
> (sometimes very strong) opinions. Unless we collectively have a need to
> deliver something that will be less of individual opinion (and ego), we will
> probably happy with the mailing-list is the way it is.
>
> Wik is tremendously powerful tool for building a highly networked topics
> that can be contributed by many individuals. It is also highly effective in
> contextual learning. However It shifts from the individual
> contributor's view points towards much more of a collective intelligence of
> the participants. If we have to create something together, say a mission
> statement of this group, wiki would be a good choice. But lower your ego
> first. If we want to stay with causal hall-way conversation, we don't need
> wiki.
>
> -Yao
> ________________________________
> From: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Martin@Cleaver.org
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:04 AM
> To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Wiki
>
> When a person collects knowledge to address a purpose, it serves a
> purpose, if only to that one person. However, that "knowledge"
> collected is most likely just information to others - if it doesn't
> serve a specific purpose or general context useful to others.
>
> Most tools don't do anything to help build shared context, in fact,
> through their permissioning controls and rigid content boundaries they
> actively prevent participants from blending their ideas and words.
> These mechanisms block the pursuit of discovering or negotiating a
> mutually useful information structure.
>
> I like to think that a wiki has the affordance to collect, refine and
> rework knowledge in proportion to the exact amount of effort that
> every participant puts in. To me, a wiki allows everyone to collect
> what interests them, shows everyone what's collected, and poses the
> community with the question "how does the knowledge each of us knows
> fit together?".
>
> Through this participants ask "how do we, the community, fit
> together?". In this way, it teases out group goals and leaves useful
> artifacts (information capital) in its wake.
>
> Martin.
> --
> Martin Cleaver
> Martin@BlendedPerspectives.com
> +1 416-786-6752 (GMT-5)
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Albert Simard <simarda@inspection.gc.ca>
> wrote:
>> Dale -
>>
>> You have hit an important KM nail squarely on the head. "I have a
>> solution;
>> what's the problem?" I argued this point, to no avail, in my former
>> department, when a wiki was set up, with no specific objective, just to
>> see
>> what would happen.
>>
>> In the specific SIKM case, there doesn't seem to be much literature on the
>> subject of life-cycle management of knowledge, scientific or otherwise
>> (notwithstanding DeLong's book). And there seemed to be interest in the
>> subject expressed by some SIKM members. A couple of members mentioned a KM
>> site on wikispace, so I set up a page on that site to see if a group of
>> "enthusiasts" might be able to collectively construct something on the
>> subject - a specific and limited objective. To my mind, that's what social
>> networking is all about.
>>
>> Returning to my former employer, what happened is that, over the course of
>> a
>> year, several hundred people participated in posting and gradually
>> developing more than 2,000 articles. Peer production represents a
>> significant cultural change and will take longer. So, I was proven wrong
>> and somteimes it is true that if you build it (and proactively promote it,
>> and it is useful), they will come.
>>
>> Al Simard
>>
>>
>
>


Re: Wiki #wikis

Martin@Cleaver.org <martin@...>
 

Thanks Yao.

I apologize that what I said came across egotistically. That was not
my intention.

Martin.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Ge, Yao (Y.) <yge@...> wrote:
In loose community like this. Most of us interact with each other through
posting a question or thoughts and other response by expressing their
(sometimes very strong) opinions. Unless we collectively have a need to
deliver something that will be less of individual opinion (and ego), we will
probably happy with the mailing-list is the way it is.

Wik is tremendously powerful tool for building a highly networked topics
that can be contributed by many individuals. It is also highly effective in
contextual learning. However It shifts from the individual
contributor's view points towards much more of a collective intelligence of
the participants. If we have to create something together, say a mission
statement of this group, wiki would be a good choice. But lower your ego
first. If we want to stay with causal hall-way conversation, we don't need
wiki.

-Yao
________________________________
From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On
Behalf Of Martin@...
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:04 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Wiki

When a person collects knowledge to address a purpose, it serves a
purpose, if only to that one person. However, that "knowledge"
collected is most likely just information to others - if it doesn't
serve a specific purpose or general context useful to others.

Most tools don't do anything to help build shared context, in fact,
through their permissioning controls and rigid content boundaries they
actively prevent participants from blending their ideas and words.
These mechanisms block the pursuit of discovering or negotiating a
mutually useful information structure.

I like to think that a wiki has the affordance to collect, refine and
rework knowledge in proportion to the exact amount of effort that
every participant puts in. To me, a wiki allows everyone to collect
what interests them, shows everyone what's collected, and poses the
community with the question "how does the knowledge each of us knows
fit together?".

Through this participants ask "how do we, the community, fit
together?". In this way, it teases out group goals and leaves useful
artifacts (information capital) in its wake.

Martin.
--
Martin Cleaver
Martin@...
+1 416-786-6752 (GMT-5)

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Albert Simard <simarda@...>
wrote:
Dale -

You have hit an important KM nail squarely on the head. "I have a
solution;
what's the problem?" I argued this point, to no avail, in my former
department, when a wiki was set up, with no specific objective, just to
see
what would happen.

In the specific SIKM case, there doesn't seem to be much literature on the
subject of life-cycle management of knowledge, scientific or otherwise
(notwithstanding DeLong's book). And there seemed to be interest in the
subject expressed by some SIKM members. A couple of members mentioned a KM
site on wikispace, so I set up a page on that site to see if a group of
"enthusiasts" might be able to collectively construct something on the
subject - a specific and limited objective. To my mind, that's what social
networking is all about.

Returning to my former employer, what happened is that, over the course of
a
year, several hundred people participated in posting and gradually
developing more than 2,000 articles. Peer production represents a
significant cultural change and will take longer. So, I was proven wrong
and somteimes it is true that if you build it (and proactively promote it,
and it is useful), they will come.

Al Simard


Re: Wiki #wikis

Yao Ge
 

In loose community like this. Most of us interact with each other through posting a question or thoughts and other response by expressing their (sometimes very strong) opinions. Unless we collectively have a need to deliver something that will be less of individual opinion (and ego), we will probably happy with the mailing-list is the way it is.
 
Wik is tremendously powerful tool for building a highly networked topics that can be contributed by many individuals. It is also highly effective in contextual learning. However It shifts from the individual contributor's view points towards much more of a collective intelligence of the participants. If we have to create something together, say a mission statement of this group, wiki would be a good choice. But lower your ego first. If we want to stay with causal hall-way conversation, we don't need wiki.
 
-Yao



From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Martin@...
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:04 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Wiki

When a person collects knowledge to address a purpose, it serves a
purpose, if only to that one person. However, that "knowledge"
collected is most likely just information to others - if it doesn't
serve a specific purpose or general context useful to others.

Most tools don't do anything to help build shared context, in fact,
through their permissioning controls and rigid content boundaries they
actively prevent participants from blending their ideas and words.
These mechanisms block the pursuit of discovering or negotiating a
mutually useful information structure.

I like to think that a wiki has the affordance to collect, refine and
rework knowledge in proportion to the exact amount of effort that
every participant puts in. To me, a wiki allows everyone to collect
what interests them, shows everyone what's collected, and poses the
community with the question "how does the knowledge each of us knows
fit together?".

Through this participants ask "how do we, the community, fit
together?". In this way, it teases out group goals and leaves useful
artifacts (information capital) in its wake.

Martin.
--
Martin Cleaver
Martin@BlendedPerspectives.com
+1 416-786-6752 (GMT-5)

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Albert Simard <simarda@inspection.gc.ca> wrote:
> Dale -
>
> You have hit an important KM nail squarely on the head. "I have a solution;
> what's the problem?" I argued this point, to no avail, in my former
> department, when a wiki was set up, with no specific objective, just to see
> what would happen.
>
> In the specific SIKM case, there doesn't seem to be much literature on the
> subject of life-cycle management of knowledge, scientific or otherwise
> (notwithstanding DeLong's book). And there seemed to be interest in the
> subject expressed by some SIKM members. A couple of members mentioned a KM
> site on wikispace, so I set up a page on that site to see if a group of
> "enthusiasts" might be able to collectively construct something on the
> subject - a specific and limited objective. To my mind, that's what social
> networking is all about.
>
> Returning to my former employer, what happened is that, over the course of a
> year, several hundred people participated in posting and gradually
> developing more than 2,000 articles. Peer production represents a
> significant cultural change and will take longer. So, I was proven wrong
> and somteimes it is true that if you build it (and proactively promote it,
> and it is useful), they will come.
>
> Al Simard
>
>


Re: Wiki #wikis

Martin@Cleaver.org <martin@...>
 

When a person collects knowledge to address a purpose, it serves a
purpose, if only to that one person. However, that "knowledge"
collected is most likely just information to others - if it doesn't
serve a specific purpose or general context useful to others.

Most tools don't do anything to help build shared context, in fact,
through their permissioning controls and rigid content boundaries they
actively prevent participants from blending their ideas and words.
These mechanisms block the pursuit of discovering or negotiating a
mutually useful information structure.

I like to think that a wiki has the affordance to collect, refine and
rework knowledge in proportion to the exact amount of effort that
every participant puts in. To me, a wiki allows everyone to collect
what interests them, shows everyone what's collected, and poses the
community with the question "how does the knowledge each of us knows
fit together?".

Through this participants ask "how do we, the community, fit
together?". In this way, it teases out group goals and leaves useful
artifacts (information capital) in its wake.

Martin.
--
Martin Cleaver
Martin@...
+1 416-786-6752 (GMT-5)

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Albert Simard <simarda@...> wrote:
Dale -

You have hit an important KM nail squarely on the head. "I have a solution;
what's the problem?" I argued this point, to no avail, in my former
department, when a wiki was set up, with no specific objective, just to see
what would happen.

In the specific SIKM case, there doesn't seem to be much literature on the
subject of life-cycle management of knowledge, scientific or otherwise
(notwithstanding DeLong's book). And there seemed to be interest in the
subject expressed by some SIKM members. A couple of members mentioned a KM
site on wikispace, so I set up a page on that site to see if a group of
"enthusiasts" might be able to collectively construct something on the
subject - a specific and limited objective. To my mind, that's what social
networking is all about.

Returning to my former employer, what happened is that, over the course of a
year, several hundred people participated in posting and gradually
developing more than 2,000 articles. Peer production represents a
significant cultural change and will take longer. So, I was proven wrong
and somteimes it is true that if you build it (and proactively promote it,
and it is useful), they will come.

Al Simard


Re: Wiki #wikis

Albert Simard <simarda@...>
 

Dale -
 
You have hit an important KM nail squarely on the head.  "I have a solution; what's the problem?"  I argued this point, to no avail, in my former department, when a wiki was set up, with no specific objective, just to see what would happen.
 
In the specific SIKM case, there doesn't seem to be much literature on the subject of life-cycle management of knowledge, scientific or otherwise (notwithstanding DeLong's book).  And there seemed to be interest in the subject expressed by some SIKM members.  A couple of members mentioned a KM site on wikispace, so I set up a page on that site to see if a group of "enthusiasts" might be able to collectively construct something on the subject - a specific and limited objective.  To my mind, that's what social networking is all about.
 
Returning to my former employer, what happened is that, over the course of a year, several hundred people participated in posting and gradually developing more than 2,000 articles.  Peer production represents a significant cultural change and will take longer.  So, I was proven wrong and somteimes it is true that if you build it (and proactively promote it, and it is useful), they will come.
 
Al Simard


Re: Wiki #wikis

Gardner, Mike <Micheal.Gardner@...>
 

I don't claim to be an expert in this area but hopefully this may help.
 
I believe there are fundamental differences between a wiki and a discussion thread. Wikis are meant to be a common area for a group of folk to work together to deliver something. As I see it they are meant to be a place where someone produces an outline, then others collaborate together to enhance that deliverable to (hopefully) make it a better deliverable. I therefore feel a wiki is something that has a defined purpose and is not something that goes on forever. For instance, if we as a group wanted to put together our recommendations on how to use wikis to support a community, we might use a wiki to do this. Someone could start with an outline and the rest of the community could come in and edit it. If we realized we started discussing blogs within the wiki we may decide we really need to create a separate wiki for those and pull that material in to a separate wiki. Once we are happy with the results the wiki can be marked as complete or turned in to a formal document.
 
Discussion threads provide the group with a more general focus to discuss ideas, concepts and possibly even thought on what might be a useful wiki to work on together.

Mike Gardner
EDS CIO EKM Team - EDS Taxonomist & Content Rationalization Leader
Telephone: +44 (0)1332 663964 (Home Office)
Mobile: +44 (0)7790 492991
Work from home, Derby, UK
micheal.gardner@...

We deliver on our commitments so you can deliver on yours.

This email contains information which is confidential and may be privileged. Unless you are the intended addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not use, forward, copy or disclose to anyone this email or any information contained in this email. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender by reply email immediately and delete this email.

Electronic Data Systems Ltd
Registered Office:, Lansdowne House, Berkeley Square, London  W1J 6ER
Registered in England no: 53419
VAT number: 432 99 5915

 


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Dale Arseneault
Sent: 31 July 2008 04:05
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Wiki

A colleague of mine pointed me to an interesting post titled Resource Fetishism by Jono, who is Ubuntu Community Manager for Canonical, and looks after the world-wide community of Ubuntu contributors and developers. (Ubuntu is a community developed Linux-based operating system).

In his post, Jono paints this common problem:

Its funny how the same approximate process seems to happen for many communities, and sub-communities in projects. It happens a little like this:

  • A new team forms from a small group of enthusiasts.
  • They create a raft of resources - version control, repositories, mailing lists, IRC channels, bug trackers, councils, forums etc.
  • A discussion happens on the new mailing list about which website CMS to use.
  • The discussion lasts approximately a month. There are many opinions. Bickering ensues. It turns into a Drupal vs. Wordpress war.
  • Two months pass, little has! been achieved other than yet more CMS arguments archived to the Internet.

So, I read the thread that this post triggered, and I can't seem to see the core reason for the sikmleaders wiki in the first place.  We seem to have gotten trapped in our own Resource Fetishism.

Can anyone enlighten me - what would we do with a wiki?  why do we need one ? (regardless of the technology)

Dale Arseneault
http://reflectionskmoi.blogspot.com/


Re: Wiki #wikis

Dale Arseneault <dalearseneault@...>
 

A colleague of mine pointed me to an interesting post titled Resource Fetishism by Jono, who is Ubuntu Community Manager for Canonical, and looks after the world-wide community of Ubuntu contributors and developers. (Ubuntu is a community developed Linux-based operating system).

In his post, Jono paints this common problem:

Its funny how the same approximate process seems to happen for many communities, and sub-communities in projects. It happens a little like this:

  • A new team forms from a small group of enthusiasts.
  • They create a raft of resources - version control, repositories, mailing lists, IRC channels, bug trackers, councils, forums etc.
  • A discussion happens on the new mailing list about which website CMS to use.
  • The discussion lasts approximately a month. There are many opinions. Bickering ensues. It turns into a Drupal vs. Wordpress war.
  • Two months pass, little has been achieved other than yet more CMS arguments archived to the Internet.

So, I read the thread that this post triggered, and I can't seem to see the core reason for the sikmleaders wiki in the first place.  We seem to have gotten trapped in our own Resource Fetishism.

Can anyone enlighten me - what would we do with a wiki?  why do we need one ? (regardless of the technology)

Dale Arseneault
http://reflectionskmoi.blogspot.com/


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

Albert Simard <simarda@...>
 

Oky Doky
 
Just to get something going, I set up a page on Wikispaces.  It seems more intuitive than Wikidot.com (which also has firewall issues).  On first glance, It doesn't seem as powerful as Google wiki, but I can set it up from work but outside of my work domain (our !@#$%^ firewall again!)
 
 
I seeded the page with content from the Northwest KM group site, which doesn't have provisions for editing as in a wiki (I missed the bottom paragraph!).  Since someone already has an outline, let's begin there.
 
Everyone can view the site, but only members can edit it.  Although there is a provision to invite people to join, I don't have all the necessary e-mail addresses, so let's see how it works when you request membership.
 
Anyone from SIKM with an interest in life-cycle management for knowledge is invited to participate.
 
Just for clarification.  There should be only one SIKM wiki containing all our pages.  If this doesn't end up as that site, I'll gladly move whatever content we have to the "endorsed" site.
 
Al Simard


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

Cory Banks
 


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

Arthur Shelley
 

Al et al,

 

Wikispaces seems easy enough and is also free.

There are also some good basic wiki “video tutorials” (just a few minutes each on how to set everything up).

It also has the useful free addition of being able to set up basic profiles with photos and attached files.

I believe it is possible to have a “private group” site and an approval process for joiners is embedded.

 

I have no vested interest in wikispaces.  I just contribute to a few communities there and find it easy to use.

All content is under a creative commons license.

 

Maybe something SIKM might like to try?

Regards

Arthur Shelley
Author: The Organizational Zoo A Survival Guide to Workplace Behavior
www.organizationalzoo.com
Ph +61 413 047 408


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Albert Simard
Sent: Tuesday, 29 July 2008 2:17 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] New poll for sikmleaders

 

A few thoughts.

 

In my experience, Wikipedia is a place for finished articles, even if they're small.  At least to the point that they can survive the assorted bots and reviews while others enhance them.  Developing articles for Wikipedia would be a limited purpose for a SIKM wiki.  Posting stable content that we develop that seems appropriate for Wikipedia would be a fine secondary purpose.

 

There's been some recent interest about "life cycle management for knowledge.  Developing criteria & indicators for such seems a good purpose for setting up a wiki-based discussion.  As other questions or issues arise, separate discussion pages could be added to a SIKM wiki.

 

I've worked with both Yahoo and Google.  Yahoo doesn't host wikis and group exchanges won't work for this purpose, so that's out.  I've seen an awful lot of garbage on open Google sites, so if we use Google, we should keep it for SIKM members only AND have it invisible to the general public.  Google wikis are intuitive and easy to use.  I could easily set one up, but they seem to be linked to organizational domains.  If yes, that won't work here.  

 

I have used another free wiki site that I will investigate this afternoon, although it seems to have some firewall issues and is more difficult to use than Google.  

 

Al Simard

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

National Manager Knowledge Services

 


New file uploaded to sikmleaders: Knowledge Transfer Services.pdf #knowledge-transfer

sikmleaders@...
 
Edited

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the sikmleaders group.

File : /Knowledge Transfer Services.pdf
Uploaded by : albert.simard <simarda@...>
Description : Describes knowledge services in a communication context, as a value chain, as a system, and a service richness delivery spectrum.

You can access this file at the URL:
https://sikm.groups.io/g/main/files/Knowledge%20Transfer%20Services.pdf

Regards,
albert.simard <simarda@...>


Wiki #wikis

Mark D Neff <mneff@...>
 


Al,

Share your article on KM Services. That sounds perfect for our new wiki.

Mark




"Albert Simard"
Sent by: sikmleaders@...

07/28/2008 10:06 AM

Please respond to
sikmleaders@...

To
cc
Subject
Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Wiki





Dave -
 
Been there; done that.  I've posted or contributed to about a dozen KM-related Wikipedia articles (although not all that much in the past while.  I've even had the joy of having an article on knowledge services pulled after a group discussion concluded that it was too "avant guarde" for Wikipedia (a new indicator for leading-edge work!).
 
I don't think that Wikipedia is the right place for developing a new concept such as criteria for life-cycle management of knowledge.
 
Al Simard


Wiki #wikis

John D. Smith <john.smith@...>
 

One of the learning activities we've got going in CPsquare is to look at the community & practice issues involved in being a Wikepedia editor AND a member of a community that's visible in Wikipedia.  So: trying to look at community muti-membership "on the ground", so to speak.  Talking with one guy every month for a year about his experience of straddling & boundary crossing.
 
Our first session -- last month -- was quite fascinating: we talked about the career path of "a wikipedian"...

John
*
* John D. Smith ~ Voice: 503.963.8229 ~ Skype: smithjd
* Portland, Oregon, USA  http://www.learningAlliances.net
* see http://technologyforcommunities.com/tools/
* “Please use your freedom to promote ours.” -- Aung San Suu Kyi


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Albert Simard
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 7:47 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Wiki

Dave -
 
Actually, I edited the original article (there was one legitimately problematic paragraph) and then recast as a sub-heading under knowledge markets.  I'm happy to note that both have lasted more than a year and that others have added content to give them additional breadth and depth.
 
 
 
You probably didn't see it because, somehow, I forgot to include a link to KM in the article (which I just added)!  So, I'm happy; the Wikipedia philosophy remains intact; and there's more KM stuff than is apparent at first glance.
 
Al Simard


Re: Wiki #wikis

Martin@Cleaver.org <martin@...>
 


Re: Wiki #wikis

Albert Simard <simarda@...>
 

Nope -
 
This is a group site; not a wiki.
 
Al

8981 - 9000 of 9974