|
Re: Wiki
#wikis
Martin@Cleaver.org <martin@...>
When a person collects knowledge to address a purpose, it serves a
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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 -
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
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 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
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
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).
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 Arseneaulthttp://reflectionskmoi.blogspot.com/
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
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
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Cory Banks
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
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 From:
sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Albert Simard
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
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@inspection.gc.ca> 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@inspection.gc.ca>
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Wiki
#wikis
Mark D Neff <mneff@...>
Al, Share your article on KM Services. That sounds perfect for our new wiki. Mark
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 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
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Re: Wiki
#wikis
Albert Simard <simarda@...>
Martin -
The one thing I've found with automated e-mails for wiki changes is that
one can easily get 30 to 50 messages per day if a site has much activity at
all. It is good for group sites, because it is unusual to get the amount
of traffic that this idea has generated. I've learned to use watch
lists rather than e-mail for wikis.
Al Simard
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Albert Simard <simarda@...>
Reply to Yao -
The big thing that we don't have nor is a capacity for peer
production of a common document, such as criteria and indicators for life
cycle management of knowledge. I totally agree that whatever site is used,
there should be only one for SIKM, with as many sub-headings as we need.
Al Simard
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Albert Simard <simarda@...>
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
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Re: Wiki
#wikis
David Snowden <snowded@...>
OK I have put it under watch and note it has the buzzword tag
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Dave Snowden Founder & Chief Scientific Officer Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd Now blogging at www.cognitive-edge.com
On 28 Jul 2008, at 15:46, Albert Simard wrote:
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Yao Ge
correction - I meant to say "Wikipedia is NOT suited for discussion
and exchange of view points". --- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, "Ge, Yao (Y.)" <yge@...> wrote: closed participation in discussion. IMHO, we should have a team bloggingthis can potentially more effective as I have cases in the past that Ijoin the discussion but no signed up as member.summarizing an interesting topic by compiling our past discussions. However itcan also used with stronger individual authorship (such as GoogleKnol). We just need to anwser this question - what are we missing with thecurrent threaded discussion forum? I don't think we should put everythingin Wikipedia as it is suited for discussion and exchange of point ofviews. We should, however, at least create a entry in Wikipediadefiniting SIKM group and reference to our community site(s).one site (or two the most) so that we don't create fragementation and[mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Patti Anklamfeeling as he did with the mention of the wiki. Contributing to Wikipediahas been problematic for many of us, I think, for various reasons. Anysuccessful wiki starts with a shared, articulated goal and common sense ofpurpose. What is that for this group?(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 topicareas, make commitments, and manage the work).Work and in the World is now available at Amazon.com and other online[mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Gentthe question accurately. It is not a question of either/or.to create into Wikipedia. It would be both inappropriate and notdefinitive enough for that much of an open audience.the idea. tehre seemed to be too much of the let's pool all of ourknowledge into a definitive KM repository about the idea. Part of the reasonI like the distribution list is because we can discuss things that weand respect for each other that we can have an informed discussionabout the details and alternatives. Sometimes we (or at least I) sit back andlearning what others think.forward and state my objections. Or at least my doubts. Which would thentend to interrupt what I consider a very beneficial conversation.wikis. But that is not the best mechanism for back and forth.others) if we, as Dave suggests, participate in the public articulation ofthe basic concepts of KM through the appropriate channels, most notablywe start by agreeing, even loosely, to what the goals are for thatwiki as distinct from the goals of the discussion and the public wikis.achieve the goals of KM (vs. the definition of what those goals are). I am not
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Re: Wiki
#wikis
Albert Simard <simarda@...>
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@...>
Perhaps the SIKM wiki could start off as 1) a place to articulate and
refine the purpose of the group and 2) a Capture and Reorganization tool for the mailing list. 1) A wiki is a good place to define and evolve a set of concepts. Unlike in email, wiki-based content is not scattered across disconnected threads: it's all in one place, and can be continually refactored to improve the Signal:Noise ration. Yahoo Groups just organizes by date, but for everything else you have to search, and there is no way for readers to improve the quality of the content. Our first purpose for using wiki could well be to define our requirements for a different online space. A wiki may or may not be sufficient, until we've defined and agreed I don't think we'll know. Whereever we go the hard bit is likely to be to get engagement in another online place. The "nice" thing about email is that it's available to everyone everywhere. We all have email, even when disconnected. Not everyone uses RSS and its read-only anyhow. This leads me to my next point. 2) It's possible to automate such that the wiki captures every email that comes through a mailing list. We can start by having the intent that not only are conversations captured as they occur today, but, so that as time passes, the message of each conversation can be reworked, for example to include extra hyperlinks and landing pages to cater for additional purposes. In itself, capture-for-reorganization is valuable. On a wiki, nuggets can be surfaced, promoted, and made into root concepts off of which everything else can hang. (This is not to say that someone must reorganize content. No, it's just that a wiki has this capability as an affordance. Reorganization is a constructivist task, most valuable to the reorganizer. Newcomers may find such articulation of other's concepts a useful way of learning. Old timers will be able to see the ways in which newcomers are interpreting their thoughts. This affords a tacit-explicit loop learning process which people may or may not take advantage of.) Regards, Martin -- Martin Cleaver M.Sc. MBA Martin.Cleaver@BlendedPerspectives.com +1 416-786-6752 (GMT-5)
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Re: Wiki
#wikis
David Snowden <snowded@...>
Well I've been editing it on KM related pages for two years now and haven't seen that. Also avant guarde is not a criteria for deletion. I you put something there it has to be supported but citations which is a good discipline. Let me have the diff on the one which was pulled so I can have a look at it.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
If you want to do original research then the WIkipedia is not the place for it Dave Snowden Founder & Chief Scientific Officer Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd Now blogging at www.cognitive-edge.com
On 28 Jul 2008, at 15:06, Albert Simard wrote:
|
|||||||||||
|
|