Date   

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@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

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@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




"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


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 


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

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


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

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



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:


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

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:

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@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Patti Anklam
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 7:20 AM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
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@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Gent
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 4:06 PM
To: sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com
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/>


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. 

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:


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


8921 - 8940 of 9906