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


sikmleaders@...
 

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
sikmleaders group:

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.

o Add any KM content we want to develop to wikipedia
o Create a new SIKM wiki page on a standalone free wiki service like Google sites.
o Wiki? What's a wiki?
o I wouldn't take the time to contribute even if you set one up so it doesn't really matter to me.


To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/surveys?id=2074920

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!


Andrew Gent <ajgent@...>
 

>> 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





Patti Anklam <patti@...>
 

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
(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

 

 


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.
 
-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
(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


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/>


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
 


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


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

 


Cory Banks
 


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


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


Peter Dorfman <pdorfman@...>
 

I have used WikiSpaces and admire its simplicity.

Peter Dorfman

On Tue Jul 29 10:59 , "Albert Simard" sent:












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!)

http://knowledge-life-cycle.wikispaces.com/

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