Talk:DIKW pyramid/Archive 1

Comments moved from Knowledge
On the Talk:Knowledge page User:Adam M. Gadomski made these comments which are about this article. So, I'm moving them here. Sbwoodside 22:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

- By the way, the definitions in DIKW are not the same and are not congruent with those presented on the first Google page: search "information, knowledge, wisdom"

See in: http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm


 * But they do reflect what you get if you search for "DIKW" on google, since the specific article you refer to is far from the only reference for DIKW. Remember this is an encyclopedia ... the goal is to reflect what other people say about DIKW, not what you think about DIKW. WP:NOR. Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

According to Russell Ackoff, a systems theorist and professor of organizational change, the content of the human mind can be classified into five categories:

1. Data: symbols

2. Information: data that are processed to be useful; provides answers to "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions

3. Knowledge: application of data and information; answers "how" questions

4. Understanding: appreciation of "why"

5. Wisdom: evaluated understanding.

The definitions used in the Wikipedia DIKW article are completely different and evolved to the IPK definitions, what is not original and ethically not correct (if without a reference).


 * References are provided under History. "IPK" is your own original research - see WP:NOR. I've looked at it briefly and I might look at it in more detail later... Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The IPK meta-ontological definitions are integral part of the TOGA meta-theory of goal-oriented knowledge ordering.

A meta-comment: We should always remember that definition making is not an art but has to be governed by a set of explicite professional rules.

--Adam M. Gadomski 14:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has a comprehensive set of guidelines. Before you try to impose your own set of rules, please learn more about the ones in this community. If you want to change those rules, this is not the place to do it. Try the Village pump Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Copy editing
This article does contain some good information, but much of the information it contains is repetitive. The first couple headings, History and Application, are okay, but everything after that is not encyclopedic in its style. The Ackoff section is particularly problematic because it it one huge paragraph, much of which is written from a first person point of view. The Kherde section is written using many capatalized words and exclaimations. The various styles and voices used in this article detract from the credibility of the information it contains. I think it can be fixed so the information is presented in the proper context without altering it. It also needs citation of sources and perhaps more links to other articles on this subject.Mazer 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Deletion
In this stage I suggest to delete this article.

- See also Talk:Knowledge, about DIKW, 4 November 2005

--192.107.77.3 14:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be original research and hard for the practical use. I also agree with critical observations of [User:Mazer]. - Unique reference is a personal webpage [Updated: February 4, 2008]. See: WP:NOR and NPOV. On the other hand, always "There is no clear progression and no real hierarchy in the DIKW sequence,"

- After quasi 3 years of serious doubts, the deletion of this article seems to be reasonable. This is my suggestion for administrators.

Knowledge engineer--79.12.232.148 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings fellow Wikipedians! This article strikes me as a bit odd, as it does seem to be original research and lacks inline references to support its claims (aside from the two references at the bottom). It looks like, from the Talk Page, that folks have voiced this before. Is anyone willing to step forward to cleanup and address the concerns about this article and clean it up, or should a merge/delete vote be reconsidered? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Zins
OK there are a number of issues with this article, in particular the domination of a particular source (Zins). What is the justification for this? I am tagging the article for the moment. -- Snowded  TALK  17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, first off, thanks for flagging.

At the moment, Zins is the only published (non-web) source I have on hand, so I'm milking it to flesh out the structure of the article. My intention is to follow up with Rowley on a subsequent round of edits (after a visit to the library to pick up a copy of that source.) Zins, in particular, seems to address many of the issues of ambiguity and disagreement that have plagued earlier versions of this article, by providing a framework for understanding and categorizing different versions of what is generically referred to as "DIKW".

There are actually two issues here. First, that Zins is directly referenced nearly 20 times in the current draft. Again, this is a function of the fact that Zins has provided a way of structuring the discussion so as to facilitate clear explanation of what are similar yet different models operating under the same umbrella. As I've stated, my hope is that Rowley, in reviewing multiple textbooks, will provide another way of segmenting the space so as to balance Zins.

Second, that numerous citations are actually extended quotations of third parties as cited by Zinn. Here, I've tried to follow Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, in that I've taken to 'iben' references attributing each quotation to a distinct person, although they are all sourced ultimately from the same Zins article. I believe this does more good (by citing to individual authorities other than Zins) than harm.

My biggest concern here is that, so far, none of the people Zins cites to appear to have any articles about them on the English edition of Wikipedia. Mind you, while the current draft would likely not be flagged for regional bias, I'm concerned that, absent some work fleshing out articles for various people referenced here, all these obscure names may be deemed problematic by some reviewers. Comments?

Beads (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)beadsland


 * Just for the record this talk page is now getting a nightmare to navigate. However - one of the problems you have is that DIKW is not used much.  Most people I know in KM for example now dismiss it to the point where they don;t even write bout it.  Its an anachronism.  -- Snowded   TALK  22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And here I had intentionally refactored the talk page as I found the previous talk page (with rounds and rounds of comments that didn't seem to talk to the article I started working on a few days ago) to be something of a rats nest. :-(  I considered a run-on multi-paragraph epistle discussing all my comments and concerns, but was concerned that issues would just get lost that way.  So, the current nightmare was the result.  *pout*

On the point of DIKW being dated--perhaps, but then it would at least be of interest as a historical matter. Some sources that speak to it being an "anachronism" would be useful in that regard.

However, I encountered the model several times as a computer science undergraduate (I never took a course in "knowledge management"), and again in a graduate-level business marketing course years later, so whatever those in the KM field may think of the model, it's got legs, and now seems to be pretty well disseminated in the culture.

Rowley's and Zins's articles were both published in 2007, indicating that in the years immediately prior (when they conducted their research) current textbooks still spoke to the model, and current practitioners in the field still were willing to grapple with it. In other words, current students (around the world) are being exposed to the model--by their texts and their instructors--regardless of what the consensus about it may or may not be in any given subdiscipline.

All the more reason, me thinks, that an encyclopedic entry should address how and where it is still presented, and verifiable criticisms of what may be taken as common sense (absent someone taking it seriously enough to write about why it is not common sense) should be referenced--so as to give a full picture of current opinion about the model.

People may no longer seriously pursue phrenology, and yet there is an extensive article on Wikipedia discussing the subject, its methodology, and its ultimate debunking. (I note a serious lack of inline references in that article, unfortunately...) Where else to explore parachronisms than an encyclopedia?

Beads (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I said it shouldn't have an article and I agree its still taught in a number of KM courses (I don;t think by the way that such use provides any evidence of use in practice). Single source articles are always a danger.  Either way - you are still actively editing this.  Tell me when you have finished and I will weigh in  -- Snowded   TALK  08:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, guess I was getting a bit defensive there. On the question of whether the model is used in "practice"--that's an interesting issue. If the model is regularly taught, but not known to be applied, what can we say about that? My phrenology example wasn't a propos in that case (as it was actively 'applied').

Working on getting round the single source issue. Already I'm finding that Zins doesn't match up with Zeleny/Ackoff, and so am working to give Zeleny/Ackoff greater weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadsland (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Snowded. I've removed the onesource tag, as I believe there may now be enough sources to give a reasonably balanced presentation. If you feel differently, please put the tag back and let's discuss further here.

I've removed the talk sections regarding Sharma and Ackoff (formerly below this one after my refactoring of the talk page) as these have been rendered moot by subsequent edits to the article. Some other sections that were largely just my brainstorming have also been deleted from this page (but are still available, of course, through revision history).

--Beads (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes
Beadsland - you are putting a lot of work in that I wouldn't want to interupt. WOuld you notify those of us interested when you have finished, or want to open up? Thanks -- Snowded  TALK  12:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the page as recently revised. Going to go work on some other projects for a few days, and will the come back to this.

--Beads (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, citations go after the punctuation, not before. Like this. Not like this . See Manual of Style.   Will Beback    talk    19:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well sourced but hard to read
This article is now fantastically sourced... but a bit difficult to follow.. Sbwoodside (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, sometime over the course of the next few days I'll put my English skills to the test and try to reword difficult sections whilst keeping the content the same. Animorphus (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Original research and synthesis
I haven't looked at this article in some time, but reading it today I have substantial concerns. It reads like an essay in which someone has taken the DIKW elements then expanded on them, using sources, but sources which do not specifically link to DIKW. That applies to most sections including the introduction. Elliot is not talking about a hierarchy for example, neither is Zappa so I deleted that section as OR/Synthesis. It looks like it needs drastic surgery to bring it back to its subject matter. References can be made to the article on Data for example, there is no need to have a mini-essay here on different types unless the weight of reliable sources has specifically linked those types to DIKW.

In terms of the balance of reliable sources, DIKW is attributed to Ackoff, having some reference to properly referenced material which indicates some of the sources Ackoff drew on makes sense. Also some of the subsequent treatment. However I can't even see Ackoff here without a lot of searching. Snowded TALK 22:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Chomsky hierarchy
Could there be a formal link to the Chomsky hierarchy ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:1241:1:8067:1075:8554:BC14 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

T. S. Eliot Reference
Several internet sources give credit to T. S. Eliot in the play "The Rock" published in 1934 by Farber and Farber. "... Where is the Life we have lost in living?/ Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?/ Where is the knowledge we have lost in the information?...." Fatmarauder (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing the essay/ opinion tags
I've not seen anything to justify this in the article. It reads perfectly well, as an encylopaedic account, very much in line with its peers in this area. I suspect the criticism is from ignorance. If not, some proper argument for 'what is opinion', 'what is 'original research' should be presented. It has not been so far! Gemtpm (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't put that tag there but I agree it should be there. I'm currently writing a paper of my own and I came to this page hoping to get a good overview of the DIKW pyramid and that is not what this article is. It is a bunch of opinions and philosophical musings without a good definition of what the pyramid is, what the different levels are supposed to signify, what it means to move up the pyramid, etc. I would give specific examples but I don't have the time right now so I'm not going to tag the article but I agree it needs a lot of work and if someone else wants to add those tags back they have my support. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)