Talk:Knowledge economy

material copied
found that a majority of this article comes directly from [http://www.skyrme.com/insights/21gke.htm DavidSkyme's The Global Knowledge Economy: and its implication for markets]

not saying thats bad, that article is free.

It is not true, that Porter invented "knowledge worker". It was rather Machlup in 1960s.

Too much about this 1966 book. It may have defined some useful terms, but how the author knew that these would happen soon is very clever. More sources needed. Suggest leave this as "one interpretation" or combine with The information age and digital age and digital revolution in line with 5 pillars. oops not logged in (this is user:victuallers


 * Actually, it's not OK that this article was copied from that page; the copyright page says that permission is required before distribution to more than 10 people, and the page itself says no commercial use (which is incompatible with Wikipedia's license terms). -- Beland (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge Proposal for Articles on Knowledge Economies
The following articles (and possibly more!) all deal with very similar, very closely related, and overlapping subject matter .. to such an extent that;

 it is confusing for Wikipedia users such as myself it begs for a lot of sytematic wikifying, in-text citing, and general raising to higher Wikpeida encyclopedic standards it begs for an single all inclusive article bringing them together and giving readers/ users a good overview of the whole field 


 * Information economy,
 * Information society,
 * Information market,
 * Knowledge society,
 * Knowledge market,
 * Knowledge economy

Now, noting there is in fact a single, overarching economic field .. within with all local economies may be compared and contrasted by the extent to which the are (or are not) knowledge-based ..

.. it is here proposed the existing Knowledge economy article be expanded to cover the full range of knowledge ecomonies around the world .. and all the above articles be merged and intergrated into this single, proposed and expanded discussion.

I hope such a merge proposal is agreeable .. for the above stated reasons!?! Bruceanthro (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree --Snowded (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think such a merge is not useful - too much together. The reference concept is meta-knowledge where different perspectives on knowledge should be illustrated. User:Adam M. Gadomski 28 May 2008(UTC)

As the original author of some of the referenced articles, I should express an opinion. I originally wrote them because I had material at hand that I couldn't find on Wikipedia. Each article provides a different perspective on relate ideas. I have no problem with aggregating (not integrating) the articles under a broader heading.

However, I would push to maintain a distinction between information and knowledge. The former, when produced, is a "final valued product" whereas there is no such thing for knowledge. Although both can be traded in either transactional or sequential markets, only knowledge can be changed in a meaningful way with each transaction. Further, we use Web 1.0 group sites for exchanging information and Web 2.0 social networking sites for jointly creating knowledge. In my mind, these are major distinctions that fundamentally alter the way that the two forms of content behave in market / economic contexts. The challenge, then is to clearly distinguish between the two forms of content from economic and other perspectives.

I would also retain distinctions betwen the big ideas of society and economy. I feel that these are too broad to include in one article. So, we're left with four articles: information society, information economy, knowledge society, and knowledge economy.

Then, there's all the articles with the adjective "digital" in front of it. Again, numerous references to each in the literature. I'be inclined to keep this seperate as a set of "technical or how" articles rather than integrate them here under a "what" heading.

Albert Simard (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest you aggregate them, individually several are candidate for deletion. -- Snowded   TALK  19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I had come here looking for information on the proposal in this blog: http://CongressionalOrder101.wordpress.com - in short, there is a man proposing using what he is calling "mental sweat equity" as assets to back the creation of "money of account" in order to fund the educational systems of the USA (Pre-PhD, and any form of education that involves testing, and results in some form of official certifications), and even goes so far as to say this could be done worldwide to fund any Nation's edu systems. After reading this article, this isn't what this article is about, but maybe it should be. As far as I know, this is the first time anyone has proposed backing a portion of any Nation's money supply with the value of knowledge & education. This Congressional Order 101 initiative seems to be a real example of a true "knowledge economy." --2600:1011:B111:4C1D:582A:A1E7:41B3:F910 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Knowledge Society
I prefer the term "Knowledge Society" to "Information Society". Though I do not know exactly why. It just seems to have a better sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.227.104 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

But since those are used as synonyms, presumably you have no objection to a merged article discussing both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Knowledge and information are not the same thing, so Knowledge Society and Information Society would not be the same thing either (if the terms had weight); suggest instead consider merging Knowledge society with this article and improving/cleaning up this article. Harvey the rabbit (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits
It is not necesary to suggest discussing Google and or EBay separately. The "web interconnectedness" is a direct byproduct of a knowledge based economy.

It is not clear that "Knowledge Business" is actually an english term. This sounds like a term used in other languages to refer to a knowledge economy. The corresponding sentence can/should be deleted. An english speaker familiar with George Carlin ("you can prick your finger but you can't finger your prick") would not need to be told that "Business Knowledge" and "Knowledge Business" don't mean the same thing. (Are you "working hard" or "hardly working"?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense
Knowledge economics is not about abundance, it is about the study of knowledge as a commodity, the transformation of knowledge into useful products. Obviously its deeper than that when you study it.

Knowledge Economics
Pity you took of the wiki page knowledge economics. Why? is it because it mentioned other people like Bhekuzulu Khumalo, Debra Amidon. Do not use wikepedia for your racial promotions. The page was knowledge economics, that believes knowledge has been the most important tool since mankind began, and your page knowledge economy that believes knowledge started been used in the 60's, Do not take of other people projects because they are getting more hits than you because they are telling the truth. STop your racism, go back and read whites only but do not corrupt Wikipedia for your demented envious ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.61.204 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge accountancy
could best be defined as the process of formulating and classifying data relating to individuals and organizations associated with the knowledge economy. The presentation and interpretation of such information is communicated in a style associated with bookkeeping and accountancy; often referred to as 'the balance sheet method'. This accountancy of knowledge creates its own conceptual apparatus and array of bookkeeping terms, most of which must be credited to the works of the 15th century mathematician Luca Pacioli.

85.128.1.2 (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Too technocentric
I've reversed out several statements that either were not supported by the sources or were synthesis. This is an article about the knowledge economy, not purely about technology and the World Bank on its own is not enough to hold the article together -- Snowded TALK  17:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Rejections
Perhaps you are correct but in my opinion you lack the understanding of the World Bank's needs are to bringing about the Knowledge Economy. Help or get out of the way 72.161.33.155 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Khumalo's comment on this article
Dr. Khumalo has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Let us take the first paragraph, one can not claim it to be clear, indeed it is true to say “The knowledge economy is the use of knowledge (savoir, savoir-faire, savoir-être) to generate tangible and intangible values,” how then does one end up with the next sentence, “Technology and in particular knowledge technology help to transform a part of human knowledge to machines.”

This is a very limited and wrong concept of what knowledge is and this wrong concept of what knowledge is, the machine is created by human knowledge for a purpose, you can’t then say knowledge is transferred to a machine, because the machine was created by knowledge for that purpose. It is why one would talk about commodified knowledge, making the first sentence true, but the second sentence ambiguous.

Knowledge is information that is known to a human or society. We must then first understand what information is. We need a definition of information that keep up with the times and unifying disciplines. We must turn to physics, in particular quantum physics to understand what information is. One can watch a video concerning 4 prominent scientists discussing the question of information, these 4 scientists are, Leonard Susskind, Sir Anthony Leggett, Christopher Fuchs, Seth Lloyd, Bob McDonald and the video can be found here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S0IGwKGV6s

Essentially everything is information because everything can inform us about something. Once we understand that everything is information we then can show how all information behaves the same, be it information known to us that we can call knowledge, or information unknown to us. And this is what makes economics a science, what makes anything a science, the understanding that we are dealing with the extraction of information and understanding the flow of information. Commodities are merely commodified information, and they flow. First we show that all information has basic similarities, and this was covered in the paper “Why Economics is a Science: Information the Grand Unifier,” by Bhekuzulu Khumalo, the paper can be found here,

All information comes in packages, the smallest package being an elementary particle and the largest package being everything

All information is discrete, it comes in indivisible packages, knowledge too must be discrete. If what is being observed is discrete, it can not be then made continuous except for human understanding and teaching.

All information can be isolated, if we could not isolate it we would not be able to learn, we learn in increments because we can isolate information. If information could not be isolated we would have to know everything or nothing at all, an impossibility. What is a commodity but isolated information? Wheat is but isolated grass, we differentiate it from other grasses, and then isolate the grain from the rest of the wheat stalk. A smart phone, is but a creation from our isolation of information, we know the difference between copper, steel, plastics, all this knowledge we gained by isolating information we have created a smart phone. This smart phone is not a result of knowledge being poured into it, it was created by knowledge to serve it’s purpose.

Knowledge has been the main commodity for human survival since antiquity. When we understand that we understand the folly of the second sentence as it comes from a very shallow definition of knowledge, and not understanding what information is, the second sentence is the following, “Technology and in particular knowledge technology help to transform a part of human knowledge to machines.” When we understand how pervasive knowledge has been as a commodity in human society we can even justify redefining economics such that the word knowledge is included in the definition of economics. In the paper “Defining Economics in the Twenty First Century” a more contemporary definition of economics was given and justified. The definition was given as “economics is the study of how humans use knowledge to identify resources and use these scarce resources to create, using knowledge, commodities and distribute them among people.” The paper was written Bhekuzulu Khumalo.

It is when we understand that information is everything, and that knowledge is merely information that is known to us, and further still, not all information known to us can be commodified. When we understand that a good, no matter how simple, from a simple stick as a weapon, to the smart phone is nothing but commodified information, commodified knowledge economics becomes part of all sciences, and seeks to understand scientific processes. Economics like all other systems in the universe is about relationships between information, as was explained in this video about a speech given at Ryerson University, on 3 June 2016. The video can be found here, again a speech given by Bhekuzulu Khumalo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PfWDKun53Q

Accepting the second sentence “Technology and in particular knowledge technology help to transform a part of human knowledge to machines” as true would greatly limit our understanding of knowledge as a commodity. In the paper “Why Economics is a Science: Information the Grand Unifier,” Bhekuzulu Khumalo argued “It is deeply flawed and a lack of understanding of knowledge to believe human beings have recently entered a knowledge economy. This flaw off believing knowledge only now became central to human survival and economics it does not allow one to fully appreciate the concept of information, that information is everything. This hinders the economist thought pattern and does not allow economics to be fully a science. Information is central to science.”

Take the last sentence of the last paragraph, “Knowledge economy is also possible without technology.” We must first understand what technology is, In the abstract for the paper on why economics is a science, it says, “The economy has always been a knowledge economy. For those having a firm grasp of knowledge know that using a stick to fend off a wild beast takes knowledge, just as landing a robot on mars takes knowledge” A stick is technology, all tools are technology, even a rock, or a stone if it is used as a tool. How then would it be correct to say the knowledge economy is also possible without technology.

To suggest that human survival has been possible without tools, without technology is misleading. Technology is a result of the amount of information we have isolated. The more information we isolate the greater our knowledge base becomes as society, this leads to changing technology, because technology levels are the direct result of how much knowledge a society possesses. When caveman through rocks at sabre toothed tigers, rocks where the technological weapons associated with how much information they had isolated. Atomic weapons are associated with the amount of information that has been isolated and extracted by human beings. Rock paintings was the technology associated with the caveman’s knowledge base, micro chips are associated how much information has been extracted in this age.

Perhaps paragraph one needs a lot a soul searching and a firmer grasp of information and knowledge."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Khumalo has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference 1: Khumalo, Bhekuzulu, 2008. "Knowledge Economics: Improving Theoretical Framework of Knowledge Transfer," MPRA Paper 8942, University Library of Munich, Germany.


 * Reference 2: Khumalo, Bhekuzulu, 2007. "Knowledge Theory and Investment: Enhanced Investment Decision Based on the properties of Point X," MPRA Paper 4201, University Library of Munich, Germany.


 * Reference 3: Khumalo, Bhekuzulu, 2008. "The Variable Time: crucial to understanding Knowledge Economics," MPRA Paper 9643, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's a very long way of saying that the intro was terrible. I rewrote it. -- Beland (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Knowledge economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141222142438/http://swopec.hhs.se/eijswp/papers/eijswp0156.pdf to http://swopec.hhs.se/eijswp/papers/eijswp0156.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130418004054/http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/freepublications/en/economics/gii/gii_2012.pdf to http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/freepublications/en/economics/gii/gii_2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Many redirects (knowledge construction, creation and production)
Knowledge construction, Knowledge creation and Knowledge production all redirect here. However, there is scope for at least one separate (perhaps less economics focused) article on the subject of knowledge creation. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good comment! ...how about a disambiguation page on these knowledge concepts?... Cheers ... Risk Engineer (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed insufficient in-text citations template
After adding multiple secondary sources to the first section and reviewing the article, I have removed the insufficient in-text citations template. I do not think the problem is now insufficient in-text citations. I think it is still unclear and basically not up to date with descriptions of the knowledge economy in authoritative secondary sources.Johncdraper (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)