Talk:Knowledge management/Archive 3

Capitalization
For some reason, the term "knowledge management" was capitalized in this article. That presumes that the term is a proper noun, which it is not. I changed that and edited the article so that the term would appear as "knowledge management" in accordance with the MoS and other style guides. Kuru reverted my changes asking for discussion here. I'm not sure why he wouldn't discuss my changed version. Nevertheless, here are some examples of usage: (note capitalization in title, but not in body text. Our MoS uses newspaper headings with only the first word capitalized),, , , But perhaps I'm missing something. Sunray (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted for two reasons. One, we need to use the move function to preserve the history of an article when changing the name; if you need help with that, please let me know.  Two, there appears to be a pre-existing discussion of the topic in the section above titled "Capitalization of the title" which had a clear consensus to keep the capitalization of the title. I have no position, but I am aware of several editors who watch this article who will be delighted to debate the change, I'm sure.  My revert message was intended to nudge you into researching the history before fixing the mechanical error; otherwise I'd have simply fixed the move.  Thanks!  Kuru  talk  00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are quite right that I should have used the move function. On your other point about the earlier discussion: One person referred to the MoS as justification for changing it. Two people responded saying that the term is capitalized in "common usage" (but presented no evidence of this). One of these thought that it was a proper name. Another editor just stated an objection to changing it. On a usage question, it would be a good idea to cite examples to support arguments. I have given some above. Sunray (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the prior discussion you should raise it on the talk page before making a change. As previously discussed the common usage is to capitalise it.  If you want sources for this look at any of the major books referenced in the article, or the titles of most of the journals (I am on the editorial boards of three of them).   To anyone in the field the capitalisation is uncontroversial - it is the name of a Management movement, like Business Process Re-engineering, Six Sigma etc. etc.  --Snowded (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to give some reliable online sources for capitalizing this term? Sunray (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, the Wikipeida article on business process reengineering does not capitalize the term. Six Sigma is capitalized, as it is a trademark, and thus a proper name. Sunray (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * BPR may not, TQM does, so doe Spiral Dynamics (not that I can stand it). Wikipedia practice on this is mixed.   The four main journals in the field capitalise it, so do the books.  To my mind that is authoritative and the capitalisation would not be disputed by the majority of those engaged in the field as academics or practitioners.  ON a google search the vast majority of entries on the first three screens capitalise.  As to an authoritative on-line source I really don't feel inclined to search one out given the authority already quoted namely books and journals.  --Snowded (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The examples I gave above are the first five from a Google search for "Knowledge Management." None were capitalized, except in titles. Please cite examples here with URLs as I've done, above. Sunray (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't know why we have to go through this every six months or so with people not familiar with the subject. I suggest that you check out the authorities I gave (journals, major books) all of which are referenced in the article, a google search (as I said) gives a majority but URLs are not a requirement, nor objective.  --Snowded (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are correct, it shouldn't be a problem to present the evidence here. I've given five examples. I will ask you once more to please present evidence to back up your claim. Sunray (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are the one proposing a change in established practice on this page and all you have provided as evidence is a few Google Hits, and as far as I can see you are attracting no support. I have pointed you towards the various journals in the fields and the main text books (all referenced here on the page).  I can't think of a single conference in the last decade which has not capitalised the word if you want some additional data.   Look Sunray I think you are taking a generic position here rather than a position informed by the subject in question.   Capitalisation and non-capitalisation are used in the WIkipedia for management movements so there is no firm precedent.  The issue has been discussed here before and the status quo is capitalisation.   If you really want then, when I get home in a weeks time, I will pick up the journals and the book references but it really is not needed for people with knowledge of the subject.  --Snowded (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that the capitalization of this article does not conform to Wikipedia style, which is stated in the MoS as follows:


 * Wikipedia follows a conservative usage style for capitalization (unnecessary capitalization is avoided). The main use of capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. It may be helpful to consult MOS: Proper names if in doubt about whether a particular item is a proper name.

Regarding the question, of whether Wikipedia's style guide is inconsistent with business practice: Quite simply it is not. Some publications do capitalize "knowledge management" in titles (for examples refer to the Google hits I gave above). However, few capitalize the term in body text.

As to whether business journals capitalize the term, most do not. Here are some examples:
 * IBM Systems Journal, ,
 * Knowledge Praxis
 * Information Research

The term is not a proper name. It is similar to the term scientific management. No doubt there are many examples of capitalization of the term in company publications, and even in some journals. However, style guides I've looked at are consistent with the MoS. Sunray (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You have not cited the main KM Journals. I know the special edition of the IBM Systems Journal (and was involved in making suggests as to content and some refereeing), but it was just a once off issue.  Information Research is not a KM journal, Knowledge Praxis is not even a journal.  As I say, when I get home I will look up the main refereed journals and do a check there and also sort through the 50 plus text books on the subject on my book shelves most of which (from memory but I will check) capitalise.  Wikipedia currently allows both styles in practice.  No one else is joining in here probably it was discussed and agreed before.  Lets see if some of the other editors engage.  --Snowded (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia currently allows both styles." I'm not sure where you get this. I've quoted the style guide on capitalization and it is pretty clear. As to the capitalization of headings, please see WP:MOS:


 * "The first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of each word of a proper noun are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case."

Here are some further examples:

Peer-reviewed journals

 * Harvard Business Review, '
 * Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management
 * Knowledge Management Research & Practice [

Practitioner-oriented publications

 * Knowledge Ability
 * Knowledge Management
 * Knowledge Management Forum

I hope that the above is clear. BTW, I note some discussion above about Featured Article status. This article is highly unlikely to make it to GA or FA status if it continues to ignore basics such as the MoS guidelines on capitalization. Sunray (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perfectly clear. However no one is disputing that you will see Knowledge Management and Knowledge management in play in a variety of source, not to mention knowledge management.   When I write an article I use all three,  the capitalisation in the title and the other forms in the text.  From memory the journals do the same (capitalising the name, using other forms in the body of the articles.   The issue is the title of the article and if that should go with the convention within the field which is to capitalise it.  You are asserting that it ignores guidelines, but that requires you to assert, that in context, it is not a proper noun.  Other sites relating to management methods mix the approaches.   As I said its been debated before and a consensus was reached.  I suggest seeing if other people engage on what is hardly an important issue.  --Snowded (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this helps, but when I'm writing (especially given that I'm theory-based rather than applications) I tend to distinguish between Knowledge Management the field, and a knowledge management system. The first I see as a proper noun, as I'm referring to the name for a filed of study, which is correctly referred to as "KM", and in the second I'm referring to a a description. I haven't noticed a universally agreed approach in the literature, but that distinction always made the most sense to me, given the variations. - Bilby (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

An opinion
The KM article is a pathetic, socialist diatribe. So much for expert analysis. KM a proper noun? Bwhahahahaah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.252.181 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 May 2008


 * pleased to see this highly intelligent and thoughtful contribution to the debate --Snowded (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

KM is obviously too difficult a subject matter to be left to just anyone to document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.252.181 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed?
Wikipedia states that request for citation should come when an editor "feels that the preceding statement is likely to be challenged". While I find that few people will doubt that KM is a "multi-billion dollar world-wide market" (1st paragraph), whenever I see statements encompassing numerics, my first inclination is to see where cited. I would like to add a 'citation needed' flag for this statement, but fear protest due to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.115.14 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Much more helpful to do a search and find the citation and insert it. --Snowded (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Even more helpful when statement author provides citation to avoid contention, no? :) 72.224.54.198 (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is back in the mists of time. However most of the reports are available for purchase.  Any author out there whose company has bought one who can supply the reference?  --Snowded (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Papers
The references section here is becoming a nonsense with everyone inserting their own whenever they are published. We need to get this down to major papers somehow or other. It seems to be that those papers which define a school, or a practice have a place but general ones do not? Ditto books? --Snowded (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Definition - grammar check...
Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of practices used by organisations to identify, create, represent, distribute and enable adoption of what it knows, and how it knows it.

We seem to be mixing plural (organisations) and singular (what it knows) - Should this not read:

Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of practices used by an organisation to identify, create, represent, distribute and enable adoption of what it knows, and how it knows it. or Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of practices used by organisations to identify, create, represent, distribute and enable adoption of what they know, and how they know it.ChrisCollison (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you here Chris - agree with you on that, but more changes are needed!
 * Oh, I agree - just thought I should start out treading respectfully and carefully! :O) ChrisCollison (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations and OR templates
The article is in desperate need of inline citations for verifialbility. Karbinski (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It needs some hard editing as well, not that it is wrong per se, and most of the material is verifiable but it needs hard work -- Snowded   TALK  11:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Related to that, is the section "Knowledge Management networks and institutions based on academic institutions" appropriate for Wikipedia, or is it advertising? Since the list probably will never be complete, I'm not sure if it just becomes a place for institutions to get on the KM soapbox? 96.255.241.243 (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been policing that to make sure that only open consortia get in it so I think its OK - but I could be wrong -- Snowded   TALK  01:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

See Also vs. Related Articles

 * Glad to see this article evolving; question: what's the distinguishing line between See Also vs. Related Articles? That said, on a separate subject, it's nice to see such a diversity of tangential fields (though some of them, like 'personal knowledge management' make me grit my teeth... when are you ever managing something you don't personally know? duh.) 96.255.241.54 (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)