Talk:Knowledge sharing

Untitled
I have just added this page. Please help expanding this fascinating topic. Cyr S. (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added tags to let editors know that this page should be expanded. Cyr S. (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I reformatted all references. Cyr S. (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This article has potential, but it could do with some greater diversity in the references as well as expansion of the topic, keeping a NPOV, and avoiding adverts or propoganda. Anyone willing to give it a first attempt? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the central importance of this topic to the "knowledge age" we've clearly entered, actually continued, what are the important topics for the outline of this page. I was surprised, knowing how important sharing is to the topic of knowledge in general, to find so little on the subject here. I would propose that, in addition to talking about the intellectual property aspects restricting the sharing of knowledge, we also discuss a proper sense of "enlightened self-interest" and how knowledge sharing is key to moving society along in constructive ways. All of us, at times, forget that we stand on the shoulders of countless and almost totally nameless others in having reached the condition we are in and that it was through the sharing of knowledge through stories and lessons learned that we have come to know more, without qualifying what "more" means, than our preceding generations. All of the technologies and cool toys are nice, but they are relatively useless unless we use them to build from. The conversion that is taking place in this "Internet age", I believe, is just a transition in tool usage, a flat spot in the upward progress that preceded this age. Once we all have a better sense of the tools, we will hopefully return to the business at hand, namely knowledge sharing and building. Isn't this idea what this article is really about? Jb19012 (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion Discussion
I reject the proposed delation under the argument that the references seem over-general. Keep in mind that the article is still a stub within the business project. Although the treatment of the issues around knowledge sharing is relatively new in the literature, numerous articles and book have talked about it. It has been recognized as one of the biggest challenge in knowledge management. See Cabrera & Cabrera (2002)Knowledge-sharing Dilemmas, Bock et al. (2005) Behavioral Intention formation in Knowledge Sharing, Bock & Kim(2002) Breaking the myths of rewards:a exploratory study of attitudes about Knowledge Sharing, Bartol & Srivastava (2002) Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems, Constant, Kiesler, and Sproull (1994) ''What's Mine Is Ours, or Is It? A Study of Attitudes about Information Sharing'', and many more inportant publications. I am currently preparing on the side an expension plan for the article. Cyr S. (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reject the proposed deletion. Do people even bother to Google a term before they propose deletion these days? The search term "knowledge sharing" gets over 3 million hits! 142.162.90.165 (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are odds that the page gets so high rating because people assume a general meaning whereas this established term is occupied by some specific meaning (read by hassle below). I do not know which names do you propose but it is sad that business people do privatize everything, including simple meaningful words. The popular words are especially interesting. --Javalenok (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Obscurantism is presented as anti-obscuratims
Biology and bioinspired evolutionary computing considers sexual recombination as a means to distribute the good/useful solutions, the knowledge among population. It is a mechanism to advance the biological culture evolution. When individual discovers a good feature, the only way to spread it in the population is the recombination. Otherwise, you are stuck at the clonal interference (situation where you cannot communicate information across the companies). Now, we are said that pointing this out is undoubtful obscuring and vandalism. And it hides this fact in order to "deobscure". IMO, obscuring is hiding the things that put everything into the order, creating vaguesness and chaos. How do you call the situation when something is called its opposite and recover the normal order? --Javalenok (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks like an information issue now a knowledge one Snowded  TALK 12:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Information is not knowledge. That is funny. I wonder how high heights can you reach defending the nonsense. --Javalenok (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In Javalenok's defense, this was a good faith edit and not vandalism. They are speaking to an issue that has become relevant to cultural anthropology and sociobiology over the last thirty years. While Javalenok's english may not be sufficient to express the concepts, they are borrowed from information theory and applied to the process of cultural transmission. While the validity of such theories as a method is up for discussion, a lot of ink in the literature has been spilt considering it. Aderksen (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I said it was an obscure connection I didn't say it was vandalism nor did I question the good faith of the edit. The issue of information flow is important in all fields and relevant in many cases.   However this article is about knowledge sharing not information sharing.  Within the field of this article the distinction between information and knowledge is common and well referenced.  There is a body of work that argues that cultural transmission is similar to information transmission in biology and elsewhere.  It is controversial but referenced.  But again this article is not about cultural transmission is it?  I'm not sure why making the point that an information issue is not a knowledge one should be considered funny.  Snowded  TALK 05:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sure that this comes down to Javalenok's developing English language skills, and jargon within your field. As an outsider I will defer to your knowledge, but the article itself states that ""Knowledge Sharing is an activity through which knowledge (i.e., information, skills, or expertise) is exchanged""


 * (emphasis mine), and I do not see any specific distinction or citation within the article specifically describing the difference between information sharing and knowledge sharing. I gather that "knowledge" is different than raw "data" (information?), and perhaps this is the distinction? Either way, while it may common and well-referenced within the field, it is not here. Wikipedia is not targeted towards specialists, but a general audience, and in that light I suggest adding a short paragraph making that distinction and providing those citations. Doing so would satisfy me and possibly Javalenok.
 * Well you can look at Davenport and Prusak "Working Knowledge" Brown and Duguid 'The Social Life of Information' and many many more.  The article is about knowledge sharing and its not normal to state what it is not about.   The debate here is about the addition of a reference not to information management in general, but to a very specific aspect of information processing in biology.  If you want to define the difference between knowledge and information management then that is better done at Knowledge Management to which this one is linked (and in context is a subsidiary article).  Its far from clear if this article should even exist let along become a coatrack for material better placed elsewhere.   Wikipedia is not for specialists, but it uses specialist knowledge ....    Snowded  TALK 13:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You say that we should not refer to "knoweldge transfer among aliens" because "knowledge != infomration" and "we address very specific information processing in aliens rather than general information management". This is nonsense/obfuscating/twisting, despite you are percieved as great expert among the less educated public. When we discuss experience transfer, it is extreemly curious and appropirate to know that aliens do sex exactly for that. Yes, that is a just a "specific" mechamism (you can have other mechamisms) but it exists specifically for the discussed purpose and the only one available for biological creatures. Therefore, it is rediculous to say that it is not acceptable to deny the reference as 'specific mechanism'. When mechanism is specific for your topic, it is ok to refer it. Furthermore, references to the implementations hardly can obscure the general idea. By no means you should ground anything on the difference between the info and knowledge, especially when info specifically stands for "useful experiences, selected working solutions". That is nasty. --Javalenok (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't mention alien sex and despite a long standing science fiction obsession have little interest in it; if it interests you then I suggest other wikipedia pages than this one. In this respect find some sources, stop the personal attacks (you can't excuse those on poor English).  I assume you are the "educated public"?   Interested in how you determine that to the lack of expertise in those who do peer review of journal articles   Snowded  TALK 15:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is one more personal attack. Your downplayed every my word to that primitive level where everything is opposite to what I have said and I cannot qualify that other than personal attack. I may thank you for honoring your job. But I cannot understand why should you do it explicitly, if it is clear from every your manner that we must subsume you from the very beginning? I do not believe that my English is so bad that professional "sense maker" does not see allusion to "bioform" and takes "aliens" literally and reads "you look as expert" oppositely. --Javalenok (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You contrive artificial difference between information and knowledge and then use it to argue that relating biological sharing is obscuring in this context. That is obscuration. Categorical declaration of synonyms mean different things is obscuration. Saying "it is obscuring at best" implies the worse thing, vandalism at worst. The "culture" means that we evolve something by sharing ideas/information/solutions/knowledge/good features. Same happens in the biology. That is what I am saying. Sexual recombination (of best parents) in biology = simple communication in our knowledge sphere. We, human, have got the neural network and speech -- another evolutionary mechanism, which can evolve (improve the culture) separately from biology (the genes). In the neural sphere you evolve pure ideas. You produce a better idea by combining your concepts with solutions discovered by other entities. You share the ideas for improving your culture. This is exactly what sex does in biology. I do not claim any sociobiology concept or any other disputable theory. I link undoubtful clearly related concept. But it defenitely confirmed/exploited by the bioinformatics. Saying that "mechanisms of knowledge transfer in these two spheres have nothing in common" and "relating them is obscuring" is unacceptable. --Javalenok (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is an artificial distinction then it is one which is made extensively in the literature - including the information theory from which your insert was based,  The idea that a human has a neural network in the IT sense of the word is problematic, as is the concept of 'pure ideas' in the neural sphere which is dubious.  Whatever you are arguing a case (synthesis or original research) rather than referencing literature  Snowded  TALK 11:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is dubious demagogy. The only clear thing in your message is that I do not reference the literature. I don't indeed. Because "see also" serves to relate the concepts, already documented in wikipedia. You might confuse this section with "references" section, whose purpose is to "reference the literature". You should not remove "See also" entries because they are "not literature" references. --Javalenok (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Read up on before you use words like demagogy We use references to determine content, thats 101 Wikipedia.   There are loads which separate information from knowledge, produce one which says in the context of this article they are the same thing and we can look at it.  Snowded  TALK 14:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You abuse wikipedia WP:NPA to throw bullshit at people. Is there a rule that forbids that? You abuse it. Which literature do you need? There are also loads of literature, which says that sex is a way to spread successfull experiences, including target article. Do you need it to be duplicated? Moreover, there is no other literature. Finally, which WP:Rule says that should you behave like a professor in front of me, a student fulfilling every your whim? If there is no such rule then how do you dare to demand me to prove that info=knowledge without supporting first your claim that they are different and why this is important in the first place. --Javalenok (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can't be civil then I really can't be bothered responding. I've explained the position clearly and you have not addressed those points.    Snowded  TALK 16:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you restate that? So far, you have claimed that you are right because information != knowledge and then rejected my view of sexual and intellectual as two spheres of developing the culture on the grounds that neural sphere is unrelated to human intellect and computational science "is problematic". This is unclear at least. I therefore, until you start speaking clearly, will claim my writings absolutely clear in front of yours arrogant obfuscation. --Javalenok (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So far I have pointed out that this article is about knowledge sharing in the context of human (and largely management) systems. Just look at the primary references (which include my work as it happens but I did not insert that).   Information sharing in biology is a specific subject it is very different even from information sharing in human systems.   I've give you a couple of references that clearly state information management (which includes sharing) and knowledge management are not the same thing.   You so far have just asserted an opinion with a fair degree of insult and invective added.   You have been given a warning on that, your last comment would justify me reporting you to the last admin who blocked you for action.  I'll leave it for the moment but I won't tolerate any repetition.   Snowded  TALK 21:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know which couple of references you are talking about but I see nothing besides demagogy and threats. You assume that I am an idiot, who cannot understand the simple thing, that info exchange is biology is outside the human intellectual property sphere and even deny the latter when I pronounce it. That is where insults are. You have occupied a name, not sure that you had to do that, yet do not let other forms of knowledge to be mentioned here. Go on promoting it. --Javalenok (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I gave two specific authors with their books in the next above,  If you can't see them then I suggest you read it again.  I make no assumptions as whether you are an idiot or not, insults seem to be your preferred style I try and avoid that.  You can 'pronounce' what you want, without citation support it means nothing here  Snowded  TALK 07:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem incapable to count up to two. There is only one reference, addressed not to me. I do not understand which references you are talking about. Your preffered style seems to be insulting by abstract demagogy. You cannot explain why reference was removed and how do I support a reference with citation. Nobody supports references with citations. I read Wikipedia for many years and never seen that. You is a liar and demand something extraordinary, calling it "a convention". --Javalenok (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal attacks;to respond (i) I referenced two books in the threat above (ii) if they are in the thread they do not need to specifically addressed to you  (iii) the reference was removed because it does not relate to the subject matter of the page  Snowded  TALK 20:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Using personal attacks is very efficient. I am glad that you do not hesitate doing this. I could not understand how removed references, addressed not to me, can be used as references. Anyway, I see what references you are referring. Yet, I do not see how they can deny using concept of "information/knowledge transfer" ounside your narrow business and why every information transfer that does not fall into your narrow category of information transfer must must go under Information Management umbrella. Demanding that is nonsense at least because management is more than transfer. I am sure you will not hesitate to use this observation for another personal attack, demanding a longer ban. --Javalenok (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * (i) Find some sources (ii) No one has made a personal attack on you (iii) your brought that ban on yourself Snowded  TALK 19:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Knowledge mobilization
Knowledge mobilization is basically about sharing, only in a more bombastic way. It adds nothing to the principles. Questions? Comments? Suggestions? -- Kku (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Concur -Snowded TALK 12:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems reasonable to me. –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai) 17:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Disagree ---User:aupward

Closing?
This have been no contributions on this for some time and we three people in favour and one who has just said 'disagree'. So if there are no objections I will close this and redirect -Snowded TALK 10:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Commentary
Aside: this is the first time I've contributed to a talk page in some time... so please let me know any Wikipedia and Wikipedian norms I have inadvertently contravened.

I have had several in-person discussions with the authors of a number of sources in the existing article, and from these conversations, there appears to be a fundamental part of the context for Knowledge Mobilization missing from the article at present. This context provides a clear basis for separating out Knowledge Mobilization from the more general knowledge sharing.

In brief: In the natural sciences there are well-established and sophisticated institutions, funders and processes to take knowledge generated and move it from the lab into use - from research to market. This is referred to as "Technology Transfer". Most governments and most research institutions have capabilities to ensure the effective, efficient and profitable transfer of new knowledge from labs, through innovation and invention, to commercial products in the market.

However, as I understand it, until the concepts of Knowledge Mobilization was conceived, there was no clearly labelled analogous process for knowledge generated from the Social Sciences.

To give some handy labels, I usually say that innovations driven from new knowledge from natural science research is 'what' innovation, whereas innovations driven from new knowledge from the social sciences is 'how' innovation.

This gap in the capabilities to move new social science and humanities knowledge from research to practices is significant. Why? It is well understood (can provide citations) that there is far more scope for management innovation than technology innovation. Fundamentally this is because the former is only limited by human culture and creativity, where-as the latter is subject to the 'hard' limits of physics, chemistry, biology and ecoology.

Plus, in practice, many / most 'what' innovations don't succeed in the market without corresponding 'how' innovations. Consider how with many new products (what innovations) until new business models are created (how innovations) there isn't a commercially viable opportunity (again can provide citations). Consider a business school professor ho has conducted research whose results (the new knowledge) suggest a way for a manager to do something far more efficiently and effectively than was previously possible. Note this is not based on the application of technology, but some way of thinking or interacting with others. Until the concept of Knowledge Mobilization, there hasn't even been a label to describe the steps required to bring new organizational knowledge to market as a 'management innovation'. Hence it has been impossible any institutional or government support this process, nor indeed has there been a label for the processor to use to ask for help. My personal observation is that the vast majority of management innovations have been brought to market through serendipitous occurrence.

Examples:

(1) Consider the unlikely journey of the Total Quality Management innovations, many originated by Dr. Edwards Demming, from Japan back to the USA and hence globally. Although governments did get involved at points on this journey there was certainly no institutional structure for Dr. Demming to leverage then or now.

(2) Consider, more recently, Dr. Alex Osterwalder and his research that suggested a better way to design and test business models. There was no institutional nor government support to bring this new knowledge to market. The investment and risk were all born by Dr. Osterwalder. And yet the efficiency and effectiveness benefits of the management innovation created based on his research has been significant for both entrepreneurs and established business leaders world-wide (and hence to enterprises and economies). The management innovation created by Dr. Osterwalder is the Business Model Canvas - a visual tool for co-designing and testing business models. (can provide citations).

So for all these reasons, while the current article could be improved to make the contrast to Technology Transfer clear, this article is describing something different from 'knowledge sharing'. It is describing the nascent institutions, funders and processes to bring social science research to market.

The article does introduce the current state of these institutions, although I think this could be improved. For example, the Canadian Federal Government funder of social science and humanities research (SSHRC), now requires that grant applications include a section called 'knowledge mobilization' to start to describe how the results of the research will be made useful - i.e. how will the tax-payer who is the ultimate funder of the research, benefit.

Aside: this is the first time I've contributed to a talk page in some time... so please let me know any Wikipedia and Wikipedian norms I have inadvertently contravened.

--Aupward (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for change
-- Dear colleagues. I wish to suggest a major change in the content of this page. I am part of the KMGN- A foundation that unites Knowledge Management practitioners from 12 countries. One of our objectives is to help the public understand better what knowledge management is and how it can help them in life. One of the initiatives involved is to refine knowledge management related terms, so they are not addressed to experts rather to the public- written in a practical way, so that people 1) understand 2) know how to take it further to implementation. Each term is written by one member, audited and commented by another, then presented to a typical user (not a KMer) observing if indeed it is understood and gives him/her practical added value. One of the main terms in this discipline is knowledge sharing. So, yes, there is a knowledge flow, and there is tacit and explicit knowledge, but these are probably, as we learned less important when we adrees the public (and WIKIPEDIA is for them- not for us the experts). We suggested some changes that can be viewed through the history (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge_sharing&diff=964039168&oldid=964026845). Please respond- so we can proceed serving this important objective Morialevy (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You need to get material pubished, wikipedia is not a place for original research or synthesis. Sorry for three links but they contain key policies that you need to be familiar with -Snowded TALK 10:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I again am suggesting to update this page: It contains a lot information, yet less serves the Wikipedia main's audience: The public. The updates suggested up till now were all rejected again and again by one editor. We declare that we will not include original research or synthesis, and if so by mistake- the specific suggestions of the kind of course can be removed. The updates are proposed after a thorough joined process and thoghts of KM practicioners worldwide (KMGN) and validated to be easy to understand and worthwhile to readd by external typical users. Our aim is to better serve the Wikipedia objectives, being a encyclopedia for the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morialevy (talk • contribs) 03:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You need to read up on policies on original research; the process you describe fails that test. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a text book or a 'how to do it' manual for a practice community. -Snowded TALK 04:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

We (members of this team trying to suggest changes) have read the policy. We came with a process that will help us to be sure that we indeed write objextive, well based, adding value, WIKIPEDIA compliant suggestions in the first place. We wish to improve the content of this page so it will be more relevant and easier to understand to the public, which is its audience, not to experts like yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morialevy (talk • contribs) 09:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Well you haven't read the guidence on signing comments or evidently the policy on not commenting on commentors but addressing the issues raised. Your process is your process it cannot form a part of wikipedia policy -Snowded TALK 10:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)