Talk:Knowledge worker

Who coined the term knowledge worker?
I think that Drucker coined the term in 1946 in his book Concept of the Corporation, not 1959. '''--> the Google Books preview may suggest that, but note that it's likely from the foreword of a newer edition ("page xx" on Google Books suggests foreword, and the cover on Amazon suggest the new edition). -- 84.120.143.92 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)'''

But perhaps in the Knowledge Age, since we Know that it is good for us, we shall all work on the land, sharing out the available exercise between us. Coriolise 17:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The earliest reference I can find to "knowledge worker" is in the Epilogue of the 1964 Mentor Edition of "Concept of the Corporation" on page 241. See: Drucker, P. F. (1964). Concept of the corporation: Mentor edition. New York: The John Day Company, Inc. Shevek57 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft has a document called 'The People Ready Business' (2006) in which they cite the term 'knowledge worker' being coined by Peter Drucker in "The Landmarks of Tomorrow" by Peter Drucker; New York: Harper & Row, 1959. In any event, who is this Martin Feregrino person? --Loresayer (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, who is Martin Feregrino? Al lot of sources are writing that he is the one who coined the term but no reference? No reference anywhere only here. It seems that they all rely bilnd on wikipedia. Never heard about this guy. Bojae72 (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Managing information overload
This section is an extended advertisement for Factavia. It doesn't belong in an article about Knowledge Workers. Anyone can suffer from information overload. There's an MIS textbook case of a fighter pilot shot down over Vietnam in spite of hearing his AA missle alert siren. He heard it, but with tactical and command radios, his wizzo, the enemy, his mission, and his instruments, he didn't process the information correctly. In short, he suffered information overload. The point is, he certainly wasn't a knowledge worker. If you want to advertise your company, do it in some other article please. Rklawton 15:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * RKLawton - please read a little Peter Drucker before commenting on what is and isn't relevant to the knowledge worker. In particular "Knowledge-Worker Productivity: The Biggest Challenge." (unsigned comment by anonymous User:70.19.84.92).


 * It isn't polite to assume what I have or have not read. I am well familiar with Drucker.  The point, however, is that information overload isn't specific to knowledge workers.  Indeed, the topic has its own article.  If you read the version of this article in question, you'll see an editor raised matter simply to SPAM the article.  Rklawton 18:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bullxxxx Bingo
oh, so a blacksmith is a knowledge worker? i mean, who would deny that those, too develop and use knowledge at their workplace... this is only one in a series of unbearably bloated articles whose common trait appears to be that they in some way or other cite simard (whom i don't know personally and against whom i bear no grudge). i pray to the self-healing powers of wp that this will sometime soon come to a good (and non-redundant) end. -- Kku 17:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC) ''' --> Drucker's concept of "knowledge work" is amazingly broad, but it makes sense in the context. Using "knowledge" in work does not mean purely "mental work". Distinctions by "kind of knowledge work" are essential for any further analysis. -- 84.120.143.92 (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)'''

'''--> Drucker's concept of "knowledge work" is amazingly broad, but it makes sense in the context. Using "knowledge" in work does not mean purely "mental work". Distinctions by "kind of knowledge work" are essential for any further analysis. -- 84.120.143.92 (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)'''


 * Yeah, I would call blacksmithing an example of skilled labor. However, given today's reliance on computer-aided drafting tools and computer-driven machine tools, a modern blacksmith might need as much computer knowledge as the average secretary.
 * I currently work as a reprographer. I am a hybrid manual laborer and knowledge worker.  My days are largely spent scanning large-format documents (11x17 - 36x48), then prepping the resulting image files for printing or conversion to digital archives (mostly PDFs).  I also plot multiple formats for first-generation copies.  I use IrfanView almost as much as the Oce scanning program, ReproDesk.
 * Aside from architectural drawings, which are easily 97% of our workload, we also see several types of large-format art come through our black-and-white department. The most surprising print job we do is 12"x96" copies of quilting designs for a local artist, who caters to a national niche market online.
 * It's surprisingly thrilling to take a vector PDF accidentally formatted for 8 1/2 x 11 paper, and blow it up to a precisely scaled 30x42 without losing any quality. --BlueNight (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
It is proposed that Intellectual worker and Brain worker merge into Knowledge worker.

Relocated discussion from Talk:Intellectual worker:

Should be merged with knowledge worker..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephan Mosel (talk • contribs) Is there any real reason NOT to merge them? They do seem to be adressing the same subject. I see no distinction, and no reason to further keep the two separate. One article with more information would be better than two articles which are, honestly, not much bigger than stubs. Mitchell 06:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about the brain worker & knowledge worker pages, I would definitely agree. As for the knowledge worker page, I think there's certainly a good case for merging this page with that one, as the terms are often used interchangably; however, it could be argued that there is a very subtle difference between "knowledge worker" & "intellectual/brain worker" and that there is therefore some merit in keeping them as separate articles. They are sometimes used in slightly different contexts & have a slightly different emphasis (i.e. intellect vs. knowledge - you can possess plenty of either one without much of the other!). "Knowledge worker" has become a management/occupational psychology/business buzzword, whereas "intellectual worker" is more often used in the context of politics/sociology/philosophy etc. Although I'm not sure if this subtle distinction is overridden by the fact that they are treated by most people as pretty much interchangable, especially since I am not aware of an writer who has emphasised the differences between the two. But brain worker & intellectual worker are definately interchangable & should therefore be merged. Missdipsy 17:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment is a bit confusing - I guess you meant that brain worker & knowledge worker are definitely interchangeable and should be merged, whereas intellectual worker may have a different emphasis? --Chris Howard (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Link?
There is a URL link in the body of the text indicating a website where the document that this entry refers to can be found for free. While I think including the URL is appropriate as a source it should be listed as a source and not jsut put willy-nilly in the middle of the entry. Would the Author please edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.110.146 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up from April 2009
I have read the WP:Style material in response to the editorial style annotations made to the clean-up work I've done, and will set to work on the additional references. I have plenty of sources, I do not believe there is any OR included; it's more a matter of being too general on references, and not using any specific footnotes; I'm working up the learning curve. JonesC-NC (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The basic content looked sound when I reviewed it, although the phrasing at times looked like OR (hence the tags) and note removing it as a link from Knowledge management. Its potentially an important article so good to see someone working on it.  --Snowded (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Weiss
Who is the Weiss mentioned in the article? The link just goes to a disambiguation page. --Zundark (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

New Reference
I think that the article can benefit from the inclusion of information from: Thinking for a living: How to get better performance and results from knowledge workers by Thomas H. Davenport, 2005. This book contains a lot of information relevant to the topic of knowledge workers and would help fill in the gaps where citations are needed, especially in the Knowledge Worker Roles section as well as the Knowledge work in the 21st century section. I have added information into both of these sections using the Davenport book as my main reference. I have included information both at the beginning of the Knowledge work in the 21st century section as well as at the bottom of the Knowledge worker roles section. The citations add to the credibility of the article as a whole and the added information also help to add more context to the subject.--Leiden88 (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added some information and citations to the introduction to help verify the general information regarding knowledge workers. I have also added a paragraph to the end of the section "Knowledge work in the 21st century" regarding generation X knowledge workers and their work values. This last article, by Bogdanowitz and Bailey, explores the way that new knowledge workers have less company loyalty than the baby boom generation, and may provide another angle from which to understand the future of knowledge work (Graziana (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

I added a paragraph in the introduction heading referencing Mosco and McKercher's "Introduction: Theorizing Knowledge Labour and the Information Society". I thought that it would be beneficial to give some idea of the breadth of the term "knowledge worker" and to recognize some of it's potential definitions, as seen by various experts. Pierrej3 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a paragraph to the introduction explaining further what makes a knowledge worker unique and that there isn't really a concise definition of what a knowledge worker does with reference to an article by P. Pyöriä and another by W. Reinhardt. In addition I am adding a paragraph to the first paragraph of the knowledge work in the 21st century heading which states that knowledge work has been growing since the 1970s. Also, because of the complexity of defining the role of a knowledge worker I will also be adding a paragraph and table to the knowledge worker roles section outlining what recent scholars have attempted to define as the role of a knowledge worker. I think the article will benefit overall from these changes as it is bringing in different perspectives of what makes a knowledge worker. --Michy belle (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

They think for a living?
Since when did software engineers, architects, or lawyers do any thinking? Knowledge worker is a stupid, pretentious term for the idiots who are ruining our world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.152.54 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Reboot
In order to conform to Wikipedia standards, this page needs to be deleted/started over/extremely heavily edited. It reads as a copy-and-pasted undergraduate student's essay assignment. If, as mentioned in the banner at the top of this page, it is truly a class project, the professor needs to ensure that the students have at least rudimentary knowledge of Wikipedia's standards and guidelines.

I advise that the majority this article be deleted and recreated. It's current wording and layout is not conducive to the wiki-approach to content creation.Jtrnp (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Then nominate it for deletion Snowded  TALK 22:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

divergent/creative
Near the beginning of the article is a mention of "divergent or creative thinking". Aren't they the same thing, and is this phrasing then redundant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.148.206 (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed; I found no support in the remainer of the article nor in any of the linked articles that those three are complementary. Removed until someone provides any reasoning for the opposite. --DenisYurkin (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Definition discrepancies
The article itself has a reasonable section about definition issues, but they plague the article as a whole. With such divergent definitions, it is meaningless to say. Furthermore, most of the definitions don't seem to include programmers and physicians, which are offered as examples in the lede. Daask (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Why the revision deletion just for spam?
reverted some spam (or so says the edit summary) in Special:Diff/1211247536, and reverting spam is always great (I do it often), but then deleted the reverted revision, which I've never before seen done for spam. The WP:DEL-CONTENT policy says: "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page." What was the nature of the content in that revision that couldn't be addressed simply by reversion? I'd like to know because now that the revision is deleted, I can't check it myself, and also because I'd like to know which of my own spam reversions should be deleted in the future. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They come to spam to get clicks on their sites. This denies it. We should not click on a spammer's link because we do not know it it has malicious code. -- Alexf(talk) 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There be malicious code on non-spam websites too! That a website  be malicious is no justification for revision deletion! Reversion is sufficient to stop readers from clicking on spam links, and WP:REVDEL explicitly says that mere insertion of spam links is not a valid reason for revision deletion. Is there some other reason why you deleted that revision? Biogeographist (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC) & 02:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)