Talk:Knowledge Ecosystem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Previous Threads archived here, Talk:Knowledge_Ecosystem/Archive1

[edit] Complex Systems discussion

Actually, you *can* have goals within a complex system; in fact you need to:

"A Complex System is a network of component nodes that share knowledge with each other and adapt their behavior in order to collaborate to achieve global system goals that could not be achieved alone by any individual node" (from http://jclymer.ecs.fullerton.edu/seminar.htm) User68 07:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like more academic articles, try http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%2B%22complex+system%22+%2B%22goals%22&hl=en&lr=

Axelrod and Cohen argue that agents have strategies which is not the same thing as goals. Even that is considered controversial in that it implies intentionality. In human complex systems there is some degree of self awareness, but its at a local level (again a key aspect of a CAS). A complex system has agents constrained by the system and also the system constrained by agents. Its one of the ways you distinguish a complex from a chaotic system (and there is still confusion of the two in this article, reference the use of the world turbulent. In respect of the way in which the term goal is used in management literature it is at best confusing and at worse plain wrong to say that a complex system has goals. Too many people, including a lot of academics, pick up CAS but then reinterpret it through the familiar language of management speak. --Snowded 10:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hasty Revisions

Regarding the revision of this sentence:

"This "bottom-up" approach to knowledge cultivation is ideal for globally distributed individuals who must exchange time-sensitive knowledge to increase organizational adaptedness and survivability."

to

"This approach is held to be appropriate for any environment in which the requirements for knowledge creation and exchange, are dynamic time dependent and subject to rapidly changing environments."

... in my opinion, the second sentence is actually worse and even more vague/obscure than the first. Thus, I am reverting back to the first sentence until we can discuss further. Please understand that I: (1) do appreciate the concern for buzzwords, and (2) would like to make this a stronger article (however I do not necessarily associate stronger == longer article, it can be brief enough to provide a definition and further references for individuals to search, and therefore be sufficient for Wikipedia).

Well the original phrase is inaccurate. As an approach it might be appropriate to globally distributed individuals but again it might not. It is also appropriate in other circumstances. I have simplified it (and reduced the jargon in the process--Snowded 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kku - please cite the buzzwords you specifically have concerns with please. Removing your post for now until you specifically identify your concerned buzzwords within the article. There are technical terms, and these do not denote buzzwords (i.e., inter-organizational information systems, would you call that a buzzword? Or post-traumatic stress syndrome). This article exists to explain an established term to others, per the Google test:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2B%22Knowledge+Ecosystem%22&meta=

... are you saying that the w3 is using knowledge ecosystems not as a technical term here? http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/task_forces/Knowledge_Ecosystem.html User68 07:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge ecosystems is a valid term, but not if you use the language of process engineering (Goals being but one example) and focus on technology which is just a part of the whole. I have made edits to reflect that. Overall I am with Kku. At the moment this reads like a manifesto rather than an article. There is legitimate use of technical language but a lot of it is thrown in with context or without value. Earlier versions misued co-evolution for example.

As it stands I think its a candidate for deletion, but it needs surgery--Snowded 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

My two cents, for what it's worth, is that I do believe this concept of knowledge ecosystem represents a early idea and that to delete it only because it's an early idea is wrong of us. If there are buzzwords, they should be identified here (no one has done that yet, though I am happy to see some simplification of the article occuring) and if there are manifesto concerns, please cite by cut-and-pasting the sentences here for revision. I'm not one typically to adopt a deletist attitude since I fear that in doing these we can be guilty of what Thomas Kuhn would view as "ordinary science surpressing the revolutionary science". I'm not saying that this represents a revolution, but if there are multiple unrelated and legit sources that use the idea, then I believe it is valid to include in an encyclopedia. Wiki4fun 23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Its getting better and I didn't propose it for deletion for roughly the reasons you state above. However this is tendency for people to create pages for KM based on their own particular theory, rather than justify themselves in the main KM entry. Some of this is plain commercial, some polemical. As a result I think we need to be on our guard. The recent clean up is much improved, and its origins and purpose are much clearer--Snowded 10:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll also add my two cents, as I've been visiting other articles on Information Systems and KM; I, too, like the cleanup that's occurred and think this is much improved. However we'll need to keep an eye, as sometimes folks "hijack" legitimate articles for less than legitimate purposes. I will raise the question about what other buzzwords should be removed (I did two rough scans and personally believe they have been eliminated) before we can say this is -- for the moment -- buzzword free? Thoughts? Abc378 17:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)