"First problem, this is a Web source.  Not ideal.  That said, it does include a number of verifiable references to other sources, so I've incorporated those, marking those I haven't verified at least second-hand (Eliot and Zappa), as needing verification.  My minor hope is that someone will beat me to the library and confirm that what Sharma has claimed these sources say is actually in the sources.  My major hope is that someone will beat me to the library and find a treasure trove of information in these sources that can be incorporated into this article. 

 I have only cited to Sharma directly once, and then only for a personal communication.  I know, a poor source referencing an even poorer source.  However, I felt the inclusion of the ""enlightenment"" tier attributed to Zeleny served to at least partially counterbalance Zinn in the Metaphysics section, and so was worthwhile.  Of course, if no other sources can be found that talk to the metaphysical angle with respect to DIKW, this section might best be dropped as too technical.  (Hmm... I don't see a Wikipedia template for that.) 

 (At some point I'll probably blog in another forum about the similarities between this and Maslow's later addition of 'self-transcendance' to his own hierarchywhy must pragmatic models eventually go metaphysical?  That, of course, would be original research, and so doesn't belong here.) 

    beadsland 

 ==Ackoff== 

 Previous unattributed comment: ""Russell Ackoff's view section really needs to be cleaned up."" 

 As of January 2009, there was no section discussing Ackoff's view.  I've referenced Ackoff in the history section, but a fuller discussion is perhaps merited.  In particular, a discussion of whether or not Ackoff is typically credited with originating the DIKW model would perhaps be in order.  I note in the discussion moved from ""Knowledge"", below, that the commenter referred to something varying from ""Ackoff"" as ""not original"". 
   beadsland 

 I see another comment about Ackoff in the section below on Copyediting.  Would anyone suggest I look back in the history for this section?  I'm guessing it was deleted for a reason before I got to this article. 
   beadsland 

 ==Description/Definitions== 

 Should definitions perhaps be put ahead of descriptions?  At least until there's more meat in this section? 

   beadsland 

 ===Old Description=== 

 I'm holding on to the old description, despite its total lack of references and definite lack of clarity, pending other sources.   

   beadsland 

 ===Definitions=== 
 I'm going to review Zins to see if any of his citations are of persons who are represented on the English-language Wikipedia (so far, none have beensee above), but will probably hold off on this until I've been able to get my hands on Rowley, who I expect to cite specific textbooks that can then be drawn on as primary sources. 

 Unless a review of website's giving definitions would be deemed useful by anyone.  Not the greatest sources, but someplace to start, perhaps? 

   beadsland 

  
 ==Relevant Fields== 

  - DIKW is used primarily in the fields of Information Science "" 
 ""and Knowledge Management."" 
 Where??? 
  No references. 
 

 I've categorized this article given the fields cited by Sharma and Rowley. 
    beadsland 

 ==Criticisms== 

 ""Aplication""  are not realistic and without any references. 
 

 I've retained this and another criticism directed at Sharma's website, but suspect they can both be eliminated as original research and/or biased.  Comments? 

   beadsland 

  
 == Old Discussion == 

 === Comments moved from Knowledge === 

 On the Talk:Knowledge page  made these comments which are about this article. So, I'm moving them here.   

 - By the way, the definitions in DIKW