Talk:Tacit knowledge

message: Tacit knowledge is also referred to as "implicit learning".
:Actually, the synonym would be "implicit knowledge". Learning is a process, knowledge is not. The terms are certainly overlapping (definitions depend on who you ask anyway), and I'd agree that they are synonyms. What I don't know is in what context (scientific disciplines) each is common — that would be interesting. Rl 15:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the synonym is "implicit knowledge" or even "embodied knowledge". I don't really know the convention for writing synonyms, so someone please do it. The fact that the document makes no reference to the term "implicit knowledge" makes it somewhat difficult to google...--Ausairman (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible synonym 

message: I have removed a short paragraph which seems to have been more inserted out of interest in Hayek and should go there, rather than exemplifying tacit knowledge which is otherwise a good, clear, well written article. Jeffrey Newman 05:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hayek reference 

message: I have removed edits of 06:08, 23 January 2006 by 219.209.178.19 which appear to be poorly formatted or possibly some sort of defacement.  I also removed code at the bottom of the page which read --
de:Implizites Wissen
nl:Onbewuste kennis
zh:隐性知识
-- but which only appeared in the edit page version and not in the properly displayed article, and which make no sense.  Please revert if I am mistaken.  Thank you. Marcopolo 12:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Figured out the "In other languages" links. Marcopolo 12:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit note 

message: I'm making some major changes to this article. I'm going to add a section on geographic thought on the issue (I'm a geographer, so it's my god given duty to do this). I don't think that the last two sections are partially good, so I might remove them and put in something else. I'll also add more concentration on tacit knowledge's role in buissness, as much of the literature on the subject is about that. Any other suggestions if what to add?
Benspigel 05:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  major changes 

message: Removed from the article to here, pending supporting evidence (eg, citation of a reliable source):
;Tacit knowledge cannot be transferred into explicit knowledge although in the past this has been a held belief. How can you codify a culture for example, you can only give clues. The recipient has to gain an understanding by blending these clues with his own life gained knowledge set.
--Una Smith 21:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion tacit to explicit 

message: I am a bit shocked to see the currnet state of this article which really convyes nothing useful.  The idea of tacit knowledge as described in the orginal article was really a very useful one.  This article has now completely lost that.Engineman (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Garbage

message: seems to me that this article has become a paeon of praise to Michael Polanyi. I have created an article called "Michael Polanyi and tacit knowledge"
So I have re-written it to be about tacit knowledge.Engineman (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? I can't find it. Smartse (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Well you did create it but it is only a redirect to here: Tacit Knowledge and Michael Polanyi. If you removed it can't you make the effort to replace it? I think it would probably be best on the Michael Polanyi article however rather than a separate article. Smartse (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: polanyi

message: Gilbert Ryle discusses tacit knowledge in "The Concept of Mind" (1949) and Auguste Compte used the terminology in the mid 1800s. The history part needs a lot of work.
Fatmarauder (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Gilbert Ryle and Auguste Compte

message: I am in doubt of the example involving cycling. Being a cyclist and a motorcycle rider I have never first turned left, then steered right to keep the bike from falling when making a right turn. Actually what happens, much like walking, we first move our center of gravity in the direction we wish to move, then steer to keep from falling. (In walking, we move our feet to keep from falling. Which is the only way to get a normal gait out of a robot.) When we have reached the end of our turn, we over steer or accelerate to right the bike as we transfer our center of gravity to the middle again. Watch the cycle races. 
Now this is not central to the definition of Tacit knowledge, however being accurate improves confidence in the content. 99.22.71.182 (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynamics of cycling 

message: When you begin a sentence with "No disrespect to you but ..." you are being disrespectful. I do know how I steer a bike and if you go frame by frame of any bike race you will see that we do not turn left first when we turn right. We lean into the turn, to counter balance the dynamics of turning the handlebars. At the end of the turn we over steer a little to right the bike as we transfer our weight over the center. As you get better at riding you will see that you lean more and turn the handlebars less to turn the bike. If you ride enduro we'll teach to ride across a log. If you turn your handlebars at all, you will fall off. You maneuver right and left by leaning only.  Citing a Wikipedia article to backup your claim is nonsense. Citing physics and the appropriate equations and doing the mathematical proof = truth. But this is a waste of my time. Just look at the video of Lance Armstrong in a race. I rest my case. Do what you want with this article 'cause I could careless about what nonsense you put here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.119.16 (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How one steers a bike. 

message: I suggest to delete this example, since it is not a case of tacit knowledge. It feels like a piece of advertising for the Matsushita bread-maker. Tacit knowledge is knowledge that cannot be reduced to a precise description even after a person has acquired it. In this example the person simply noticed the dual action, and claims that this was the "secret". In other words, the knowledge was reduced in the end to a precise set of rules, contradicting the definition of tacit knowledge. AS48 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matsushita bread-maker as example 

message: As of this writing, the initial "Definition" section has serious readability issues regarding grammar and sentence structure. It's so hard to understand that I can't even begin to come up with a correction without considering a complete re-write. Perhaps someone else is up to the task. Mmseng (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition Section Readability 

message: I saw that you  from Wikidata, so I removed that description from the Wikidata entry since I agree with your assessment. If you can think of a better short description, please add it to the Wikidata entry; and note that in the future if you delete a short description that has been imported from Wikidata then you will want to delete the description on Wikidata as well. Biogeographist (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikidata definition