Talk:Knowledge management/Archive 1

message: This page is long, contains some old  material, and is not easy to find material in. I propose we clean it up by listing here what we think can go and seeing if we all agree to it. LMackinnon 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Cleanup?

message: Here is a short critique based on text as of 07/30/06
blog post
: Fair enough. Commented there. One thing I will mention is that people keep changing the KM article. I had a definition for KM a few months ago as
:: Knowledge Management or KM is the activity undertaken by organisations as they institute processes, practices and supporting technology infrastructure to manage the development, capture, transfer, and retrieval of expertise, know-how, tacit and explicit knowledge and other intellectual capital from within the organisation in order to fully leverage existing knowledge and expertise in the pursuit of business objectives.
: Wordy perhaps, but to my mind it focuses on what KM is about. The current version has been washed down a tad.
Ok, I made the changes now. LMackinnon 00:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique

message: The following by LMackinnon 02:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some changes

message: ====C.1 Business drivers for a KM program====
e.g. retaining knowledge as people leave, fostering innovation, raining performance, organisational learning and adaptation
====C.2 Identifying the business context for the KM initiative====
linking the KM program to business objectives, e.g. the business plan, strategic context, etc.
====C.3 KM enablers====
e.g. communities of practice, content management, etc.
====C.4 Pilot programs====
prove the concept and ROI
====C.5 Measuring KM - metrics and measures====
LMackinnon 02:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: C. Implementing a KM program

message: LMackinnon 02:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: C.5 Measuring KM - metrics and measures

message: Hi. I had created Knowledge technologies, and the baby has been immediately redirected and included into Knowledge management.
I'm not sure that was the right move. KT and KM are clearly related and widely overlapping, but none is including the other. KM uses technologies, but also methods and concepts, and KT are used for management but many other things.
See e.g. http://www.ktweb.org/
So I would like to see the two pages kept distinct. Is that possible?
universimmedia
:Hi, maybe you should revisit the article and separate the two, making it clear how they're distinct.  Possibly whoever merged them didn't recognize the distinction.  Best, Koyaanis Qatsi 22:11 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:I would suggest an article on Knowledge Management Technologies covering Wikis, Blogs, Content Management systems, document management systems, etc might be useful. HTH 203.214.56.12 01:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me too. LMackinnon 13:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Knowledge technologies

message: The following stuff is more about MIS management than KM. It is also somewhat problematic (see my comments). Perhaps someone would like to start a KMS article?  Banno 18:50, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Para 1 is not too bad, but fails to differentiate between information management and KM, and so is in essence first-generation KM. In other words, it's old hat.
Para 2 is a silly paragraph. By definition, if you can collect, record, organize, filter, analyse, retrieve, and disseminate it, it is not implicit knowledge. Again, this reflects the misunderstandings implicit in first gen KM.
Para 3 and 4 are a combination of weasel words and wishful thinking.
Banno 18:50, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
===Advantages of KMS to the organization===
The business value of knowledge management systems (KMS) are:
#They facilitate the collection, recording, organization, filtering, analysis, retrieval, and dissemination of explicit knowledge. This explicit knowledge consists of all documents, accounting records, and data stored in computer memories. This information must be widely and easily available for an organization to run smoothly. A KMS is valuable to a business to the extent that it is able to do this. 
#They facilitate the collection, recording, organization, filtering, analysis, retrieval, and dissemination of implicit or tacit knowledge. This knowledge consists of informal and unrecorded procedures, practices, and skills. This "how-to" knowledge is essential because it defines the competencies of employees. A KMS is of value to a business to the extent that it can codify these "best practices", store them, and disseminate them through-out the organization as needed. It makes the company less susceptible to disruptive employee turnover. It makes tacit knowledge explicit.
#They can also perform an explicitly strategic function. Many feel that in a fast changing business environment, there is only one strategic advantage that is truly sustainable. That is to build an organization that is so alert and so agile that it can cope with any change, no matter how discontinuous. This agility is only possible with an adaptive system like a KMS which creates learning loops that automatically adjust the organizations knowledge base every time it is used. Examples : business management systems p2p; business workflow analysis.
#These three benefits mentioned above can be extended to the whole supply chain with the use of extranet based knowledge portals.
More problems: The following are problems within first gen KM, not with KM, as the title implies. And again it confuses KM with MIS management. Banno 18:53, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
:: What do you mean by First gen?  I have seen multiple defintions of generations of KM all controversial (including mine).  KM took over a lot of the MIS and DSS agenda so there is bound to be an overlap.  ALso the problems remain with KM no matter what generation --Snowded 07:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article

message: The business value of knowledge management systems (KMS) are:
#They facilitate the collection, recording, organization, filtering, analysis, retrieval, and dissemination of explicit knowledge. This explicit knowledge consists of all documents, accounting records, and data stored in computer memories. This information must be widely and easily available for an organization to run smoothly. A KMS is valuable to a business to the extent that it is able to do this. 
#They facilitate the collection, recording, organization, filtering, analysis, retrieval, and dissemination of implicit or tacit knowledge. This knowledge consists of informal and unrecorded procedures, practices, and skills. This "how-to" knowledge is essential because it defines the competencies of employees. A KMS is of value to a business to the extent that it can codify these "best practices", store them, and disseminate them through-out the organization as needed. It makes the company less susceptible to disruptive employee turnover. It makes tacit knowledge explicit.
#They can also perform an explicitly strategic function. Many feel that in a fast changing business environment, there is only one strategic advantage that is truly sustainable. That is to build an organization that is so alert and so agile that it can cope with any change, no matter how discontinuous. This agility is only possible with an adaptive system like a KMS which creates learning loops that automatically adjust the organizations knowledge base every time it is used. Examples : business management systems p2p; business workflow analysis.
#These three benefits mentioned above can be extended to the whole supply chain with the use of extranet based knowledge portals.
More problems: The following are problems within first gen KM, not with KM, as the title implies. And again it confuses KM with MIS management. Banno 18:53, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
:: What do you mean by First gen?  I have seen multiple defintions of generations of KM all controversial (including mine).  KM took over a lot of the MIS and DSS agenda so there is bound to be an overlap.  ALso the problems remain with KM no matter what generation --Snowded 07:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advantages of KMS to the organization

message: # Make it clear that management is 100% behind the project.
# Make it clear that this is a permanent addition, something that employees have to deal with. 
# Set up a cross-functional team to implement the system.
# Set up a much larger  cross-functional team from all regions to proselytize, train, mentor, and monitor the transition.
# Use numerous incentives. Senior management could have some of their bonus tied to the use of the system. Mid level managers received bonuses if they used the system to generate additional sales. Employees could get prizes if they contributed knowledge that was subsequently useful to someone else.
# Encouraging a co-operative corporate culture - As long as the culture is fundamentally competitive there will be an incentive for individuals to withhold knowledge. An employee's decision will be one of comparing the financial incentives to cooperate (bonuses for system usage and commissions from additional sales) against the institutionalized incentives to compete (security of tenure and importance to the firm). The company must stress not how to divide up the rewards, but how to grow more opportunities. This can be done by shifting the incentive system from an individual basis to a team basis. This will make it clear to employees that cooperation, is in their best self-interest. It will mitigate any incentive to compete with other employees. In a non-competitive environment, the principles of microeconomics 101 mentioned above, do not apply. There is no reason to withhold knowledge.
# Among sales staff and senior management, highlight the sales-generating abilities of the system. An incentive should be given to an employee when either his/her team uses the system to generate additional sales revenue or another team uses his/her contributions to generate additional sales revenue. In the first case, this could be a double incentive (additional sales commissions, plus KMS bonus). In either case, revenue-generating incentives are spread throughout the whole firm; they are not limited to managers and sales people.
#  An introductory contest could be useful in getting employees involved. A two-week, all-expenses-paid holiday for two would be enough to get most employees interested. To get a chance at the prize, an employee would have to describe an important part of their work process. This would start people using the system and would "kick-start" the creation of the knowledge base.
# Increase the scope of the system - There are network economies associated with this system : the more people use it, the more valuable it is to each user. It should be phased in at all divisions and all functional departments as soon as is feasible. 
# Incorporating a knowledge portal into the system - The system could be employed on an extranet. This knowledge portal could be used to obtain important information from suppliers and key customers, making it more useful for everybody. Some of the information could also be disseminated to suppliers and key customers.
# Incorporating a DSS or AI - The system would be more useful if it drove a decision support system (DSS) or an expert system. Computational and analytical models could be applied to the information in the knowledge base so as to support decision making. An inference engine could be applied to the knowledge base so as to make recommendations. Because some questions are better answered with DSS and others with AI, both types of systems should be used to get the most benefit from the knowledge base..
There is some good material here, but it needs to be put in a better context. The distinction between first and second generation KM is pretty well received now; re-grouping this stuff into an argument for this distinction would make the article more understandable and readable.Banno 19:00, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
:: Please explain what you mean by 1st/2ned generation.  I am not aware of any generally accepted defintion thereof --Snowded 07:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Implementing an KMS

message: I understand that removals can be contentious. It seems a sound idea to solicit views first. Therefore I am awaiting responses for a reasonable period before taking any action.
--Philopedia 15:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy on Removal of External Reference to specific external links 

message: Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article.  Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly.  (You can help!)
- you mean external links? LMackinnon 12:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss links here 

message: Isn't knowledge an individuals comprehension and interpretation of information?
As soon as it leaves that individual, it becomes information for another individual to comprehend and compute.  However this other individual's experience and existing knowledge may process this information is such a way that there is a differntiation between the "knowledge" of the two individuals, and thus a disjoint!  How do you capture that and more importantly, base line the differentiation???
Just a thought!
I'm very new to this, and investigating for an assignment on Corporate Strategy, and in an effort to investigate discussion surrounding  a move from an individuals reputation to a business reputation (in the small business concept) I stumbled up KM.
If KM is trying to "manage" this, then perhaps George Orwell's "FICTION" in 1984 is the future, by minimising, or even removing, the differentiation which would result in Information Management!!! That scares me! [personal opinion]
Interesting article: "http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html#sve01a"
I agree that there is a need to discuss the spectrum of approaches from the individual to the small group to the distributed group to the corporate entity.  Jackvinson 16:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just A Thought! 

message: One of the troubles with a single article about knowledge management is that there are many viewpoints on what it is.  I like the list of links to related articles, as those provide an appreciation of a wider body of knowledge from which KM draws.  Would it help if we talked about some of this in the article to give readers an overview?
* Techno-centric: Focus on technologies, ideally those that enhance knowledge sharing / growth, frequently any technology that does fancy stuff with information.
* Theoretical: Focus on the underlying concepts of knowledge and truth.
* People view: Focus on bringing people together and helping them exchange knowledge.
* Process view: Focus on the processes of knowledge creation, transmission, transformation, and others.
* Organizational: How does the organization need to be designed to facilitate knowledge processes?  Which organizations work best with what processes?
Yes, many of these viewpoints are inter-related.
Jackvinson 16:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, actually.  I don't think there is even a common definition, other than in pretty vague terms. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  21:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple viewpoints 

message: Would it be worthwhile to add a section on KM Education?  There aren't many universities that offer KM-specific education.  There are several consultancies / institutes that offer variations on KM Certification, which are controversial all in themselves.  
One of the things I've seen is that education in KM comes from Librarianship, Information Technology or Business schools.  Each has a different perspective on KM, based on where their students end up working.  Maybe this could inform the larger description of KM as well?  
Jackvinson 20:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a section on KM Education? 

message: This needs to be rewritten, as evidenced by the snarky comment about "Anything a KM consultancy can dream up" as a driver for KM.  Jackvinson 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drivers of KM 

message: * Issue 1 - Select primary audience for article 
**Option 1 - General Audience article (2 Votes)
: I added my vote to this. This does not preclude adding additional technical articles and linking to them from here. LMackinnon 02:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I voted for option 1 and option 3, as they are not incompatible with each other.  LMackinnon 02:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Issues with Article

message: *Step 1 - Is it agreed that these are the issues? If not, add, modify, or delete as appropriate.
: Nope. 
: I'd remove a few. But perhaps instead if you changed them, for example from "remove buzzwords" to "improve clarity of language" you might build more support for the initiative, as people wouldn't be just attacking things they didn't like. LMackinnon 11:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Just remove or change the issues I outlined, right in that issues section. That's essentially what I asked for; I won't be offended. It's only a talk page section, and I'm just attempting to foster some forward movement on an article that I agree needs clean-up. I haven't seen anyone yet who states outright - "Hey this article is an excellent example of Wiki prose, leave it just the way it is!" Until that moment, I'd favour being more bold ThreePD 16:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I do think agreeing on the intended audience is a central point. Good suggestion. What are your thoughts? LMackinnon 11:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My thoughts are that the first main article should write to a general audience. Assume a reader of average intelligence has just heard the phrase "Knowledge Management" and is coming to Wikipedia to find out what it's about. Subsequent spin-off articles can then add details about validity, organizational roles and structures, methods, or tools of the practice that are more oriented towards practitioners. ThreePD 16:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Depends on what you mean by "agreement". Certainly act on unanimous agreement - that seems to go without question. I'm not so sure that democratic vote between people with varying perspectives, agendas, and levels of knowledge is the ideal path to the best article content. I suggest instead to discuss it until such point as the proposal gets to the point where nobody objects to the change going ahead (which may be different to them agreeing with it) then do it. LMackinnon 11:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By "agreement" I mean general consensus, not unanimous agreement. In this particular case, my read so far is that no one is arguing that this article is already in excellent shape and should simply be left as is. So, I would generally allow for a bit more boldness at this stage and say that if three or more people think something should be done, I would just go ahead and do it. But, if someone subsequently objects or reverts - as in this instance of the important opening para - then we of course agree to be civil and talk the issue out here - one point at a time preferably - in order to achieve a higher degree of consensus. Personally, though, I couldn't agree more with Smerdis of Tlon's comments below. I find the original text too abstract and waffly, and the proposed change to it is a no-brainer in my opinion. But if you can offer something that is clearer but still captures the essence, then I'm certainly willing to take the time to read it and offer an opinion on that as well. For example, if you feel "techniques" is too limiting, then how about the good old, "people, methods, and tools used to..." - or offer your own concrete alternative in response. I will state outright, though, that overall, I do feel the article style needs to be more concise. ThreePD 16:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Steps Forward

message: Another proposed edit for conciseness and clarity:
Instead of:
:Knowledge Management programs are typically claimed to be tied to specific organizational objectives and are intended to lead to the achievement of specific targeted results such as improved performance, competitive advantage, or higher levels of innovation.
which distracts by an early caveat and a near redundancy, I would hope the following statement should be clear and relatively non-contentious:
:Knowledge Management programs are intended to achieve organizational objectives such as improved performance, competitive advantage, or higher levels of innovation.
"Organizational objectives" and "targeted results" are by and large the same thing. Furthermore, the hedge formulation, "programs are typically claimed to be tied to", seems to incorporate someone's reactionary cynicism and is not NPOV. Now, if someone wanted to argue that KM is intended to "reduce staff" and "make some people irrelevant", I might even agree. But then I would simply counter-argue that the root objective is likely "competitive advantage" for the organization, rather than intentionally "ruin some peoples lives", as may be felt by objectors to KM programs - notwithstanding that "achieving competitive advantage" embodies no intrinsic ethical value, and may indeed "ruin some peoples lives" . If that statement gets into a bun-fight then I  suggest people who want to pursue that thread of discussion move off to an appropriate Talk Politics forum. It may well be a legitimate arguement, but it does not help in article development. I would not object to incorporating objections to KM in a later section of the article clearly entitled "Objections to KM", but such objections, however valid they may be, do not belong in opening statements, in my opinion.  ThreePD 18:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. The original sentence I wrote did not have "claimed to be" in it. As you noted, adding that makes the sentence sound weak and prevaricating. Someone who disagreed with the proposition that KM is (typically) tied to organisational objectives simply watered the sentence down to suit their agenda. LMackinnon 02:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 2. Objectives and outcomes are not the same thing, therefore the original sentence is not completely redundant. Granted, objectives might be naturally related to outcomes, but in organisational development the connection is not always made and followed through ;) LMackinnon 02:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 3. That said, I don't really have much of an issue with your proposed change. I'd prefer to keep the word "Objectives" in there, as it is vitally important that KM initiatives be tied to strategic objectives. But really, your sentence does not seem all that different from the original, apart from getting rid of the watering down phrase someone added - "claimed to be". LMackinnon 02:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. I agree with your comments. I prefer "organizational objectives" as well, and in my opinion it is standard Management terminology. Is my revision above now better? ThreePD 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Second Sentence Rewrite 

message: But first, a few questions. After the very, very, very long opening segment of the para, how does the final segment differ from the introduction line?
Also, in part, this paragraph may be difficult to read because it jumps right into one particular aspect of Knowledge management - [Knowledge transfer] - without identifying or edifying on any other aspects of knowledge management. What are some other "aspects" of knowledge management? Knowledge Acquisition? Knowledge Representation? [Knowledge Visualization]? Perhaps the reader would be better served by a brief list of such aspects? Is there a generally accepted list of such "aspects"? 
Last, but not least does it have to wander around like that before making the final point or can it be broken down to slightly smaller, more digestible chunks? ThreePD 01:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Third Paragraph Rewrite

message: In the midst of redrafting the introduction the page has been edited to remove 'KM' and change 'Knowledge Management' to 'Knowledge management' which is indicative of the whole debate - i.e. is the article about managing knowledge or about the discipline (practice but probably not science) of Knowledge Management (KM).
Within the discipline, KM is a common acronym and (IMO) should be used in this article (that has let out which side I'm on). 
Should I suggest that the title of the page also changes? I won't as that raises even more WP convention difficulties. Johnmarkh 16:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation, initialism and acronyms 

message: We can include topics or sub-article!?
* Wikipedia as a network of related concepts is a very good form of "Ecological Approach" to KM.
* Many "original research" is original only about "Knowledge organization" (taxonimies, tables of cases, selection of relrevant topics, etc.), that is, Wikipedia DO AND NEED a little original research from the KM point of view! We need EXPRESS HERE this important point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.43.54.214 (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIKIPEDIA as a Knowledge management TOOL?! 

message: Sometime ago someone "corrected" English spellings to their American version.  To make a point I changed them back and they have just been reversed.  Now this could get silly.  However I object to the idea that one version is "correct" and the other "incorrect".   For the moment I changed some organization to organisation, left those which were references and also did not change any program to programmes.
I think that the best approach is to leave whichever version of the spelling is used by the person making the change.  Any comments?--Snowded 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: interesting question as to what is a "dialect" of what, in practice English and American derive from similar origins.  However I would not use the word dialect.  That said someone feels strongly about this and is changing "z" to "s" and hiding their posting name.  Hopefully they will come to this space and discuss the subject.  Snowded 15:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My assumption was the the first style should be followed, which is why I reversed the corrections.  I like the idea of trying to use common words though.  I must admit my main frustration was that whoever made the changes had no identifier and has not taken part in this discussion.  --Snowded 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would concur with your assumption - most of these spelling spats erupt out of a good-faith attempt to 'correct' the unfamiliar variations.  I've done it myself with some of the more obscure ones (say, yogurt or tyre).  It should be consistent in the article, but I just can't see why people get worked up over it one way or the other. Kuru talk 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: THE FOLLOWING TEXT HAS BEEN ADDED TWICE.  CAN WE PLEASE TALK ABOUT IT HERE BEFORE WE GET INTO THREE REVERSALS ETC.
March 9, 2007 Response Note To Above Editor:  We are interested in making the explosion in KM technologies & theories relevant to the day-to-day scientific operations:   This is not possible without formally addressing the central constraints that impact upon the creation and management of scientific knowledge.   As the U.S. formally enters the Science & Technology Economy, this is a solvable barrier that merits thoughtful consideration.
Stevenson-Perez 02:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said earlier the subject of knowledge in scientific work is probably appropriate (as a paragraph and not country specific).  If you want something more specific at this level of detail then it seems to me that it should attempt to stand on its own as a separate page.  Even there I think you are going to have difficulties.  The authority for arguing CoPs here is a brochure branded by IBM based on three case studies.  It does not justify the claims you make below.  The DIKW model is controversial in KM and I see no evidence of its being adopted as a given by the scientific commmunity (even in the US).  Constraints in terms of peer review are I think producing some abnormal responses patterns in acdemics and are worth of discussion, but that may be a list serve or blog rather than an entry in an encyclopedia.  If it is an entry then different opinions and perpectives need to me mentioned.   Your comentary and description of scientific method ignores a hige body of literature, the debate around Khun is only one example of many.  You also need to expand what you mean by SKM tools (is this a disguised technology sale?  So you have any interest of commercial connection here?  I make no assertion that you do, but often this stule of posting ends up being a sales pitch which is not appropriate. Hopefully others will now contribute to this discussion --Snowded 04:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  apologies forgot to do so --Snowded 21:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knowledge Management In Scientific Communities Of Practice 

message: As a user unfamiliar with consulting terminology, this page is - well, it's nonsense. There's no clear explanation of what 'Knowledge Management' is, and I mean that in the sense of how Knowledge Management is applied and by whom, rather than a generic handbook-style introduction heavy on words but light on meaning. 
The page makes no attempt to establish why 'Knowledge Management' is notable or the history of the term - simply treating it as if somehow this concept should be obvious and fully-formed in the mind of even a toddler. If there wasn't such a overwhelming list of references and clear discussion on the talk page, I'd be tempted to believe this was merely a fictional puff-piece by a consulting agency somewhere attempting in a very roundabout way to convince their customers that their 'techniques' were a legitimate science. 58.168.68.67 11:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded, with a vengeance, I'm afraid. Awesome if you're in the business, but I'm not - I deal with other things for a living! I've added appropriate tags, I don't understand enough about the subject to risk taking it apart into simpler pieces. Hawker Typhoon 23:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has been an established discipline since 1995 with University Courses on the subject established by 2000 and now almost universal.  There are established practitioner and academic journals.  HBR has articles on the subject.  I could go on and generally agree that the article needs improvement and additional introductory material.  However with a ten year pedigree, journals, books and multiple world wide practitioners you can hardly call it fluff.--Snowded 06:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Look around at most large companies these days.  More and more are establishing Knowledge Management teams within the organization.  It's not necessarily an outsourced business like you're implying.  Jauerback 12:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: it is an established discipline, but it would be a good idea for a through edit.  My first proposed step is to remove the less significant of the  sources given--a general article isnt usually the place for  a full bibliography. I'm a member of ASIST & I do know at least a little about the fieldDGG 04:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, one of the things that has happened recently is that people have been adding in their own articles regardless of significance.  It might be an idea to start a discussion here and see what agreement can be reached.   I am reluctant to initiate that as my own material is there, and I am a recongnised leader in the application of narrative and complexity and would thus be seen as partisan.  Happy to engage in the debate. --Snowded 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this page about?