Talk:DIKW pyramid

message: === Comments moved from Knowledge ===
On the Talk:Knowledge page User:Adam M. Gadomski made these comments which are about this article. So, I'm moving them here. Sbwoodside 22:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But they do reflect what you get if you search for "DIKW" on google, since the specific article you refer to is far from the only reference for DIKW. Remember this is an encyclopedia ... the goal is to reflect what other people say about DIKW, not what you think about DIKW. WP:NOR. Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: References are provided under History. "IPK" is your own original research - see WP:NOR. I've looked at it briefly and I might look at it in more detail later... Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has a comprehensive set of guidelines. Before you try to impose your own set of rules, please learn more about the ones in this community. If you want to change those rules, this is not the place to do it. Try the Wikipedia:Village pump Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Discussion 

message: On the Talk:Knowledge page User:Adam M. Gadomski made these comments which are about this article. So, I'm moving them here. Sbwoodside 22:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But they do reflect what you get if you search for "DIKW" on google, since the specific article you refer to is far from the only reference for DIKW. Remember this is an encyclopedia ... the goal is to reflect what other people say about DIKW, not what you think about DIKW. WP:NOR. Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: References are provided under History. "IPK" is your own original research - see WP:NOR. I've looked at it briefly and I might look at it in more detail later... Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has a comprehensive set of guidelines. Before you try to impose your own set of rules, please learn more about the ones in this community. If you want to change those rules, this is not the place to do it. Try the Wikipedia:Village pump Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments moved from [[Knowledge]] 

message: This article does contain some good information, but much of the information it contains is repetitive. The first couple headings, History and Application, are okay, but everything after that is not encyclopedic in its style. The Ackoff section is particularly problematic because it it one huge paragraph, much of which is written from a first person point of view. The Kherde section is written using many capatalized words and exclaimations. The various styles and voices used in this article detract from the credibility of the information it contains. I think it can be fixed so the information is presented in the proper context without altering it. It also needs citation of sources and perhaps more links to other articles on this subject.Mazer 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing 

message: In this stage I suggest to delete this article.
- See also Talk:Knowledge, about DIKW,  4 November 2005
--192.107.77.3 14:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Deletion

message: Beadsland - you are putting a lot of work in that I wouldn't want to interupt.  WOuld you notify those of us interested when you have finished, or want to open up?  Thanks --Snowded TALK 12:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, citations go after the punctuation, not before. Like this.empty Not like thisempty. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style.   Will Beback  talk   19:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: My understanding is that acronyms are generally not encouraged as names for articles.  However, as this seems to masquerade under so many different names, variously "information...", "knowledge..." or "wisdom...", either "...hierarchy" or "...pyramid", and seems to exist in several different iterations (some of which do not include "data", others of which do not include "wisdom"), I am at a loss as to what name to suggest.  
Beads (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the article can be renamed to "DIKW Hierarchy". The official term of a structure of this time is 'Hierarchy', while 'Pyramid' the shape which best describes the look of the structure. I think the introduction of the article could be reworded a little better to make it clear that it is given several different names. Animorphus (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of Article

message: - DIKW is used primarily in the fields of Information Science "
"and Knowledge Management."
Where???
 No references.
--192.107.77.3 14:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant Fields

message: ===Zins===
OK there are a number of issues with this article, in particular the domination of a particular source (Zins).  
 What is the justification for this?   I am tagging the article for the moment.  --Snowded TALK 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record this talk page is now getting a nightmare to navigate.  However - one of the problems you have is that DIKW is not used much.  Most people I know in KM for example now dismiss it to the point where they don;t even write bout it.  Its an anachronism.  --Snowded TALK 22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think I said it shouldn't have an article and I agree its still taught in a number of KM courses (I don;t think by the way that such use provides any evidence of use in practice).  Single source articles are always a danger.  Either way - you are still actively editing this.  Tell me when you have finished and I will weigh in  --Snowded TALK 08:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: OK there are a number of issues with this article, in particular the domination of a particular source (Zins).  
 What is the justification for this?   I am tagging the article for the moment.  --Snowded TALK 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record this talk page is now getting a nightmare to navigate.  However - one of the problems you have is that DIKW is not used much.  Most people I know in KM for example now dismiss it to the point where they don;t even write bout it.  Its an anachronism.  --Snowded TALK 22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think I said it shouldn't have an article and I agree its still taught in a number of KM courses (I don;t think by the way that such use provides any evidence of use in practice).  Single source articles are always a danger.  Either way - you are still actively editing this.  Tell me when you have finished and I will weigh in  --Snowded TALK 08:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Zins

message: This article is now fantastically sourced... but a bit difficult to follow.. Sbwoodside (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, sometime over the course of the next few days I'll put my English skills to the test and try to reword difficult sections whilst keeping the content the same. Animorphus (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Well sourced but hard to read

message: In 1980s, the issue of data-information-knowledge-wisdom hierarchy was being discussed widely among Artificial Intelligence (AI) researchers. While much of this discussion often neglected grounding these notions in either cognitive or philosophical foundations, the idea of structure (to form information), inference (to use and apply knowledge) and judgement (for wisdom to emerge) was often implied. For information professionals, such as AI scholars, the hierarchical relationship between these basic concepts was a simple necessity implied by their work with Expert Systems and Knowledge Based Systems, vigorously researched at the time. An example of the DIKW conceptualisation and visualisation of its hierarchy appeared for example in this thesis published 1987:
Development of Concepts and Methodologies for the Representation of Contextual Information in Knowledge Based Systems.
See Chapter 2, discussion in pages 13-18, and the DIKM pyramid (with some extensions) on page 18. While the treatment of the DIKM model is certainly simplistic, it reflected the wide views of that time.
--Jacob (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it's clearly documented in reliable sources. We can't publish original research. ElKevbo (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Who was first to present DIKW pyramid

message: I haven't looked at this article in some time, but reading it today I have substantial concerns.  It reads like an essay in which someone has taken the DIKW elements then expanded on them, using sources, but sources which do not specifically link to DIKW.  That applies to most sections including the introduction.  Elliot is not talking about a hierarchy for example, neither is Zappa so I deleted that section as OR/Synthesis.  It looks like it needs drastic surgery to bring it back to its subject matter.  References can be made to the article on Data for example, there is no need to have a mini-essay here on different types unless the weight of reliable sources has specifically linked those types to DIKW.
In terms of the balance of reliable sources, DIKW is attributed to Ackoff, having some reference to properly referenced material which indicates some of the sources Ackoff drew on makes sense.  Also some of the subsequent treatment.  However I can't even see Ackoff here without a lot of searching.
 ----Snowded TALK 22:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and synthesis 

message: Could there be a formal link to the Chomsky hierarchy ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:1241:1:8067:1075:8554:BC14 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomsky hierarchy 

message: Several internet sources give credit to T. S. Eliot in the play "The Rock" published in 1934 by Farber and Farber. 
"...
Where is the Life we have lost in living?/
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?/
Where is the knowledge we have lost in the information?...."
Fatmarauder (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: T. S. Eliot Reference

message: I've not seen anything to justify this in the article. It reads perfectly well, as an encylopaedic account, very much in line with its peers in this area. I suspect the criticism is from ignorance. If not, some proper argument for 'what is opinion', 'what is 'original research' should be presented. It has not been so far! Gemtpm (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't put that tag there but I agree it should be there. I'm currently writing a paper of my own and I came to this page hoping to get a good overview of the DIKW pyramid and that is not what this article is. It is a bunch of opinions and philosophical musings without a good definition of what the pyramid is, what the different levels are supposed to signify, what it means to move up the pyramid, etc. I would give specific examples but I don't have the time right now so I'm not going to tag the article but I agree it needs a lot of work and if someone else wants to add those tags back they have my support. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the essay/ opinion tags 

message: For what it's worth, [my dissertation (2012)](http://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=UNSWORKS&docId=unsworks_10483&fromSitemap=1&afterPDS=true) has a literature review which may prove useful as an additional source discussing ontologies of data. It's probably worth significantly discussing Tuomi at the very least.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.28.172 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to other research 

message: Rudolf Steiner does have an interesting perspective to add on the difference between knowledge and wisdom (eg GA201 lectures of 1920). There are in fact multiple sources and authors where the below can be found.
Knowledge is linked to understanding, meaning the process of intellectual thinking, linking thoughts in a logical and rational way. It is linked to the capability of thinking and a level of consciousness.
Wisdom adds to the purely intellectual understanding by adding broader insight which puts the knowledge in a much enhanced context with perspectives, just as the difference between data becoming information.
The insight can eg come from experience: typically one is intuitively aware and appreciative of the fact that an older person's life experience is different from the smart understanding of a youngster. This can help to feel the difference between wisdom, and knowledge. Similarly when we hear the term 'wise people' we think of those who have a deep insight into how everything hangs together, far deeper than the superficial surface 'knowing' of lots of things. This is beyond any discussion whether you agree such 'wise people' exist or who you would grant that qualification .. it could be indian sages, a native american such as Black Elk, or a philosopher such as Socrates. Hence insight comes not just from experience, but is related with a state of consciousness that can go further than the capability of intellectual thinking which is common and widespread (as the median faculty of humanity's population). Wisdom therefore links to a higher truth beyond the limitations of perspectives and opinions.  
Potential explanation - consideration: Our culture and society, since the 15th century, has excelled and focused on intellectual thinking, hence the great advances in science and technology. As a result of this though, everything that lies beyond is less obvious for us to relate to. It is maybe not so much seen, valued, nurtured and appreciated as in earlier times or previous cultures, as our contemporary value and reference frame focuses more on intellectual advances, knowledge and insight. 
PS1: another way to point to the fact that wisdom goes beyond intellectual thinking, is with quotes such as by Carl Jung (where wisdom reigns there is no conflict between thinking and feeling) and Socrates (the only true wisdom is knowing you don't know), etc. 
PS2: certain esoteric practices relate wisdom to what is achieved through higher forms of consciousness which one can attain through practice. It is said that with such higher states of consciousness the bandwidth restrictions of our intellectual thinking and mundane consciousness are expanded, hence offering the broader view and some single version of the truth, resolving all dichotomies given by perspectives, opinions, and fragmentation of knowledge.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.26.3.225 (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Wisdom - this section is underdeveloped on the wiki page