Dave,

Another good post and I just wanted to echo two of the points you made.

1) I started to use blogs etc. a few months ago because I felt that as somebody who claims to know something about KM then I needed to be involved.

2) And having got involved I am a strong advocate. Most of the reference material that I read these days is from blogs, like CE, and the linkages in the blogoshpere have taken me to places that I would not have found otherwise.

Matthew

It is indeed about the pull-based distribution and consumption of information, and the social ecosystem of thought, expression and exchange of information that one can use (by choosing sources and ways to engage in exchange) to build and scaffold knowledge.

For me it is also about practicing "reading" the zeitgeist in various circles, and learning how to function in an ongoing flow of information.

There is as much I don't trust coming from elitist sources as from the dirt and pollution of the blog world ... and in both cases I have my hopefully carefully chosen filters enhanced by the filters of people I know and trust to be thoughtful.

As you said, you have to do it for a while to understand more deeply that such capabilities and dynamics can be useful and valuable ... and that practice helps one to understand better how peer-to-peer moderation and mediation can be as valuable as top-down driven information. Expertise and useful information / knowledge does not come only from established and sanctioned institutional forms and processes.

One need only look at the use of authoritatve information and the suppression of alternative information by the governments of the UK and the USA these last few years to see that the established and accepted practices are not wholly effective .. and in that regard, thank goodness for some of the more impactful political blogs and bloggers.

I suspect that people like Benoit Mandelbrot and Mitchell Feigenbaum would have been bloggers ... it cetainly took them a while to be accepted by standard means in their fields.

Dave comments -- (5 people presenting 7K papers in an hour slot hardly constitutes learning)

Would changing the numbers to (10 people presenting 9K papers) increase the learning's constitution?
I suspect not, so what is 'learning' in the context what this dialogue is proposing and involves lists serves, blogs and peer review forum?

Old Confucius maintained that he didn't know a lot, he just knew one thing. That 'one thing' must have had an intense value to him and to others. I wonder what it was?

Thinkingly

Andrew

Blogs and Content

With respect to the comments by William P. (Bill) Hall, I wonder if Leonardo Da Vinci would have kept a blogsite? My guess is that it would have been full of off-the-wall thoughts, ramblings, some scribbling, and some other silly stuff. On the other hand, he is responsible for multiple inventions from the gantry crane to the ball bearing race/cone system we use today. And the odd painting as well. Yes, you would have to wade through the random junk to get to the good stuff, but that is part of the joy of discovery!

A postscript to the above. The origin of the exchange on ActKM was the use of the blogs are pollution statement by one A Dyer. I and others responded and the discussion degenerated as they often do on list serves (rarely on blogs). I posted a permalink to the above yesterday and A Dyer replied. His comments reveal his lack of experience, but they were interested and stimulated me to elaborate some of the points. So I replicate the material here.

You should be aware that there is a degree of antagonism in the exchange. Earlier I had tried to close the conversation by gentle hints twice as no one else was joining in and it was going no where. However A Dyer did not take the hint and my final effort to close it was rejected by the moderator, I admit a bit a comment on spelling irritated me, but I was responding in kind and I thought in proportion. The exact reply was

Alan, one cannot have a discussion with someone if their response is perverse or they shift the ground when they cannot defend a position. If you do not understand the relevance of the wiki reference I sent you to the subject then there is little hope for meaningful discussion. As a partial dyslectic I have a tendency to spell proper names incorrectly. However if you type in the spelling I provided to Google, then the true spelling is given you as an option. If you failed to carry this through then you are plain lazy. I fully realise you have no intention of blogging and I think you are right to assume that you would not be capable of sustaining one. Let me be very direct, the quality of your response does not justify any further investment of my time.

EXCHANGE ON ACT KM
Dave, I had the courtesy to read your linked article. I am pleased to see that you *can* put a cogent article together. May I suggest that, in your enthusiasm to reach your intended conclusion, you try and avoid logical errors yourself.

Your courtesy would have been enhanced if you had avoided the attempt to be patronizing (but I realise that would be asking a lot). On the question of logic, well we will see; I did get reasonably good grades (and one prize) in both formal logic and rhetoric at college, but of course the skill may have atrophied over the years due to excessive encounter with filth, fluff and pollution .......

You suggest that Bill argued "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" (please excuse my Latin); whereas what your were trying to suggest was that Bill has no experience from which to mount an argument (probably a form of appealing to a celebrity status - apologies Bill - can't quite remember the name of this type of argument).

I accept your analogy of the level of credence of arguing about drugs; but I think you have actually proved the opposite point of what you are trying to make. Bill may not desire to take drugs (err, I mean use a blog) himself, but I would wager that he has worked with a lot of people who have, and with the consequences of that. This is equivalent to you respecting the experience of the social worker who works with drug addicts. (This is not necessarily an infallible test of validity either)

I think my point was well made (and it is something you consistently missed in earlier exchanges). It is not legitimate to argue that someone cannot have an opinion because they have no experience, however it is legitimate to argue that gaining experience might give them a better perspective or change their opinion. Any parent will tell you that you see the world differently after your first child. My own experience (and that of many others) in respect of blogs is (to use my own metaphor) like riding a bike, you have to get on it. I don't know of anyone who has entered the space and engaged who would put forward your (or Bill's) views. I am sure there are some and I would be interested in hearing their views and experience.

You have taken his comment about "fluff brains" out of context in order to make a point. You have tried to take this sentence to imply that Bill meant that blogs are full of fluff, rather than the point that I interpreted Bill as making, that no "authority" or "experience" is required to write a blog; and that often shows. You yourself acknowledge that there is a lot of fluff out there through your own wording ("In my experience if you enter the blogosphere by linking to blogs that interesting you and taking recommendations from people who you know, then you find very little fluff. In practice it is a lot easier to avoid fluff as you have more validation through your blog network."). Even you have to work hard and managing your time/linking to avoid the dross!

I was very careful to print the whole of Bill's comments so that people could form their own opinion. Yes there is a lot of fluff, nonsense and ignorance in the blogosphere (as there is in list serves and journals). My point was that it was far easier to avoid in the blogosphere as you choose what goes into your RSS feed, and what links you make.

Your statement that I have to "work hard" in managing my "time/linking" illustrates your woeful ignorance of the mechanisms and processes of the blogosphere. So let me make this simple; imagine that you are entering the blogosphere for the first time. You probably know some people who blog, and whose opinion you respect. You place their feeds in your RSS feed (if you need suggests here then I would start with Blogbridge, but try out a few). You will see from those blogs links that they make to others and two clicks of a mouse button will take you there, and place the new discovery in your RSS feed. Then you set you blog up in Technorati and also create key word links (your own name, subjects of interest) and check the "watch list" regularly. That way you find out who is referencing your own material (if you blog), again more links and connections. You can also ask people to share their linkages. None of that requires you to blog. If you then participate you will find the linkages increase.

Now if you encounter dross in the process it is unusual. It is significantly less than the dross you will encounter in a list serve, and to a large degree professional journals. The authority point is interesting. To be honest if people I know and trust (having met with them over time virtually or physically) recommend material I find it far more useful (and reliable) than the authority of a journal, and significantly more important than other mediums

You further validate the point through the "pull" line. Just because you decide not to link to it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Or to make that a bit clearer (too many negatives for my liking), the dross still exists (and can be proven to exist) even though you have made a concious (and wise) decision not to link to or read it.

Of course it exists, like romantic and pornographic magazines exist in the newsagent. That does not mean I do not buy newspapers or magazines.

"The only reason to encounter filth is stupidity or naiveté." This is either "begging the question" or a "loaded question" - I can actually think of some other reasons to encounter filth. I am sure you can too, but to admit it would negate your line of argument!

It is an accurate statement, look at the comments above.

I enjoyed reading those items that explained how you felt (instead of avoiding the issue) - some of them have expanded my knowledge base, and certainly my understanding of your point of view. As an example, within universities, social spaces are just as important as libraries, each for very separate reasons. I knew some BA students who were vastly more familiar with the former, and some BEng who knew only of the latter (and vice versa)!

Pleased to see that you found a blog useful. When Bill entered the debate it merited a considered response

A comment on "If you need a license to drive a car, I would find very reasonable for employees to need a license to blog or to open a collaborative space on behalf of their company. " Your argument ignores the social responsibility aspect. A licence need not mean "corporate sponsorship" (at least not in the way that I recognise the words) but that the holder can be corporately responsible; just as a driver needs to be responsible on the road. Of course, this implies some sort of management ... and we wouldn't want to talk about that on a KM list now, would we?

Exactly the opposite, it says it is an inappropriate metaphor. If I drive a car the consequences of my not being licensed are high, people cannot avoid any reckless acts on my part. On the other hand if I blog and no one finds it interesting then live will be very lonely and no one will be harmed.

The essence of knowledge flow is that it is largely voluntary in nature. Social computing tools (I have not even started on Wikis) reflect that naturalism. As to management, well you might want to look at the origins of the word in English. That definition forms the conclusion to the article referenced here

A final point, most of the comments about the value and strength of blogs have orbited around business/professional logs (I would consider your Cognitive Edge Blog has having a business purpose - perhaps I am wrong here? "Headquartered in Singapore, Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd was created in 2006 to take on the work originally initiated in IBM as the Cynefin Centre for Organisational Complexity."). These kinds of blogs were outside the scope of the original discussion; although I won't deny that I have enjoyed watching the debate along the journey.

A lot of small companies (including ours) and independent consultants use blogs as a marketing tool. I know a lot of people who use list serves and other medium the same way. If you have a hunt around though you will find that people who use them to promote products or services get little traffic. The blogosphere is a harsh teacher, if you want people to come to your blog then you have to say meaningful things and make meaningful connections. If they then come to your blog and find it interesting, then yes work may flow as a result although it is difficult to trace. It is no different from publishing articles or speaking at conferences in that respect, but it is more demanding on your willingness to share ideas and thinking.

If you check some of the linkages from other blogs, and the material I think you will find that little of the content relates to business, mostly to knowledge sharing. Of course Cognitive Edge itself makes all of its methods available free under a commons license, and that belief in a philosophy of abundance and the creation of value for a network is at the heart of what we are about.

If you look at most of the blogs that are created my members of this forum you will find they are similar. Yes, they are good marketing, but the willingness to share ideas counts. Look at Anecdote, or Dave Pollard, or Nancy White (I could go on, there are lots). Neither your, not Bill's comments excluded any particular type of blog by the way. The blogs I connect to are business/professional/academic. If you want to exclude those from your comments, and argue that you were only talking about travelogues and private diaries all well and good. However if you had done that at the start we could all have saved a lot of time and your comments could have been considered correct but irrelevant. Bill however does not make such a restriction.

I am amazed at your patience, Dave, I must say. I can't imagine what benefit there is to anyone -- not to you, not to A, and surely not to the readers of your listserve -- in engaging with A.

The value of blogs is subject to an existence proof; there is no counter-argument.

Thanks Tom, I must admit that I am reaching the end of my tolerance for stupidity informed by ignorance. However, I come from a long line of missionaries ....