The eJournal email came in last night along with the latest stream of posts from the last ActKM listserv. Readers of that listserv will be aware that we have had a sudden flurry of activity in recent weeks mainly around the postings of the Frank. (I am using the definite article deliberately as I still think the Frank may be a computer not a person) From a zero start the Frank had (as of this morning) achieved 181 posts since the start of April, an average of 2.3 posts per day with a maximum of 15 on one day and a median of 1.5. If you exclude fallow days the the average is 3.5 posts per day which is pretty unrelenting. The early posts were pretty shameless in promoting his start up company, but to be fair the group corrected this and he responded positively. Although the volume indicators that participation in ActKM must be being seen as a sales tool. After all one of his arguments is that Executives only do things which have a tangible and measurable benefit to their groups. It therefore follows unless he is a hypocritical that his participation is similarly motivated. Given the repetitious assertions of those posts the behavior is pretty close to that of a troll.

So what is the connection with my knowledge management journal?

Well, the Frank has been running an argument which roughly follows the following pattern: The only sharable form of knowledge is information so KM = Information Management (IM). Also, I the Frank meet with senior executives all the time and they do not want KM, they only want bottom line focused IM with clearly measurable results. Finally we have the argument that the Frank used to work in a major organisation and his experiences there provide an role model of best practice for all other organisations. The posts are peppered with phrases such as Trust me ... which is never a good sign and some fairly patronising dispensations of higher wisdom. As part of the evidence for his rejection of KM the Frank asserted that the number of university courses in KM was so small that it could be rounded down to zero. Three weeks of exchange and evidence from many people finally forced the concession that this was wrong, but his concession of this was coupled with a statement that he was still right as the number was very small. In fact he was still wrong (although I can understand the face saving behaviour of an alpha male in full flow), we (lots of people posted) fairly easily established a range of post--graduate courses and the fact that KM is taught as a module on many others at under graduate level.

Now as I say, the Frank is behaving, from my perspective as a troll. I have always enjoyed the ActKM forum and I am sure at times that I have irritated people by persisting with an argument, but I hope I have also know when to withdraw. That said, I may have got it wrong, I may have exhibited troll like behaviour. In another listserv we have a more dangerous troll, namely someone who wants to defend creationism, is even prepared to defend the fascism of the American Taliban. Ignoring this troll seems to have resulted in multiple posts preaching a form of religious intolerance and scientific nonsense which from my perspective is pure pollution of a type I can avoid in the blogosphere. It got to the point where even deleting this dangerous drivel was a task too many and the overall usefulness of group did not outweigh the advantages so I withdrew my name. It may be that people welcomed this - I don't know as I am no longer on the list!

Now it would take a lot for me to withdraw from ActKM. I have many friends there, it has been a part of my life for the best part of a decade. But I will admit I came close; not just because of the troll like behaviour of the Frank, but also because of the censorship. ActKM is one of the very few moderated lists. This means that three noble people (that is a genuine statement, not ironic or sarcastic) screen all entries and reject some. Now I should say that I have a basic opposition to any censorship or moderation for the following reasons (which are mixture of theory and observation from practice)

1. Groups can self manage. In AOK removing moderation improved the quality of conversation and reduced flaming and I have seen the same elsewhere.
2. Posts get held up for 24 hours or more while the moderators discussed. So you post say two responses, assuming that the listsev will see them in sequence. However one finally gets posted after the discussion has moved on and it looks like you are reopening a closed discussion. This increases tension.
3. Instead of thinking about how the group will respond, you think about how the moderators will respond and you push the boundaries
4. The first flame (negative comment on someone else) is nearly always posted, but then the response is moderated. This is unfair and again increases resentment. I am partly posting here out of that frustration.
5. A direct and honest criticism is rejected, while patronising indirect criticism is allowed through

Now in the blogosphere I could turn off an RSS feed from the Frank. In the listsev I cannot avoid him. Now I believe in being open to different views, but there are limits. If someone makes the same point time and time again regardless of context its is OK to move on. Finding a way to avoid the Club Boor is not avoiding criticism or difference, it is about preserving sanity.

At the same time as all of this is going on, thanks to multiple links I am find more conversations through highly diverse blogs. Participation in editing the Wikipedia also creates a different type of community. I think listservs still contribute, but not with censorship.