Mathemagenic

Stand Up Eight about confusion with weblog citations. I have the same problem, and I'm inventing some quidelines for myself:

• add link to the post (almost always)
• add link to the author's name or weblog homepage (sometimes; if I'm not lazy or have that in my shortcuts)
• use blue indented style for the citations
• add "via this weblog" if I can track from there it came

But in some more difficult cases I'm not sure what to do: all the participants have different styles of citing and it gets totally difficult for the reader to recognise the original discussion.

I would be happy with some kind of general tags that describe each element of a citation:

• author + link to the page
• blog title + link to the homepage
• post title + permalink
• cited text
• may be more...

Than each author can specify more specific style for a citation in blog templated. In this case if I would cite citings of others they would be formatted with the same style as I use.

This is a bit complicated solution, probably it's easier just to have agreed guidelines and to use them :)

See also a follow-up post Recurse, Reuse, and Problems with Proper Attribution by gRadio

Knowledge is a noun, learning is a verb (via SynapShots). This article by Ian Herbert distingushes between different concepts:

As the business world becomes increasingly littered with buzzwords and jargon, students must be careful that any terms are used correctly when answering examination questions. This article attempts to demystify the concepts behind some of the popular terms.

By the end of the article you should understand:

• the concept of the knowledge-based corporation and the significance of intellectual capital;
• the difference between data, information, knowledge and learning;
• how knowledge might be managed;
• what is meant by the ‘learning organisation’;
• the role of management accounting in learning.

Alright, I apologise for the title. As students of grammar would rightly point out, ‘Learning’ as in ‘a centre of learning’ can also be a noun. However, for the moment, let us assume for that learning is about doing, (a process) and that knowledge represents an accumulation of previous learning (facts, events and experiences). In accounting terms we could say that knowledge is an asset, a form of work-in-progress to a company.

I love the title, I will definetely read it properly, but I'm already missing individual learning. At the end there are people who learn, and for me (given my background in adult learning theories) this is something that I would call learning.

Personal Website and Weblog Guidelines (via Gurteen Knowledge-Log): Ray Ozzie provides an example of corporate policies regarding personal publishing. I already though that I should talk to someone in my company to make sure that they don't mind me blogging.

Looking at the print literature would have you believe that everyone succeeds everything on the first attempt. "Here's what we wanted to do, here's what we tried, and look, it worked." False starts and blind alleys are almost never documented. But they're there. Lots of them. If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?

Now I guess the next question is, how many scientists are willing to admit to making mistakes? And among those, how many will go to to the lengths of conscientiously documenting them, in a public manner? I hope these brave souls are out there; but I know a lot of scientists who wouldn't for the life of them do it. This is an incursion into Science Taboo-land.

Actually this is bound to be a big issue in corporate knowledge management also. Documenting mistakes is obviously desirable from the point of view of the company, but it may not be perceived as such by individuals.

Sébastien Paquet in Building bridges between knowledge transmission efforts comments on e-learning, KM, HRD - where am I belonging? 

Trying to identify different flavours (knowledge acquisition, knowledge management, communities of practice, e-learning, information architecture, library science...) only obscures the simple fact that we're all trying to solve that difficult core problem of finding effective ways to transmit knowledge from mind to mind - in other words, communication between people. Let us take down the language barriers that prevent us from combining our forces; let's work as one large, powerful group. I'm sure we can pull it off.

Agree that we talk about same processes from different perspective, but I guess that there is more than language barriers: different theories and models, different networks of people, different conferences and journals... Finally, when it comes to the organisational level, there are different departments responsible and a variaty of unrelated technology tools (we did a small study on KM/e-learning connections in companies, I'm waiting for the results to go public to post it here).

It's not going to be easy, but I believe in common language, and I'm looking for practical steps to build bridges...

• John Robb gives an example of k-logs in lawers network
• David Gurteen discusses difference between blogs and discsussion forums