Mathemagenic

Presentation Persisting and Surviving the Journal Review Process [PhDweblogs]

Chat and Bulletin Boards vs Blogs via [thomas n. burg | randgänge]

See also Blogs vs Message Boards [andersja's blog]

One of the first serious articles on wikis that isn't on a wiki (a previous one was The Reengineering Wiki (pdf)). , by susning.nu founder Lars Aronsson. Abstract:

A Wiki website is a hypertext on steroids. Any user can create or edit any page on the site using a simple web browser, and all information processing is done on the server side. Wiki sites are powerful tools for collaboration in closed work groups, but can also be used for the general public on the open Internet. This paper summarizes the experience from the first nine months of operation of Sweden's biggest Wiki website susning.nu, including its usefulness in non-profit and commercial applications, in hobby and professional, projects, its social and legal aspects, its relation to geographic information systems, subject information gateways, the establishment of a controlled vocabulary, and its implications on learning, free speech, the price of information, licensing, and copyright. Relevant comparisons to similar projects in other countries are also presented.

(via Peter Suber)

German and Swiss Week: 27.01.-31.01.03 at the Knowledge Board:

• case studies about KM in German SMEs
• an online workshop about “KM in German SMEs” in german
• interview with Dr. Lando Lotter about "KM implementation and use in SMEs and in their requirements in terms of the development of adequate KM tools and methods"
• keynote presentation by Mr. Christoph Meier, CCSO (CH): "KM at Swiss SMEs"

Probably not for me (I don't know German), but for many others...

Olaf Brugman comments to the emergent KM research proposal emergent KM research proposal asking about research of weblogs (bold is mine): 

I hope the research could contribute to:

• increasing knowledge transparency: I am enthusiast about the blogging phenomenon, with the way it can quickly form communities. However, I also find blogging leads to multiplying search and analysis time. There is so much blogging knowledge (on search, on networking, on technicalties), but a lot of this knowledge is multiplied around many blogs like a spreading virus. I have to go out and look for stuff, and then find many doubles. I think the collective blogging phenomenon isn't understanding the role of collective infrastructures as a katalyst or a complexity filter. BLogknowledge needs to be prefilterd, filtered for doubles, and syndicated to avoid individuals all having to go out to do the same thing.
• digital divide: blogging favours people who have 1) general web access, 2) to whom access cost are no issue 3) have the time to be online and working on the web constantly. It cuts off others.
• balance between webpageconversation and real conversation. It just isn't good to turn people in to brains glued to a keyboard. Needs to be balanced with meeting real people.
• as blogs grow: how to find back and reuse stuff? it is not a replacement for databases and fileshares. but then how is it to be positioned?

Some of recent posts to catch:

Content Management: Our Organized Future [elearnspace blog]

Contagious Blogging [Ton's Interdependent thoughts]

Conflicts of interest between publishers and information creators [Synesthesia]

DeadJournal about LJ and blogging communities [Ross Mayfield's Weblog]

Introducing: Seb's matchmaking service! [Seb's Open Research]

Proxemics and knowledge management [Joy London via  McGee's Musings]

Jim McGee in Managing for shared awareness about Enterprise Effectiveness

Interesting thinking about what lessons are to be learned from the military about sharing information in real-time or near real-time:

Shared information inside a corporation and with its allies and customers provides greater information richness and reach, and produces shared awareness. Shared awareness in turn enables faster operational tempo and sustainable competitive advantage. This all spells increased competitiveness

An interesting transition from "need to know" to "shared awareness" Hierarchical organizations spend inordinate time and effort trying to work out precise boundaries on who needs to know what and when. Ostensibly about minimizing demands on people throughout the organization, it's really about the exercise of power and control.

And Stephen Downes about Napsterize Your Knowledge: Give To Receive (here)

The primary lesson: "The more that a company shares its knowledge, the more valuable it becomes." It's astonishing how many people still don't believe this. But when I look back at the success my website and OLDaily have brought me - despite my lack of any obvious qualifications in the field - it is self evidently true. When you share your knowledge, you share your ability, and this is what makes you or your company more valuable. People prefer to hire or contract for services based on proven ability nearly every time. Moreoever, the more you share, the more people share in return (many of the items in OLDaily are the result of submissions from readers), which increases your personal or corporate knowledge base. Anyhow, this article discusses some of the benefits of sharing knowledge and then offers some advice on how to do it.

I wonder if someone does research with large companies about cross-border knolwedge sharing? I believe in its power, but it would be nice to have more arguments to convince others.

Jim McGee in Doing anthropology cites Ernie the Attorney's post  about technology anthropologists (bold is mine)

Anyway, I sometimes find myself observing people as they interact with technology as an anthropologist would observe, say, gorilla behavior.  Now, I don't mean that I think that I'm somehow superior to others and I therefor see them as apes.  What I mean is that I am fascinated by how the rapid intrusion of technology into our lives has forced us to grapple with strange tools.  The gap between the capabilities of the tools and our understanding of how to best make use of them is somewhat akin to the gap between two closely related species. 

And comments:

Ernie is on to a nice meme here. Another term to throw into the mix is "ethnography." While usually associated with doing anthropology in the field, it's also become a legitimate research tool in organizational settings. I find an anthropological approach particularly useful in the realm of technology for a couple of reasons. First, technology is too dynamic for a lot of other research approaches. Along a similar line, organizational research is not a place where you get to do controlled experiments. It's either impractical or unethical (sometimes both). That leaves you with observational techniques of one sort or another. One advantage of ethnographic/anthropological approaches is that they explicitly recognize that the anthropologist/observer is part of the system.

[...]One consequence of doing anthropology is that you have to develop some sense for who the observer is. You're not doing experimental work that can be replicated. You're doing a certain kind of storytelling that depends on observational skills and narrative skills. Unlike a fiction writer, you aren't using stories for the abiilty to make stuff up out of whole cloth (I suppose fiction writers don't really do that either). You are using narrative as a tool to reveal gaps in the logic, to discover what's missing in the logic of the story that will point you toward new things to look for.