The skill of writing is to create a context in which other people can think
Edwin Schlossberg: "The skill of writing is to create a context in which other people can think" (reference; via Martin Roell)
In a funny way this quote calls for many associations. It turns me to the "information vs. knowleldge" discussion which is one of the most difficult questions in KM (both "you have to make you definitions clear" and "don't even start this discussion or we'll never get things done").
Although it's a difficult topic, I'll try to articulate where I stand:
Knowledge doesn't exist "out there": products and artefacts only represent knowledge that people have. Explicit knowledge is information.
Knowledge sharing doesn't exist, it's about at least two processes: one person tries to articulate knowledge creating artefacts (e.g. blog posts :) while another one uses artefacts to (re)construst knowledge. This is more obvious in asynchonious or mediated settings, while conversations are closer to co-construction, but any conversation still has micro steps of articulation/(re)construction.
Effective knowledge sharing is about facilitating (re)construction of knowledge: articulating in a way that is easier for another person to interpret. At this end effective knowledge sharing is about learning on one side and facilitating it on another.
If "facilitator" and "learner" share contexts one word could be enough to (re)construct the knowledge, if not the role there is need for more contextual information. ~"The skill of writing is to create a context in which other people can think".
Or, if I don't sound convincing :), check the paper that I consider the best on this issue: Stenmark, D. (2002). Information vs. Knowledge: The Role of intranets in Knowledge Management. In Proceedings of HICSS-35, Hawaii, January 7-10, 2002
[…] knowledge is based on personal experiences and cultural inheritance and fundamentally tacit. We use our knowledge to perform actions such as creating information. Although the knowledge required to create the information is interwoven with the information, the reader must still have knowledge similar to that of the creator to be able to interpret the information. The more overlapping that cultural background between the two, the easier the information is understood. Information is a vehicle for reflection that may, by informing the reader, expend or relocated his or her knowledge state. (p.9)