There is a group of users which advocates for "K-logs", or knowledge management-oriented weblogs. This seemingly worthy concept appears to be drifting aimlessly. "Knowledge management" as a concept, separate from the older and more substantive "information management", is itself rather rudderless these days, but at least it does have an indepedent meaning.
A recent request on the so-named group at Yahoo Groups for examples of up-and-running K-logs was answered with pointers to the following:
A look at these sites reveals that they do not convey anything that sets them apart from any other site. There is no spark of inspiration, no "wow" factor in either of these sites.
Another illustration: look at http://www.blogresource.com/Knowledge_Management.htm, which purports to list and link to "BLOGS illustrating Information Sharing". Many of the 16 sites listed are worthwhile, but none sets itself apart from the numerous others in such a way that the knowledgeable user can say "this is what knowledge-sharing (or 'information-sharing') is all about". What does separate these sites is that some are run by very smart people who know what they are talking about. That has nothing to do with knowledge management; it has everything to do with individual knowledge.
When it comes down to it, the entire internet is a tool for information sharing. All weblogs are tools for knowledge sharing, as are standard web pages and groupware of all kinds. I see nothing in the concept of "K-logs" which can be differentiated in any meaningful way from the concept of law- or technology-oriented weblogs in general.
We still consider the most reliable sources of information those which are written by those people we consider to be knowledgeable, whatever the means of communication. An e-mail-based newsletter or a column in a magazine written by someone who I know knows his stuff -- both are still more useful to me than any 10,000 randomly-selected weblogs.
Among all of these, two factors are of overriding importance: the author must be knowledgeable, and the reader must be aware and intelligent. The reader must know what it is that he is interested in learning and know how to find it. He must know how to filter out the crap and find the good stuff, and fast. Our maxim is caveat lector -- the reader must ultimately decide which sources are worth his valuable time.
I suspect that the search for "K-logs" is based on the hope that ways can be devised to drive substantive information to hungry users in some type of automated fashion, independent of the ability of the reader. My conclusion: that ain't gonna happen, folks. You are going to have to search, and do so intelligently.
Thus I submit that: K-logs are dead. Long live the seeker of knowledge.
1:01:41 AM 
|
