Talk:Knowledge ecosystem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References[edit]

Firstly its nice to see some references being put in place, but I have had to remove (for a second time) two which were clearly commercial links. In addition we have material that is misleading. the W3 material is a task force that was meant to report two years ago. If they did nothing (and there is no evidence that they did) then the phrase has to go as it is implying greater status than is valid. Using a Nick Bontis (Canada academic and poplar speaker) slide set to validate UK government interest is simply not a good enough source. Most of the other references appear to be to any paper that references "Knowledge Ecosystem". Nothing yet to justify the removal of any tags. --Snowded (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed because we said we were going to discuss and it was crowded, however I'm not sure if your criteria seems consistent with Wikipedia's criteria. If we say that subject X has been considered by sources, then that is a factual statement. I personally do not have connections with the W3C, do you, to know what happened if anything with the effort. Am more concerned that your eagerness to remove commercial links (and I agree, we should remove those plugging companies, but the two I added came from .edu and .org links, whether they're spam is subjective but I'm okay with the removals)... am more concerned how do you rationalize your own links to http://www.cognitive-edge.com/ on Dave_Snowden, is that not a commercial plug? Wiki4fun (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit Dave Snowden, it would be improper to. I watch it (for safety's sake) and I think I have made two edits, the latest to delete a non-existent article and one earlier one that I probably shouldn't have made. It is however an article about a person not a field, but feel free to delete the web reference if you want. At least you know who I am so you can raise this issue, for all I know you may have a commercial interest in "ecosystems".
And if I did have a for-profit interest (I don't), how is that different from the known interest you have with Cynefin? :) Wiki4fun (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the content issue in respect of W3C, it they did nothing more than create a working party then the current wording is simply inappropriate so pending something more substantial I am putting the dubious tag back on --Snowded (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, on Cynefin, most of the references there are your own (for the model you developed). So how are you different from Nick Bontis other than you're note Canadian but still an academic and popular speaker (I say this with all do respect, just asking you to evaluate your own criteria against these metrics). Wiki4fun (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references on Cynefin are all to journal articles (HBR and others, mostly refereed) not to slide sets. Get a paper by Nick and I will take it seriously. --Snowded (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in the spirit of peaceful discussion, I'll go along with the W3C removal (though I think you're still not following your own criteria) and provide you a link to a book in which Nick Bontis is an editor that discusses knowledge ecosystem dynamics as a way of harnessing intellectual capital for increasing returns, http://froogle.google.com/products/catalog?output=html&cid=14267116464129183424 (... see pages 250-252, you should be able to view it through Google or Google Scholar ...) Wiki4fun (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you add in the Bontis book. However it is not valid to use his slide set as evidence that the Federal Government is taking up knowledge ecosystems. As to following my own criteria then I think you either need to justify that statement or withdraw it. --Snowded (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... agree it can't be used as a reference there, however in that sentence we're not saying that they are taking up knowledge ecosystems, we're saying that they are considering them... which the external link provided earlier clearly demonstrates. I don't recall Wikipedia having a guideline that says you can't mention "the consideration" of a topic or subject by an entity? Where's that guideline, maybe I missed it somewhere? Wiki4fun (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If its been considered (and its still current) then its fine. I can't see the earlier reference though --Snowded (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Bontis slide set that was there (on the nasa.gov website) is part of an archive of ideas being considered by the KM group. A friend of mine, User talk:Harvey_the_rabbit is with them, trouble is he's been out-of-the-country and thus not checking Wikipedia. Hmm... we can remove (for now) it in the interim but I'm pretty sure the nasa.gov website is the archive of the recent considerations by that group. Wiki4fun (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wiki4fun and Snowded and my apologies for my extended Wikipedia-hiatus, but I've (quite literally) been half-a-world away in a place where unfiltered internet access isn't the easiest to obtain. I can see there's been quite a discussion but unfortunately don't have time to wade through everything (there's also a lot going on in this place where I'm at that requires my attention and it's rather late here) but when I return to the more modern world I'll try to help out where able... right now it looks like you've reached a place of equilibrium which is good. More later as time permits; best regards, Harvey the rabbit (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Knowledge ecosystem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Knowledge ecosystem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knowledge_ecosystem&oldid=1169731846"