Here is a enfolded hierarchy I used back in my cybrarian days, and which I found pragmatically useful in organizing the knowledge building within companies:<br><br>data: the basic phenomenological unit<br><br>information: grouped data organized in some kind of framework
<br><br>knowledge: when the 'new' information is integrated in the past knowledge<br><br>intelligence: information/knowledge applied to action choices and thinking strategically/tactically about the future<br><br>
wisdom: when all the above is totally integrated, in other words, when you walk the talk, what remains as a sediment of all the above processes<br><br>This way of enfolding is based on the idea that there can be no data/information/knowledge etc... unless it is individually or collectively digested/integrated, in other words it is a subjective/objective definition. So a newsletter is mere information, until the moment that it is digested by someone, it then becomes integrated in the evolving knowledge base; it only becomes intelligence when it is effectively applied.
<br><br>David's definition, which limits information to what can be processed by software, is too reductionistic in my mind.<br><br><br>Michel <br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/9/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">
David Weinberger</b> <<a href="mailto:dweinberger@gmail.com">dweinberger@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Myron, thanks for the prodding to be clearer.<br><br>I think in the book I'm moderately careful to separate information and<br>knowledge. Although I haven't checked all my references (which would<br>require rereading my book, which I dread), I think I reserve
<br>"information" generally for the stuff that computers handle. I've found<br>it very difficult in the past to define the modern meaning of<br>"information," but in general I think of it as having been reduced and
<br>shaped to make it manageable by software. The prototype of information<br>in this sense is what comes out of a database management system, e.g.,<br>28% of men who bought Pampers also bought beer. [Bogus factoid!] (I<br>
don't think of information as "pointing," the way you do, unless I'm<br>misunderstanding your understanding of me.)<br><br>"Knowledge" I use in a vaguely traditional (Western) sense. It's<br>
justified true belief, or what that becomes in the course of that<br>philosophical tradition. In the section you quote below, I am definitely<br>talking about the traditional view of knowledge, not information.<br><br>The question of the "we" is a damn good one. Assuming a "we" who turns
<br>out to be a strawperson is a serious danger when writing a book that<br>addresses generally held beliefs. The problem is that beliefs are never<br>generally held. I am hoping the reader recognizes her own beliefs in my
<br>characterization -- "Yes, there is one knowledge, just as there's only<br>one reality" -- so I can proceed to undercut those beliefs. If she<br>doesn't recognize my initial characterization of knowledge, I have
<br>little recourse.<br><br>-- David W.<br><br>David Weinberger<br>Fellow, Harvard Berkman Center<br>blog: <a href="http://www.JohoTheBlog.com">www.JohoTheBlog.com</a><br>book: <a href="http://www.EverythingIsMiscellaneous.com">
www.EverythingIsMiscellaneous.com</a><br>mail: <a href="mailto:self@evident.com">self@evident.com</a><br><br><br><br>Myron Turner wrote:<br>><br>><br>> I found the excerpts from David Weinberger's book interesting. But I
<br>> had the feeling that he tended at times to conflate information with<br>> knowledge. David uses information to mean "information technology",<br>> i.e. search engines, databases, on-line catalogs (usually databases),
<br>> collections of hyperlinks (<a href="http://del.icio.us">del.icio.us</a>, iTunes, bookmark collections),<br>> and the kinds of categorization technologies that enable the filtering<br>> of this data. True, this is a kind of "knowledge", vastly more fluid
<br>> and provocative than, say, the old library catalog with its yellowing,<br>> dog-eared cards and so much quicker than browsing the stacks and<br>> specialist bibliographies, which together once made up our information
<br>> technology. But one would never confuse the "information" in the card<br>> catalog with what it pointed to, and this is what I sometimes find in<br>> David's analysis. For instance, he quotes the disdainful remark about
<br>> Wikipedia made by Robert McHenry, former editor of Britannica. I<br>> (unfortunately) happen to be a rather uncritical user of Wikipeda.<br>> Unlike me, McHenry is a critical reader. He is not talking about
<br>> information technology, how we get to Wikipedia, but about the content<br>> of the articles that appear in Wikipeda. Just because I think<br>> something is junk doesn't mean I am intimidated by overabundance of
<br>> choice.<br>><br>> Information is not in itself ambiguous, or contradictory. Information<br>> is just that, information. What it points to, that may be<br>> contradictory or ambiguous. I haven't read David's book and have only
<br>> the passages quoted in the posting. So I'm not sure who the "we" are<br>> in the paragraphs below. When I was a young graduate student, 50<br>> years ago, it was already a salutary part of our intellectual culture
<br>> that science, like the arts, also had a need for metaphors to imagine<br>> the contradictions of the invisible. My PBS knowledge of contemporary<br>> physics tells me that this is even more true today and quite readily
<br>> acknowledged by physicists. There will always be people who can't<br>> live in contradiction and prefer answers to be embedded in<br>> absolutes. So, it would be interesting to know who these "we" are.
<br>> I suspect that David is writing against a backdrop of absolutist<br>> socio-political culture in the U.S. But perhaps there is also a<br>> culture of cynicism in the corporate world that, given his background,
<br>> David is aware of and that leads to the dissing of uncomfortable<br>> contradictions. That would make for interesting reading.<br>><br>> There is also a question of the neutrality of digital information
<br>> technology. As Lawrence Lessig put it, "Code is Law": "In<br>> cyberspace," he writes, "we must understand how code regulates--how<br>> the software and hardware that make cyberspace what it is regulate
<br>> cyberspace as it is." It is true that information on the Internet<br>> seems to come at us in a miscellaneous fashion. But information<br>> technology is not neutral and unfiltered. We are all very dependent
<br>> on Google, but Google's search results are not really miscellaneous<br>> but filtered through constantly changing tweaks to its algorithms.<br>> Because of the vast spaces of the Internet and the multiplicity of
<br>> information sources, we may experience the Internet as miscellaneous.<br>> Nevertheless, we are now in other hands than those of the<br>> intellectual elites of the past. These new, digital corporate hands
<br>> may appear less coercive and intrusive than those earlier hands, but<br>> are they as well intentioned?<br>> Thank you for the stimulating topic,<br>><br>> Myron Turner<br>><br>><br>> David Weinberger wrote:
<br>>> As we've seen, the first characteristic of traditional knowledge is<br>>> that just as there is one reality, there is one knowledge, the same for<br>>> all. If two people have contradictory ideas about something factual, we
<br>>> think they can't both be right. This is because we've assumed<br>>> knowledge is an accurate representation of reality, and the real world<br>>> cannot be self-contradictory. We treat ideas that dispute this view of
<br>>> knowledge with disdain. We label them "relativism" and imagine them<br>>> to be the devil's work, we sneer at them as "postmodern" and<br>>> assume that it's just a bunch of French pseudo-intellectual gibberish,
<br>>> or we say "whatever" as a license to stop thinking.<br>>><br>>> Second, we've assumed that just as reality is not ambiguous, neither<br>>> is knowledge. If something isn't clear to us, then we haven't
<br>>> understood it. We may not be 100% certain whether the Nile or the Amazon<br>>> is the longest river, we but we're confident one is. Conversely, if<br>>> there's no possibility of certainty - "Which tastes better, beets or
<br>>> radishes?" - we say it isn't a matter of knowledge at all.<br>><br>>> Robert McHenry, a former editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia Britannica,<br>>> summed up his analysis of Wikipedia:
<br>>><br>>><br>>> "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some<br>>> subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather<br>>> in the position of a visitor to a public restroom.
<br>>> It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise<br>>> great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he<br>>> may be lulled into a false sense of security. What<br>>> he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities
<br>>> before him."<br>>><br>>> If these experts of the second order sound a bit hysterical, it is<br>>> understandable. The change they're facing from the miscellaneous is deep<br>>> and real. Authorities have long filtered and organized information for
<br>>> us, protecting us from what isn't worth our time and helping us find<br>>> what we need to give our beliefs a sturdy foundation. But, with the<br>>> miscellaneous, it's all available to us, unfiltered.
<br>><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">
iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc">http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br><br>List Archive:<br><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">
http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br><br>iDC Photo Stream:<br><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br><br>RSS feed:<br><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">
http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer alternatives.<br><br>Wiki and Encyclopedia, at <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net">
http://p2pfoundation.net</a>; Blog, at <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a>; Newsletter, at <a href="http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p">http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
</a><br><br>Basic essay at <a href="http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499">http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499</a>; interview at <a href="http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html">
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html</a>; video interview, at <a href="http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm">http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm
</a><br><br>The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by <a href="http://www.ws-network.com/04_team.htm">http://www.ws-network.com/04_team.htm</a>