Talk:Know-it-all

Sources

Unless there is a source which calles the charater a "know-it-all" then it fails the verification policy to include them in the list.
brenneman ^{L} 06:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional Know-it-alls

I see someone has started the list of fictional Know-it-alls again. These lists don't end - people keep adding to them, until there is eventually a list of know-it-alls so long no one would read it. You have to ask yourself "Does anyone really find this information useful?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gary2863 (talk • contribs) .

i do Jeroenemans 12:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that Lisa Simpson is a know it all - she's is genuinely intelligent.

I've added The_Know-It-All:_One_Man's_Humble_Quest_to_Become_the_Smartest_Person_in_the_World at the beginning for disambiguation (not really just a fictional character, since it's the name of a book). Is this correct? Penelopepope (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A know-all

In British English this type of person would be called a "know all". Perhaps someone could make "know all" redirect to "know it all"? Thanks. 81.104.12.13 22:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hermine Granger is not a know-it-all simply because she dont claim to be an expert at things she lacs knowledge of. However she is unusually clever, and is almost always right simply because she is very intelligent and skillful.

Armchair philosophising or Armchair theorising

It would be nice to have articles on these related topics - where people get their firm opinions from speculation without bothering to investigate the facts.

"K-I-A" - acrononym

I am going to insert the acronym "K-I-A" in this article, plus in "this" article that has a listing of articles with the same acronym. This is not to be confused with the car maker "Kia Motors" Thanks, --Webmistress Diva 10:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not, instead of polymath, we call it humbleness?

Why not, instead of polymath, we call it humbleness? I thought it was more of that than polymath. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punkymonkey987 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Sources

Sorry folks, I've removed the unsourced bits (i.e., pretty much all of it). Reliable sources are needed to sustain a topic's claim to be encyclopedic, and it's not clear that this can ever be more than a dictionary entry. — Matt Crypto 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of unencyclopedic content, reverting of edits

I have re-reverted a reverted edit of mine, which

Removed unencyclopedic (and possibly promotional) material

Seeing that the original reversion was made without a comment, be it in the commit-message or on the talk page, I have no way to judge the motivations behind it. I would ask that, in case of disagreement about the edit, actual reasons are provided. For my part, I restate that the contents removed were unencyclopedic in style of writing, quality, and (at least partially) content---and possibly promotional. 94.220.255.246 (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your judgement about encyclopedicisty without aruments is disagreed. Style is not the reason for deletiojn either. Accusations of promotion require solid proof. - Altenmann >t 00:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed. The IP was correct in noting that the text is not presented in an encyclopedic manner. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Restored. Style is reason for rewriting, not for complete deletion of huge chunks of reasonable, referenced info. If we start judging style, we may butcher half of wikipedia: it is not written by professional writers, you know. - Altenmann >t 17:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Altenmann, the material has been challenged regarding its suitability, and after reviewing it I am inclined to agree. I'd like to ask that you please stop merely reverting it back; I've posted it here so that we can resolve this matter. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Challenged content

The following material has been challenged by two separate IP editors, and restored by one editor (Altenmann). Having reviewed it, it does not appear to be in an encyclopedic style and requires a rewrite. As such, I've posted it here for discussion and reworking to avoid disruption. The text in dispute is as follows:

---

Pincus offers managerial advice on handling difficulties caused by both types: she defines the know-it-all as the "Truly Smart Know-It-All", an employee with "a intellectual handle on the job requirements that is spectacular", but who "doesn't 'see' boundaries", and the omniscient deity as a person who "thinks nothing of imposing or intruding". Lloyd makes no such distinction, although he notes that ironically, Know-It-Alls can sometimes know what they are talking about, and simply have such a brusque style of communication that people are unwilling to listen. He characterizes Know-It-Alls as superficially domineering and controlling, but insecure underneath. The outward focus on the inferiority of their fellows is intended to mask the inner sense of their own weaknesses in knowledge, skills, and competence.

Pincus recommends different strategies for each type. For the case of the Truly Smart Know-It-All she observes that a manager might have to bend the rules somewhat to accommodate the negative aspects of such an employee, which include impatience, an exaggerated sense of self-importance, and other peculiarities, in order to retain the positive benefits of the employee's knowledge and experience. Although she also cautions that managers have to weigh the benefits against the taxing effects, upon managers and staff, of employing an "outlandish prima donna". She also recommends that rule-bending not extend to allowing the peculiarities of a true know-it-all with odd habits to be displayed to outsiders, such as customers and other visitors, and that such employees be clearly requested not to flout their eccentricities when such visitors call. She also states that managers should not be afraid of asking a genius employee questions, and should insist upon mutual respect and not adopt a self-deprecating attitude simply in order to placate such employees. Lloyd similarly advises managers to take a strong line against any form of intellectual bullying, either of others or indeed of the manager.

For the Know-It-All who doesn't, Pincus recommends to managers that they give praise where it is due, and that they assign such employees to work together with one, or two, other people, and regularly check for signs of stress. Notess observes that the last tactic mentioned can be unsuccessful if a Know-It-All is paired with a novice, since the Know-It-All quickly takes control away from the novice.

LLoyd observes that getting a point across to a Know-It-All can sometimes be difficult, and require much repetition, because such people are more interested in what they themselves are saying than in listening to others.

---

One issue that leaps out at me is that the above text is more suited to a "how-to" guide rather than an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. The opinions and assessments from the references need to be rewritten and repurposed to explain what a know-it-all is, and what some of the defining characteristics are, rather than serving as a tutorial on how to deal with that type of employee. (The latter is better suited to Wikibooks or Wikiversity.) I'll try and take a stab at reworking it later today, and would encourage anyone else who wants to have a go at it to post their rewrites below as well. If we cannot find consensus, it might be worth seeking a third opinion or an RfC. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Distinction about Know-it-all

This entry seems to emphasize that a know-it-all might not know as much as they claim/think to know on a topic. But my personal impression of this term refers more to the attitude or way one conveys their degree of knowledge. A know-it-all might (but doesn't have to) in fact be very knowledgeable about a topic, and their knowledge might not be generally disputed by others, but it is how they attempt to share their knowledge, brush aside others, and carry a degree of superiority which would distinguish a know-it-all from a person who is merely knowledgeable on a subject. If this is a correct component of the term, then I think the entry should be reworded to convey this along with what is already mentioned. Yussef (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)