Talk:Knowledge café

Article needs improvement

This article needs a fair amount of work. The phrase originates with Lank at ICL back in the 90s who created the first one to take one example. At the moment it seems a bit like advertising --Snowded (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also concerned that this could represent original research, is anyone else doing active research on Knowledge Cafe's? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it called a café? Is coffee served? — Solo Owl (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is wordy. It lists goals so broad that it encompasses almost any kind of meeting (other than a shape-up where the day's work assignments are distributed). It does not distinguish it from any other kind of meeting. This lead fails to explain what the article is about. — Solo Owl (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge with World Café (conversational process)?

Should this article (Knowledge café) be merged with World Café (conversational process)? The format described in the two articles is different. However, this article mentions "World Cafe" a number of times, as if it is the same thing. Perhaps it should be one article, but we should described the different variations of name and format. Yaris678 (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yaris678: I support merging Knowledge café into World Café (conversational process). There are far more mentions of "World Café" (versus "Knowledge Café") in Google Search, Google Scholar, and Google Books. In WorldCat today, the definitive book on World Café is available in print form in at least 450 libraries, and in electronic form in at least 1423 libraries; the book is also cited in Google Scholar at least 786 times: Brown, Juanita; Isaacs, David (2005). The World Café: shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. ISBN 9781576752586. OCLC 56876852. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Nothing that has been published on Knowledge Cafés comes close to those numbers. Here's how Brown & Isaacs (2005) mention Knowledge Cafés in their book:

Faculty members in the United States and Europe are creating virtual, online Knowledge Cafés to conduct distance learning programs. In New Zealand and the United States, the World Café has inspired the creation of local venues for hosting Café conversations on key issues related to business futures, sustainable development, and community collaboration. The World Café has supported Conversation Cafés, Commonway Cafés, and Let's Talk America, key citizen initiatives that invite diverse groups to explore contemporary issues. (p. 6)

We've purposely included multiple voices and modes of expression as well as graphic illustrations to illuminate key ideas. We've also used the following terms—World Café, Café conversation, and Café dialogue—interchangeably throughout the text to describe the World Café process. In addition, you'll find Café names like Knowledge Café, Leadership Café, Strategy Café, and others that illuminate the many ways people are naming and adapting the basic World Café pattern and process in ways that meet their unique needs and constituencies. (p. 10)

Obviously these quotes represent the point of view of Brown & Isaacs, but any counterargument against merging would have to present strong evidence that Brown & Isaacs are wrong and that Knowledge Cafés are more than a variant of the much more widely referenced World Café.

I also think that in cases like this it is best to merge because the resulting article is more likely to evolve toward NPOV and avoid the kind of POV split that can result from having closely related processes described in separate articles. Biogeographist (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I support merging. WP:BOLD! – Kaihsu (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

When merging, consider merging categories as well. For example, if Knowledge café belongs in Category:Unconferences, then World Café (conversational process) probably belongs there as well. These search results may provide evidence for or against the appropriateness of that category. Biogeographist (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• There's no justification for two articles on what is apparently essentially the same subject. Merge. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I support the merge. Variations of World Café should appear in the World Café article. So should the examples of projects that have used the technique (e.g. Lets Talk America) --Northernhenge (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Looks like a consensus to merge Knowledge café into World Café (conversational process). I'll have a bit of a think about which text to move across and then do it. Yaris678 (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. See content added to World Café. Yaris678 (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)