Talk:Personal knowledge management

KM and PKM

I have been told recently that in the 'organisation' in which I work, I am 'doing'KM. I am a newbie with Wiki. Often the discussion pages to articles illuminate and give life to an article and I'm surprised one does not exist here - where the interface between 'person' and 'knowledge' and the changing understanding between subject-object - is at the leading edge. I am sufficiently new, also, not to understand the significance of those whose contributions (in the History section) are given an appearance of authority by being distanced by a string of numbers e.g. 21.14.73 and it is impossible to gain any living understanding of the humanity of the contributor. This may be entirely irrelevant and the article here, especially on KM is good but presently somewhat lifeless and soul-less without some community of living human beings to sustain it. Jeffrey Newman 05:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I only learned of this article via an e-mail. I have established a 'master control panel' on the "Wikipedia Commons", a related site that is basically intended for language-independent things like photographs. (If somebody uploads a photo there, any Wikipedia in any language can use it. Some photos are limited to use only on, e.g., the English Wikipedia.)

These discussion pages are supposed to be used solely for the purpose of discussing the associated article -- how to change it, etc. I am bad about taking up bandwidth on talk pages trying to talk somebody through some intractible obstacle to getting his/her agreement. People here can get very highly ego-involved with their own ideas about how some articles should be written, so you may eventually find lively discussions here. Usually it happens in the general "culture wars" area of discourse, however.

Anyway, welcome aboard.P0M 18:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes good articles get little discussion

This looks like a pretty good article to me, so it's probably not getting much discussion for that reason. KM itself is a bit controversial in the sense that it is beginning life as sort of a buzzword without too much clear thought on it. Notwithstanding my pretty blunt comments on the KM page, I think a real Body of Knowledge (BOK) on Knowledge Management is developing as time goes on. When there's some better stats on actual successful employment of some openly published PKM or CKM (Corporate KM) techniques with real payoff then people will get more interested. Right now its pretty individualistic as in the early days of program hacking. ThreePD 21:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Tagging this for buzzwords

I added the buzzword tag to this page. Passages like:

More particular, the Personal KM is focused on helping an individual be more effective -- to work better. While the focus is the individual, the goal of the movement is to enable individuals to operate better in groups and in corporations as well. This is as opposed to the traditional view of KM, which appears to be more centered on enabling the corporation to be more effective by "recording" and making available what its people know.
A core focus of PKM is 'personal inquiry', a quest to find, connect, learn and explore.

seem to take quite a few words to say very little. The article is full of vogue phrases like just-in-time, personal branding, buy-in, and other abstract phrases that need to be restated in plain English and made more concrete. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

KM and PKM: differences in focus

Under Focus on Individual Knowledge Worker, the organizational goals aren’t necessarily different for PKM and KM, i.e., managing knowledge; the distinction seems to be in the approach, bottom-up vs. top-down (Pollard, 2008). For that reason, PKM can get into things like cognitive processes. It can also be used outside an organizational context or individually inside an organization within the constraints of the system. -MJCalder (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Paragraph tagged for buzzwords, wordiness

Some of the issues surrounding vagueness might relate to the lack of clarity surrounding definitions of information and knowledge. See, for example, the PKM entry on the NASA wiki (http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/wiki/?id=6329), comments that Dorsey addressed PIM rather than PKM. It would be helpful to have sources given for the sections on personal knowledge and personal management, or is it all Nonaka and Takeuchi? MJCalder (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph tagged for buzzwords, wordiness

I think the buzzwords, as defined above, have been dealt with, so the flagging for buzzwords can be removed. From my reading, it seems that there are multiple meaning out there for knowledge and management, and that's been some of the criticism, that some authors discuss what they call KM or PKM but refer to what others call information or PIM. MJCalder (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sharing methodology, templates, and informal insights

I was looking at the "Skills" and "Tools" sections, and wondering how to insert comments concerning the value of transferring knowledge between individuals, especially meta-data on how to operate a PKM system. For instance, right here (I think) I can mention my personal wikia: Phillip A. Batz Wiki, and then mention that some of my pages (still mostly empty) are about the transfer of best practices between individuals and groups. You could even start a Community Wikia on PKM or personal wikis! --TheLastWordSword (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul Needed?

The article seems interesting in itself but otherwise it is very uncharacteristic of a typical WP page. Much of it is written in an academic navel-gazing style (even the citation method) that I think most WP users would find unhelpful. It is unlikely (in my opinion) that someone with an interest or need in this area will come away from the article more informed. Rather, the page seems focused on the interests of those steeped in the field. For that issue alone I have added a top-level link to personal information management. I suspect that is what many page visitors are actually looking for.

But the article, as it is, seems ripe for an overhaul. I am attempted to be WP:BOLD and just start editing but there is obviously a lot of work that has already gone into it and I am open to hearing opinions before digging in. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Personal knowledge management. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080906190602/http://www.millikin.edu/pkm/pkm_istanbul.html to http://www.millikin.edu/pkm/pkm_istanbul.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080918232941/http://www.millikin.edu:80/pkm/pkm_ascue.html to http://www.millikin.edu/pkm/pkm_ascue.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)