Talk:DIKW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Russell Ackoff's view section really needs to be cleaned up.

- Confusing information, " 
- DIKW is used primarily in the fields of Information Science "

"and Knowledge Management." Where???

No references.

"Aplication" are not realistic and without any references.

In this stage I suggest to delete this article.

- See also Talk:Knowledge, about DIKW, 4 November 2005

--192.107.77.3 14:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments moved from Knowledge

On the Talk:Knowledge page User:Adam M. Gadomski made these comments which are about this article. So, I'm moving them here. Sbwoodside 22:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

- By the way, the definitions in DIKW are not the same and are not congruent with those presented on the first Google page: search "information, knowledge, wisdom"

See in: http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm

But they do reflect what you get if you search for "DIKW" on google, since the specific article you refer to is far from the only reference for DIKW. Remember this is an encyclopedia ... the goal is to reflect what other people say about DIKW, not what you think about DIKW. WP:NOR. Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

According to Russell Ackoff, a systems theorist and professor of organizational change, the content of the human mind can be classified into five categories:

1. Data: symbols

2. Information: data that are processed to be useful; provides answers to "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions

3. Knowledge: application of data and information; answers "how" questions

4. Understanding: appreciation of "why"

5. Wisdom: evaluated understanding.

The definitions used in the Wikipedia DIKW article are completely different and evolved to the IPK definitions, what is not original and ethically not correct (if without a reference).

References are provided under History. "IPK" is your own original research - see WP:NOR. I've looked at it briefly and I might look at it in more detail later... Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The IPK meta-ontological definitions are integral part of the TOGA meta-theory of goal-oriented knowledge ordering.

A meta-comment: We should always remember that definition making is not an art but has to be governed by a set of explicite professional rules.

--Adam M. Gadomski 14:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has a comprehensive set of guidelines. Before you try to impose your own set of rules, please learn more about the ones in this community. If you want to change those rules, this is not the place to do it. Try the Wikipedia:Village pump Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copy editing

This article does contain some good information, but much of the information it contains is repetitive. The first couple headings, History and Application, are okay, but everything after that is not encyclopedic in its style. The Ackoff section is particularly problematic because it it one huge paragraph, much of which is written from a first person point of view. The Kherde section is written using many capatalized words and exclaimations. The various styles and voices used in this article detract from the credibility of the information it contains. I think it can be fixed so the information is presented in the proper context without altering it. It also needs citation of sources and perhaps more links to other articles on this subject.Mazer 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

The following might help improve this article:

[edit] Deletion?

It seems to be original research and hard for the practical use. I also agree with critical observations of [User:Mazer]. - Unique reference is a personal webpage [Updated: February 4, 2008]. See: WP:NOR and NPOV. On the other hand, always "There is no clear progression and no real hierarchy in the DIKW sequence,"

- After quasi 3 years of serious doubts, the deletion of this article seems to be reasonable. This is my suggestion for administrators.

Knowledge engineer--79.12.232.148 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup/improve or delete?

Greetings fellow Wikipedians! This article strikes me as a bit odd, as it does seem to be original research and lacks inline references to support its claims (aside from the two references at the bottom). It looks like, from the Talk Page, that folks have voiced this before. Is anyone willing to step forward to cleanup and address the concerns about this article and clean it up, or should a merge/delete vote be reconsidered? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)