“Data organization.” “Human Information Organizing Behavior.” “Knowledge Organization Systems.” What would characterize a “Wisdom Organization System?”
This entry was posted on Friday, May 9th, 2008 at 4:45 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I’ll have to think about that, but it’s too bad OWL is already something else.
Even though KO is basically what I do I think it is an idiotic term, nor do I think true knowledge is organizable in any real sense. We can sort of point and “draw” really vague maps of the territory, but that is it.
Since you asked whether wisdom organization “should” exist, I am wondering how you think it might even be possible. What is wisdom, in this sense, and how can it possibly be organized?
Wisdom is the final level of the Data=Information-Knowledge-Wisdom (DIKW) pyramid. Wisdom in this sense is the set of likely consequences of performing an action.
The title can be read two other ways: subjunctive (What would characterize a “Wisdom Organization System”, should such a thing exist?), and as a prediction from the periodic table of the other phrases.
If such as thing were to exist, it should be callled a Copybook.
Thanks for the reply, Simon. Still not sure since to really tell whether a certain description of one level is acceptable requires knowing what the others are. And so far, I have seen at least four descriptions (probably more) of the DIKW pyramid that are in no way compatible.
When a diagram as simple as a triangle is divided into a few slices and labeled it rarely provides much expressive power. And considering the transformations needed to move data to information to knowledge to wisdom is left out of the DIKW diagram, and that the exact same diagram can be used to express theories that are incompatible, I have no love for that graphic. I feel that it obscures far more than it illuminates.
While the individual levels of the triangle are very important, I think it is the missing elements from the diagrams–the transformations, all social aspects, and much of the individual–which is the more important.
I certainly agree that your title can be read in various ways, which I greatly appreciate. Thanks, again.
E-mail (will not be published) (required)
Powered by WordPress, Mandigo theme by tom.
and Comments (RSS).