Talk:Knowledge economy/Archive 1

Found that the last two external links actually point to websites only indirectly (and in a non relevant way) to the concept of 'knowledge economy':
who42.com (Human Capital for the Knowledge Economy) : seems just to be a consulting firm/company website
http://kesp2007.wetpaint.com/ seems more like a community/social website related somehow to KESP (http://www.kesp.ie/). If nobody disagree i would delete both of them relatively soon. user:poderi —Preceding comment was added at 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC) update: link removed user:poderi

It is not necesary to suggest discussing Google and or EBay separately. The "web interconnectedness" is a direct byproduct of a knowledge based economy.

It is not clear that "Knowledge Business" is actually an english term. This sounds like a term used in other languages to refer to a knowledge economy. The corresponding sentence can/should be deleted. An english speaker familiar with George Carlin ("you can prick your finger but you can't finger your prick") would not need to be told that "Business Knowledge" and "Knowledge Business" don't mean the same thing. (Are you "working hard" or "hardly working"?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the term "Knowledge Society" to "Information Society". Though I do not know exactly why. It just seems to have a better sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.227.104 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

But since those are used as synonyms, presumably you have no objection to a merged article discussing both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge and information are not the same thing, so Knowledge Society and Information Society would not be the same thing either (if the terms had weight); suggest instead consider merging Knowledge society with this article and improving/cleaning up this article. Harvey the rabbit (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Pity you took of the wiki page knowledge economics. Why? is it because it mentioned other people like Bhekuzulu Khumalo, Debra Amidon. Do not use wikepedia for your racial promotions. The page was knowledge economics, that believes knowledge has been the most important tool since mankind began, and your page knowledge economy that believes knowledge started been used in the 60's, Do not take of other people projects because they are getting more hits than you because they are telling the truth. STop your racism, go back and read whites only but do not corrupt Wikipedia for your demented envious ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.61.204 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Pacioli Institute for a true and fair view of the knowledge-based economy

85.128.1.2 (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

could best be defined as the process of formulating and classifying data relating to individuals and organizations associated with the knowledge economy. The presentation and interpretation of such information is communicated in a style associated with bookkeeping and accountancy; often referred to as 'the balance sheet method'. This accountancy of knowledge creates its own conceptual apparatus and array of bookkeeping terms, most of which must be credited to the works of the 15th century mathematician Luca Pacioli.

85.128.1.2 (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reversed out several statements that either were not supported by the sources or were synthesis. This is an article about the knowledge economy, not purely about technology and the World Bank on its own is not enough to hold the article together --Snowded ^TALK 17:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Rejections

Perhaps you are correct but in my opinion you lack the understanding of the World Bank's needs are to bringing about the Knowledge Economy. Help or get out of the way 72.161.33.155 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Knowledge economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141222142438/http://swopec.hhs.se/eijswp/papers/eijswp0156.pdf to http://swopec.hhs.se/eijswp/papers/eijswp0156.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130418004054/http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/freepublications/en/economics/gii/gii_2012.pdf to http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/freepublications/en/economics/gii/gii_2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

The following articles (and possibly more!) all deal with very similar, very closely related, and overlapping subject matter .. to such an extent that;

1. it is confusing for Wikipedia users such as myself
2. it begs for a lot of sytematic wikifying, in-text citing, and general raising to higher Wikpeida encyclopedic standards
3. it begs for an single all inclusive article bringing them together and giving readers/ users a good overview of the whole field

• Information economy,
• Information society,
• Information market,
• Knowledge society,
• Knowledge market,
• Knowledge economy

Now, noting there is in fact a single, overarching economic field .. within with all local economies may be compared and contrasted by the extent to which the are (or are not) knowledge-based ..

.. it is here proposed the existing Knowledge economy article be expanded to cover the full range of knowledge ecomonies around the world .. and all the above articles be merged and intergrated into this single, proposed and expanded discussion.

I hope such a merge proposal is agreeable .. for the above stated reasons!?! Bruceanthro (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree --Snowded (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think such a merge is not useful - too much together. The reference concept is meta-knowledge where different perspectives on knowledge should be illustrated. User:Adam M. Gadomski 28 May 2008(UTC)

As the original author of some of the referenced articles, I should express an opinion. I originally wrote them because I had material at hand that I couldn't find on Wikipedia. Each article provides a different perspective on relate ideas. I have no problem with aggregating (not integrating) the articles under a broader heading.

However, I would push to maintain a distinction between information and knowledge. The former, when produced, is a "final valued product" whereas there is no such thing for knowledge. Although both can be traded in either transactional or sequential markets, only knowledge can be changed in a meaningful way with each transaction. Further, we use Web 1.0 group sites for exchanging information and Web 2.0 social networking sites for jointly creating knowledge. In my mind, these are major distinctions that fundamentally alter the way that the two forms of content behave in market / economic contexts. The challenge, then is to clearly distinguish between the two forms of content from economic and other perspectives.

I would also retain distinctions betwen the big ideas of society and economy. I feel that these are too broad to include in one article. So, we're left with four articles: information society, information economy, knowledge society, and knowledge economy.

Then, there's all the articles with the adjective "digital" in front of it. Again, numerous references to each in the literature. I'be inclined to keep this seperate as a set of "technical or how" articles rather than integrate them here under a "what" heading.

Albert Simard (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you aggregate them, individually several are candidate for deletion. --Snowded TALK 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I had come here looking for information on the proposal in this blog: http://CongressionalOrder101.wordpress.com - in short, there is a man proposing using what he is calling "mental sweat equity" as assets to back the creation of "money of account" in order to fund the educational systems of the USA (Pre-PhD, and any form of education that involves testing, and results in some form of official certifications), and even goes so far as to say this could be done worldwide to fund any Nation's edu systems. After reading this article, this isn't what this article is about, but maybe it should be. As far as I know, this is the first time anyone has proposed backing a portion of any Nation's money supply with the value of knowledge & education. This Congressional Order 101 initiative seems to be a real example of a true "knowledge economy." --2600:1011:B111:4C1D:582A:A1E7:41B3:F910 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Knowledge construction, Knowledge creation and Knowledge production all redirect here. However, there is scope for at least one separate (perhaps less economics focused) article on the subject of knowledge creation. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Good comment! ...how about a disambiguation page on these knowledge concepts?... Cheers ... Risk Engineer (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)