Thursday, May 1, 2008

Social Knowledge Management (Pt 2 of...)

We're doing a talk on how our customers can better understand and use social software to further their knowledge management initiatives. I took this question to my social network. LinkedIn Answers is a great tool for tapping the wisdom of the crowds.

I posed the following question

How can we use the enthusiasm and technology of web 2.0 within knowledge management initiatives?

I got some great responses, which also spawned a few followup discussions. People are optimistic about "Enterprise 2.0" and its adoption. Sharepoint is a traditional collaboration tool which Microsoft is attempting to "socialize". Other more familiar 2.0 tools mentioned were the suite from 37signals

It would appear that the tools are there and maturing. However, with any Knowledge Management initiative the tools are not enough. The people using the tools are the ones that build the knowledge base (Bad tools never help the cause either). So I go back to the question of the enthusiasm and passion people have for using social software. No one pays me to tag, digg, tweet or blog, yet it I do it all the time. What do people get from doing it?


In cyberspace (why does no one use that term anymore?) reputation rules. Reputation gets you subscribers, twitter followers, referrals etc. What's the simplest way to implement reputation in an application? Rating systems where content authors are scored by the community? What about editors? How about those that attempt to game the system when incentives are placed on ratings.

"Who will rate the raters?"

Related Posts:
Social Media & Knowledge Management


Dave said...

I think for these services to work they have to reach critical mass, which Digg has accomplished.

I think a big part of web 2.0 is decentralizing editorial control, where the users make decisions about content vs a single editor. Yes each story on Digg begins with single contributor but it takes hundreds of people to digg your story in a short time frame before it will make the homepage.

Sites like, Reddit, wikipedia work in similar ways. No need to rate the raters because the 'crowd' takes care of itself.

Shaun said...

The crowd does a good job of self-policing. How can we get to critical mass where the crowd is large. In a corporate environment the incentives must come before the crowd. The incentives/metrics will build the crowd. How can we ensure the early adopters won't subvert the community?

Am I being too cynical? Or is a sole moderator enough at the outset to keep things straight?