a discussion on Linked-In - I thought it was worth sharing to open some more discussion. The discussion was about the difference between Knowledge and Information - that perennial topic which goes on and on, and still goes nowhere!
What I was trying to do in this post, is suggest that the debate is driven by assumptions, and that assumptions can influence definitions if you are not careful.
It is an open debate how closely knowledge is linked to information, and therefore how valid constructs such as DIK are.
If you define Knowledge as something based on Information ("knowledge is information plus context", "Knowledge is information that allows us to take action", "knowledge is information plus processing") then you are already making an assumption about the link between the two.
This assumption of a link leads to a second assumption that you manage knowledge in the same way as information - through libraries, databases, information bases, knowledge bases, or repositories.
Personally I think there is an equally valid model - that knowledge is something you APPLY to information in order to be able to interpret information; that knowledge is a function of experience; that knowledge is more closely related to understanding and to insight than it is to information. (This model was the more popular model in a recent Linked-in poll)
This leads you then to realise that the majority of knowledge is carried by people, and lives in heads and in networks, rather than in libraries, databases, information bases, knowledge bases, or repositories. Management of knowledge therefore becomes as much or more about the management of people and their interaction, than it becomes about the management of files and documents.
So if you want to avoid putting assumptions into your definition (always a good thing to avoid!), then my suggestion is to avoid any definitions of Knowledge which include the word Information.