[Sigia-l] Google vs. Knowledge Management

[Derek R]

John McCrory wrote:
>>| [A Google solution] would just continue to encourage 
>>| employees to manage their documents sloppily, 
>>| without any conventions or reason

Ziya Oz responded:
>| Nail. Hammer. Direct hit --> This is the ultimate objective:
>| end the tyranny of rigid categorization by the end user

That's right. Are we not yet tired of doing all this work 'computers'
are supposed to be doing in the first place? 

If we are 'evenly derived' and resist mis-appropriations (brought about
by the affections) to mean more than we meant in order to facilitate
'finding' disproportionate to such knowledge (like Ziya's OS example) we
will leave fanaticisms like categories, directories, and hierarchies
behind and move forward, with confidence, being both real and natural.

In short, we will use as users do, and not 'be used' by machines.

Everyone needs to ask themselves regarding 'categorical zeal' -- Who is
running whom? Who is master and who is slave?

I don't want to have to 'alter' my behavior in order to use what the
Internet/WWW promises. Freedom of information should be just that --
freedom of information. Stop trying to 'help me' along!  I'm on to you!



>| You can always try to 'teach' users 
>| to be anal retentive

Your sarcasm hits the spot, Ziya. No user/person wants to be
taught/corrected, do they? 

Only those wishing to create *industry for themselves* at the expense of
relevance, pleasure, or utility for the user/person would wish such a
bureaucratic monster into existence  -- i.e. making users
jump-through-hoops like categories/directories/hierarchies.

Information Architecture *must be* a fulfillment of revelation -- not an
elaboration or complication.



>| Architectures which rely on users 
>| "managing their docs un-sloppily, 
>| following conventions and reasons"
>| is asking for trouble

Absolutely. The users should be treated as gold. Let them use! Let them
eat lasagna!

For me, this is what we know as 'truth' -- that a natural-occurring
language/behavior is always the most adequate language/behavior, the
most appropriate language/behavior. Nothing can be more exact and
perfect than 'what is' -- which is to say that 'what is' (the sloppy,
for instance) is 'purity' of language/behavior -- logically -- because
it is true (observably so).

So, for instance, when Christina mis-spells words in her messages (like
'fundability') it is *perfectly appropriate* and *is* the semantic
because this *is* information coming from Christina. Nothing can be more
true than that.

A lot of IAs immediately rail against this and want to remove things
from original concern to 'second-level orders' where they can be
subjected to promiscuous affections and mis-appropriations -- in short,
to create 'useless additions' (fanaticism) in the interest of 'helping
the user.' They want to 'correct' Christina! 

However, 'altering' the truth of the way Christina, for instance,
presents information is *a lie.* This is why Google and peer-to-peer
work so well. Because nobody is monkeying with the content --
you-get-what-you-asked-for. All-ways. Nothing has been orchestrated to
some 'glorious' end (like Yahoo! directories, for instance). 'What is'
is what is contemporaneous/available, namely, what has been *presented.*

Leave your grand schemes behind! Small is better. Take what you can get.