 |
 |
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 21:41:11 -0400 From: Karen Weaver <[log in to unmask]> To: Open Lib/Info Sci Education Forum <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Users, Technology and Knowledge (fwd) >> KW: Why is "documentation" in your "technology section" ? > > GW: Given my background with information technolgy, I associate documentation > with instructions on how to use information technology. If you have a > better place for it, I'd be happy to hear about your suggestions. > >> KW: Bibliography was always associated with "documentation" roots btw >> much more than "technology" jumped that bandwagon > >GW : I don't understand your comment here. I associate "bibliography" with a > disciple or culture, and "documentation" with an information technology. > Please explain your ideas. a good start is here for definitions Bibliography -- please see: http://www.bibsocamer.org/bibdef.htm You seem to associate "documentation" with your background in information technology, in terms of what I would call technical writing ie documentation as for a manual how to use something / or programs. Mine is quite different. bibliography, citations , a record of the information that exists ie documenting that record -the long record of it. this can be in print or online e-resources aka via information technology and basic print or manuscripts , any formats old or new your view of documentation i would call 'instructions' not the record of it. it's a big problem - terminologies / backgrounds / and yes biases too when its more a lack of basic communication/understanding of where the other person/group is coming from --cheers KW On 9/8/13, Gretchen Whitney <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 11:08:59 -0400 >> From: Karen Weaver <[log in to unmask]> >> > > Good questions. > >> "People" not the equivalent of "Users" > > These are the two terms used in the examples that I found. I would define > "people" as the total population in the community that you serve. I would > define "users" as the people who actually use your services through > whatever technology. Remember that there are likely to be a whole lot of > "people" who don't for whatever reason. Remember that there was also a > push to connect this triumverate with a local acronym to make it cute > /h/h/h/h memorable, so that if you were a "University" you were more > likely to use "users" than "people." > >> "Information" not the equivalent of "Knowledge" > > The differences between data, information, knowledge, and wisdom is a > classic question. They are indeed, very different (IMHO). > > We begin with poetry (and Frank Zappa). I refer you to: > > http://poeticsofthought.wordpress.com/tag/t-s-eliot/ > > which presents the important lines from The Rock. > > Then, examine > > http://tinyurl.com/pzxdo35 > > which appears to be some kind of course document, undated, from the U > Illinois about 2011. It primarily repeats Ackoff's assertions from 1989. > (ref. included, that seems to be the classic work). I'd personally push > Wisdom more toward the spiritual end of things, but at least the author > acknowledges that the question exists. > > A counterpunch is at > > http://www.academia.edu/343239/The_data-information-knowledge-wisdom_hierarchy_and_its_antithesis > > which I was able to get to by ignoring demands to sign up for various > accounts with services. > >> Names of an organization do not define "information science" either- >> why would it? > > An organization might in its mission statement or elsewhere define > "information science", if that phrase is part of its name. It might use > the definition to distinguish itself from others also using the phrase as > part of their name. Mission statements and other > associations/organization documents are a logical place to look for > definitions. > >> Why is "documentation" in your "technology section" ? > > Given my background with information technolgy, I associate documentation > with instructions on how to use information technology. If you have a > better place for it, I'd be happy to hear about your suggestions. > >> Bibliography was always associated with "documentation" roots btw >> much more than "technology" jumped that bandwagon > > I don't understand your comment here. I associate "bibliography" with a > disciple or culture, and "documentation" with an information technology. > Please explain your ideas. > > --gw > > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > Gretchen Whitney, PhD, Retired > School of Information Sciences > University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN 37996 USA [log in to unmask] > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/ > jESSE:http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/jesse.html > SIGMETRICS:http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > >> >> Just some morning thoughts/ponders, >> cheers KW >> >> On 9/7/13, Gretchen Whitney <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> Greetings, >>> I am just reporting observations, and not being critical or >>> judgemental. >>> >>> But I wonder if these phrases form a decent definition of information >>> science, so elusive after 60 years. >>> >>> I first ran into this triumvirate twenty years ago (get the UTK >>> thing?) >>> and at that time it was my first exposure to the intersection of these >>> ideas under Jose-Marie G. It was exciting. No one that I had run into >>> before had ever pulled this Venn diagram together. >>> Twenty years later, I'm seeing the same thing presented at Penn State >>> (http://bulletins.psu.edu/undergrad/courses/A/IST/110) as an >>> undergraduate >>> course as a Brand New Concept. >>> The triumvirate is also presented as "information, people, and >>> technology" at the current iSchools website at >>> >>> http://ischools.org/ >>> >>> I looked at ALISE.org, and it doesn't have a mission statement, and >>> doesn't include these words (or any others, for that matter). >>> >>> I looked at the ASIST.org web site, and they are still celebrating >>> the >>> name change to "and Technology" which happened what, a decade ago? "This >>> year's conference theme offers an opportunity to reflect on all the >>> changes that impact on human information interaction and their >>> implications for information science and technology." Sort of the right >>> words. >>> >>> In other words, there is still not a good definition of "information >>> science" out there. >>> >>> >>> I googled "information technology people" and came up with a journal >>> at >>> http://www.itandpeople.org/ >>> which might be worth paying attention to, in its 26th year of >>> publication. >>> >>> I googled "users technology knowledge" which turned up a bunch of >>> articles containing one or two terms but not three. >>> >>> I looked at the Wikipedia article for the definition of "information >>> science" and it was the usual mishmash of unconnected topics. The ideas >>> here are not bad, and not irrelevant. I wonder what they would look >>> like >>> if they were re-organized under the people - users/information - >>> knowledge >>> /information technology framework. >>> >>> Is there a decent definition of information science in this mess? I >>> think that there is. In multiple layers. >>> >>> First layer. Venn diagram and explain the intersection of users - >>> people/information - knowledge/information technology. >>> >>> Second layer. Explain these sectors. Yes, in full this means in the >>> information - knowledge section how publishing works, where books come >>> from, how books are published via the web, history of books, meaning of >>> bibliography, the whole nine yards. How cultures are preserved via the >>> written word. In full in the information technology section this means >>> going back to hieroglyphics and the creation of and preservation of the >>> written word, but also telegraphs and their relationship to text msging, >>> the written vs spoken word (the telephone), representation of language >>> and >>> letters (ASCII eg), verbal vs graphic representations of information, >>> computing as priesthood and personal computers, networked information. >>> I >>> know very little about users and how they process/acquire information. >>> >>> Third layer: How these three sectors interact. >>> >>> >>> This foundation for a definition of "information science" in the >>> intersection of "people - users/information - knowledge/ information >>> technology" both avoids, and embraces folks who try to distinguish >>> between informatics, computer science, natural or engineered information >>> systems, philosophical systems regarding epistemology. The history of >>> science goes in the Knowledge section. Documentation goes in the >>> Technology section. Everyone has a place. >>> >>> The base phrase is "information science." It is defined as the >>> intersection between "people, information, and technology". >>> >>> We're done for the night. Happy Saturday, everyone. >>> >>> --gw >>> >>> >>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> >>> Gretchen Whitney, PhD, Retired >>> School of Information Sciences >>> University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN 37996 USA >>> [log in to unmask] >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/ >>> jESSE:http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/jesse.html >>> SIGMETRICS:http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> >>> >> Karen Weaver MLS >> Digital Projects Assistant, Systems >> Duquesne University, Gumberg Library >> 600 Forbes Ave >> Pittsburgh PA 15282 >> Email: [log in to unmask] / [log in to unmask] >> > >