Talk:DIKW pyramid

Untitled

NB: Please place new comments at the bottom of this page

Old Discussion

Comments moved from Knowledge

On the Talk:Knowledge page User:Adam M. Gadomski made these comments which are about this article. So, I'm moving them here. Sbwoodside 22:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

- By the way, the definitions in DIKW are not the same and are not congruent with those presented on the first Google page: search "information, knowledge, wisdom"

See in: http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm

But they do reflect what you get if you search for "DIKW" on google, since the specific article you refer to is far from the only reference for DIKW. Remember this is an encyclopedia ... the goal is to reflect what other people say about DIKW, not what you think about DIKW. WP:NOR. Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

According to Russell Ackoff, a systems theorist and professor of organizational change, the content of the human mind can be classified into five categories:

1. Data: symbols

2. Information: data that are processed to be useful; provides answers to "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions

3. Knowledge: application of data and information; answers "how" questions

4. Understanding: appreciation of "why"

5. Wisdom: evaluated understanding.

The definitions used in the Wikipedia DIKW article are completely different and evolved to the IPK definitions, what is not original and ethically not correct (if without a reference).

References are provided under History. "IPK" is your own original research - see WP:NOR. I've looked at it briefly and I might look at it in more detail later... Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The IPK meta-ontological definitions are integral part of the TOGA meta-theory of goal-oriented knowledge ordering.

A meta-comment: We should always remember that definition making is not an art but has to be governed by a set of explicite professional rules.

--Adam M. Gadomski 14:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has a comprehensive set of guidelines. Before you try to impose your own set of rules, please learn more about the ones in this community. If you want to change those rules, this is not the place to do it. Try the Wikipedia:Village pump Sbwoodside 22:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Copy editing

This article does contain some good information, but much of the information it contains is repetitive. The first couple headings, History and Application, are okay, but everything after that is not encyclopedic in its style. The Ackoff section is particularly problematic because it it one huge paragraph, much of which is written from a first person point of view. The Kherde section is written using many capatalized words and exclaimations. The various styles and voices used in this article detract from the credibility of the information it contains. I think it can be fixed so the information is presented in the proper context without altering it. It also needs citation of sources and perhaps more links to other articles on this subject.Mazer 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Deletion

In this stage I suggest to delete this article.

- See also Talk:Knowledge, about DIKW, 4 November 2005

--192.107.77.3 14:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be original research and hard for the practical use. I also agree with critical observations of [User:Mazer]. - Unique reference is a personal webpage [Updated: February 4, 2008]. See: WP:NOR and NPOV. On the other hand, always "There is no clear progression and no real hierarchy in the DIKW sequence,"

- After quasi 3 years of serious doubts, the deletion of this article seems to be reasonable. This is my suggestion for administrators.

Knowledge engineer--79.12.232.148 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings fellow Wikipedians! This article strikes me as a bit odd, as it does seem to be original research and lacks inline references to support its claims (aside from the two references at the bottom). It looks like, from the Talk Page, that folks have voiced this before. Is anyone willing to step forward to cleanup and address the concerns about this article and clean it up, or should a merge/delete vote be reconsidered? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes

Beadsland - you are putting a lot of work in that I wouldn't want to interupt. WOuld you notify those of us interested when you have finished, or want to open up? Thanks --Snowded TALK 12:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the page as recently revised. Going to go work on some other projects for a few days, and will the come back to this.

--Beads (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, citations go after the punctuation, not before. Like this. Not like this. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style.   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

References

General

Name of Article

My understanding is that acronyms are generally not encouraged as names for articles. However, as this seems to masquerade under so many different names, variously "information...", "knowledge..." or "wisdom...", either "...hierarchy" or "...pyramid", and seems to exist in several different iterations (some of which do not include "data", others of which do not include "wisdom"), I am at a loss as to what name to suggest.

Beads (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)beadsland

Maybe the article can be renamed to "DIKW Hierarchy". The official term of a structure of this time is 'Hierarchy', while 'Pyramid' the shape which best describes the look of the structure. I think the introduction of the article could be reworded a little better to make it clear that it is given several different names. Animorphus (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Diagrams

A pyramid diagram would probably be appropriate up top. I'm guessing that flow diagrams from textbooks might be incorporated into the Representations section under fair use guidelines.

Beads (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)beadsland

Corrected diagram source URL [36] but it's 2015 version.

Wikipedia info shows 2021 region as upload date:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_DoD_KM_Pyramid.jpg

GeoVenturing (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Earlier diagram version preferred:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DIKW_Pyramid

GeoVenturing (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Relevant Fields

- DIKW is used primarily in the fields of Information Science "

"and Knowledge Management." Where???

No references.

--192.107.77.3 14:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've categorized this article given the fields cited by Sharma and Rowley. Beads (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC) beadsland

Sources

Zins

OK there are a number of issues with this article, in particular the domination of a particular source (Zins).

What is the justification for this?   I am tagging the article for the moment.  --Snowded TALK 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, first off, thanks for flagging.

At the moment, Zins is the only published (non-web) source I have on hand, so I'm milking it to flesh out the structure of the article. My intention is to follow up with Rowley on a subsequent round of edits (after a visit to the library to pick up a copy of that source.) Zins, in particular, seems to address many of the issues of ambiguity and disagreement that have plagued earlier versions of this article, by providing a framework for understanding and categorizing different versions of what is generically referred to as "DIKW".

There are actually two issues here. First, that Zins is directly referenced nearly 20 times in the current draft. Again, this is a function of the fact that Zins has provided a way of structuring the discussion so as to facilitate clear explanation of what are similar yet different models operating under the same umbrella. As I've stated, my hope is that Rowley, in reviewing multiple textbooks, will provide another way of segmenting the space so as to balance Zins.

Second, that numerous citations are actually extended quotations of third parties as cited by Zinn. Here, I've tried to follow Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, in that I've taken to 'iben' references attributing each quotation to a distinct person, although they are all sourced ultimately from the same Zins article. I believe this does more good (by citing to individual authorities other than Zins) than harm.

My biggest concern here is that, so far, none of the people Zins cites to appear to have any articles about them on the English edition of Wikipedia. Mind you, while the current draft would likely not be flagged for regional bias, I'm concerned that, absent some work fleshing out articles for various people referenced here, all these obscure names may be deemed problematic by some reviewers. Comments?

Beads (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)beadsland

Just for the record this talk page is now getting a nightmare to navigate. However - one of the problems you have is that DIKW is not used much. Most people I know in KM for example now dismiss it to the point where they don;t even write bout it. Its an anachronism. --Snowded TALK 22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And here I had intentionally refactored the talk page as I found the previous talk page (with rounds and rounds of comments that didn't seem to talk to the article I started working on a few days ago) to be something of a rats nest.  :-( I considered a run-on multi-paragraph epistle discussing all my comments and concerns, but was concerned that issues would just get lost that way. So, the current nightmare was the result. *pout*

On the point of DIKW being dated--perhaps, but then it would at least be of interest as a historical matter. Some sources that speak to it being an "anachronism" would be useful in that regard.

However, I encountered the model several times as a computer science undergraduate (I never took a course in "knowledge management"), and again in a graduate-level business marketing course years later, so whatever those in the KM field may think of the model, it's got legs, and now seems to be pretty well disseminated in the culture.

Rowley's and Zins's articles were both published in 2007, indicating that in the years immediately prior (when they conducted their research) current textbooks still spoke to the model, and current practitioners in the field still were willing to grapple with it. In other words, current students (around the world) are being exposed to the model--by their texts and their instructors--regardless of what the consensus about it may or may not be in any given subdiscipline.

All the more reason, me thinks, that an encyclopedic entry should address how and where it is still presented, and verifiable criticisms of what may be taken as common sense (absent someone taking it seriously enough to write about why it is not common sense) should be referenced--so as to give a full picture of current opinion about the model.

People may no longer seriously pursue phrenology, and yet there is an extensive article on Wikipedia discussing the subject, its methodology, and its ultimate debunking. (I note a serious lack of inline references in that article, unfortunately...) Where else to explore parachronisms than an encyclopedia?

Beads (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I said it shouldn't have an article and I agree its still taught in a number of KM courses (I don;t think by the way that such use provides any evidence of use in practice). Single source articles are always a danger. Either way - you are still actively editing this. Tell me when you have finished and I will weigh in --Snowded TALK 08:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, guess I was getting a bit defensive there. On the question of whether the model is used in "practice"--that's an interesting issue. If the model is regularly taught, but not known to be applied, what can we say about that? My phrenology example wasn't a propos in that case (as it was actively 'applied').

Working on getting round the single source issue. Already I'm finding that Zins doesn't match up with Zeleny/Ackoff, and so am working to give Zeleny/Ackoff greater weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadsland (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Snowded. I've removed the onesource tag, as I believe there may now be enough sources to give a reasonably balanced presentation. If you feel differently, please put the tag back and let's discuss further here.

I've removed the talk sections regarding Sharma and Ackoff (formerly below this one after my refactoring of the talk page) as these have been rendered moot by subsequent edits to the article. Some other sections that were largely just my brainstorming have also been deleted from this page (but are still available, of course, through revision history).

--Beads (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well sourced but hard to read

This article is now fantastically sourced... but a bit difficult to follow.. Sbwoodside (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, sometime over the course of the next few days I'll put my English skills to the test and try to reword difficult sections whilst keeping the content the same. Animorphus (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Who was first to present DIKW pyramid

In 1980s, the issue of data-information-knowledge-wisdom hierarchy was being discussed widely among Artificial Intelligence (AI) researchers. While much of this discussion often neglected grounding these notions in either cognitive or philosophical foundations, the idea of structure (to form information), inference (to use and apply knowledge) and judgement (for wisdom to emerge) was often implied. For information professionals, such as AI scholars, the hierarchical relationship between these basic concepts was a simple necessity implied by their work with Expert Systems and Knowledge Based Systems, vigorously researched at the time. An example of the DIKW conceptualisation and visualisation of its hierarchy appeared for example in this thesis published 1987:

Development of Concepts and Methodologies for the Representation of Contextual Information in Knowledge Based Systems.

See Chapter 2, discussion in pages 13-18, and the DIKM pyramid (with some extensions) on page 18. While the treatment of the DIKM model is certainly simplistic, it reflected the wide views of that time.

--Jacob (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Around 375 B.C. Plato writes The Republic, which provides a divided line metaphor with increasing levels of knowledge that build on one another and culminate in wisdom. On the bottom level of the divided line is perception-- the receipt of data (illusion) then belief, then reasoning, and on to a kind of understanding that roughly approximates wisdom (noesis). It seems to me that this article is just a reflection of that thinking, except in modern terms by non-philosophers. If that is the case, then should we refer to the wikipedia article on the Divided Line Analogy in order to provide better context and a stepping stone for thinking beyond this article? There may not be a text that we can point to from AI researchers and others that references the divided line, but could we agree that this article should lead to other, more robust and culturally rich concepts that pre-dated it? At the very least, can we recognize that this thinking had been done already and elsewhere? Mthibode (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Only if it's clearly documented in reliable sources. We can't publish original research. ElKevbo (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Original research and synthesis

I haven't looked at this article in some time, but reading it today I have substantial concerns. It reads like an essay in which someone has taken the DIKW elements then expanded on them, using sources, but sources which do not specifically link to DIKW. That applies to most sections including the introduction. Elliot is not talking about a hierarchy for example, neither is Zappa so I deleted that section as OR/Synthesis. It looks like it needs drastic surgery to bring it back to its subject matter. References can be made to the article on Data for example, there is no need to have a mini-essay here on different types unless the weight of reliable sources has specifically linked those types to DIKW.

In terms of the balance of reliable sources, DIKW is attributed to Ackoff, having some reference to properly referenced material which indicates some of the sources Ackoff drew on makes sense. Also some of the subsequent treatment. However I can't even see Ackoff here without a lot of searching.

----Snowded TALK 22:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Chomsky hierarchy

Could there be a formal link to the Chomsky hierarchy ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:1241:1:8067:1075:8554:BC14 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

T. S. Eliot Reference

Several internet sources give credit to T. S. Eliot in the play "The Rock" published in 1934 by Farber and Farber. "... Where is the Life we have lost in living?/ Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?/ Where is the knowledge we have lost in the information?...." Fatmarauder (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing the essay/ opinion tags

I've not seen anything to justify this in the article. It reads perfectly well, as an encylopaedic account, very much in line with its peers in this area. I suspect the criticism is from ignorance. If not, some proper argument for 'what is opinion', 'what is 'original research' should be presented. It has not been so far! Gemtpm (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't put that tag there but I agree it should be there. I'm currently writing a paper of my own and I came to this page hoping to get a good overview of the DIKW pyramid and that is not what this article is. It is a bunch of opinions and philosophical musings without a good definition of what the pyramid is, what the different levels are supposed to signify, what it means to move up the pyramid, etc. I would give specific examples but I don't have the time right now so I'm not going to tag the article but I agree it needs a lot of work and if someone else wants to add those tags back they have my support. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Links to other research

For what it's worth, [my dissertation (2012)](http://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=UNSWORKS&docId=unsworks_10483&fromSitemap=1&afterPDS=true) has a literature review which may prove useful as an additional source discussing ontologies of data. It's probably worth significantly discussing Tuomi at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.28.172 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

About Wisdom - this section is underdeveloped on the wiki page

Rudolf Steiner does have an interesting perspective to add on the difference between knowledge and wisdom (eg GA201 lectures of 1920). There are in fact multiple sources and authors where the below can be found.

Knowledge is linked to understanding, meaning the process of intellectual thinking, linking thoughts in a logical and rational way. It is linked to the capability of thinking and a level of consciousness. Wisdom adds to the purely intellectual understanding by adding broader insight which puts the knowledge in a much enhanced context with perspectives, just as the difference between data becoming information.

The insight can eg come from experience: typically one is intuitively aware and appreciative of the fact that an older person's life experience is different from the smart understanding of a youngster. This can help to feel the difference between wisdom, and knowledge. Similarly when we hear the term 'wise people' we think of those who have a deep insight into how everything hangs together, far deeper than the superficial surface 'knowing' of lots of things. This is beyond any discussion whether you agree such 'wise people' exist or who you would grant that qualification .. it could be indian sages, a native american such as Black Elk, or a philosopher such as Socrates. Hence insight comes not just from experience, but is related with a state of consciousness that can go further than the capability of intellectual thinking which is common and widespread (as the median faculty of humanity's population). Wisdom therefore links to a higher truth beyond the limitations of perspectives and opinions.

Potential explanation - consideration: Our culture and society, since the 15th century, has excelled and focused on intellectual thinking, hence the great advances in science and technology. As a result of this though, everything that lies beyond is less obvious for us to relate to. It is maybe not so much seen, valued, nurtured and appreciated as in earlier times or previous cultures, as our contemporary value and reference frame focuses more on intellectual advances, knowledge and insight.

PS1: another way to point to the fact that wisdom goes beyond intellectual thinking, is with quotes such as by Carl Jung (where wisdom reigns there is no conflict between thinking and feeling) and Socrates (the only true wisdom is knowing you don't know), etc. PS2: certain esoteric practices relate wisdom to what is achieved through higher forms of consciousness which one can attain through practice. It is said that with such higher states of consciousness the bandwidth restrictions of our intellectual thinking and mundane consciousness are expanded, hence offering the broader view and some single version of the truth, resolving all dichotomies given by perspectives, opinions, and fragmentation of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.26.3.225 (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)