There are some ideas that capture our imagination and provide us with a way forward or a framework for further action or study. For me personal knowledge management (PKM) and wirearchy are two such ideas. These are not my ideas and even though I may not cite the original sources in all cases that I discuss them, I give credit where it is due. I learned this many years ago as an undergraduate. I remember my History professors demanding, “Source?” whenever we made a bold  statement of fact or brought in some new line of thought. I have a link to wirearchy on my header and I ensure that I add references when I publish or distribute any work that mentions PKM. I will mention work by Lilia Efimova, Denham Grey and Dave Pollard on PKM or Jon Husband on wirearchy.

*** Update: There are some “self-corrections” in the comments pertaining to this next section [how’s that for speed?] ***

On a related note, George Siemens posts that The Rhyzome Project fails to even mention the published work of Dave Cormier on Rhyzomatic Education. With the simplicity of adding hyperlinks to web pages, citing your main sources should not be a problem, and this is something that the project could rectify quickly. I wonder how long it will take to give the appropriate citations? This could be an interesting case study of the self-corrective nature of the Web and blogs.

8 Responses to “Source?”

  1. Steven Warburton

    A more than cursory glance at the project would reveal that this project is about digital identities and is addressing the issue of the fractured nature of the self when our online identities become ditributed across multiple sites and services.

    Rhizome is a Deleuzian concept that has been used and taken by many active in the field of art, science and philosophy. It is used in the project as a cipher for understandings of digital identity as:

    – decentralised
    – unpredictable
    – connected
    – branching in many directions
    – having multiple entry points
    – with no single true view – only partial perspectives
    – and constituted as a multiplicity of dimensions where we lose the illusion of the objective all seeing eye/I
    From this we are using the metaphor of cartography, the map, where we have no privileged entry point and is always open to change.

    The references we use for this conceptual entry point to understanding digital identity are at the moment:

    Deleuze & Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press, 1987

    Sermijn, Devlieger and Loots (2008). The Narrative Construction of the Self: Selfhood as a Rhizomatic Story. Qualitative Inquiry, (14)4:632–650.

  2. Margarita Perez Garcia

    Dear Harold, David Cormier is our colleague and fellow researcher in the Open Habitat project, where Steven and I lead the evaluation and narrative research to extract guidelines for teaching and learning in MUVEs. David is not an stranger. And we know pretty well his work. Well enough to credit him when we build our research on his findings, or published work.
    Now, The Rhizome project, is an Eduserv funded project that explores the key social and technical elements that impact on the construction of online identities. Is not a project about learning approaches. Although we will be investigating the deployment of online identities in formal and informal learning settings.
    The Rhizome project, is called Rhizome not because of David, who used, as we use, the well known and not so new concept of rhizome with i! The main reference we use and publicly acknowledge has another weight: is Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome we are referring to, in A Thousands Plateaus.
    So nothing to rectify on our side. But what about the self-corrective nature of your post?

  3. Harold Jarche

    Thank you, Steven. What I like about the Web is that we can have a conversation. I look forward to checking out these references, but it may take some time. The published book must be found and/or purchased and the later entry is behind a pay wall.

    I also noticed your comment on the information-rich netvibes pages:

    “Thanks Lawrie. This is new project with a different direction to Dave’s work on rhizomatic education though we do use the Deleuzian concept of the rhizome in our understanding of digital identity. We hope Dave Cormier will join us as an expert for our consultation work during the project.”

  4. Lilia Efimova

    Funny, how, every time you mention my name in relation to PKM, I feel I should get back to it “properly” and make something readable from the notes scattered here and there.


  5. Harold Jarche

    I find that there is a keen interest in PKM whenever I mention it to people who are neck deep in data overload. I think that a synthesis of your notes would be greatly appreciated, Lilia.

  6. Jon Husband

    Thanks (as always) for the mention, Harold. An important issue to discuss. I go out of my way (I believe .. hmm, maybe that’s not the best way to put it 😉 to attribute provenance to ideas and concepts that have informed mine, or that I work with.

    I also can imagine that I do not always get it 100% right, but if that’s the case it is unintentional and only a reflection on my sloppiness .. and I rectify any mistakes i have made in that regard as quickly and publicly as I can.


Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)