Thank you for such a deep and nuanced comment, Tim.

While of course, you cannot capture knowledge in the literal sense, people in organizations need to share their knowledge-making experiences. That is the spirit of this post. The aim is to help make tacit knowledge more explicit, not some type of fictional Vulcan mind-transfer. As I have quoted Dave Jonassen several times here, “Every amateur epistemologist knows that knowledge cannot be managed. Education has always assumed that knowledge can be transferred and that we can carefully control the process through education. That is a grand illusion.”

However, it is very important to understand that organizations, and cultures, that do not share what they know, are doomed:

"You start out with two genetically well-intermixed peoples. Tasmania’s actually connected to mainland Australia so it’s just a peninsula. Then about 10,000 years ago, the environment changes, it gets warmer and the Bass Strait floods, so this cuts off Tasmania from the rest of Australia, and it’s at that point that they begin to have this technological downturn. You can show that this is the kind of thing you’d expect if societies are like brains in the sense that they store information as a group and that when someone learns, they’re learning from the most successful member, and that information is being passed from different communities, and the larger the population, the more different minds you have working on the problem.

If your number of minds working on the problem gets small enough, you can actually begin to lose information. There’s a steady state level of information that depends on the size of your population and the interconnectedness. It also depends on the innovativeness of your individuals, but that has a relatively small effect compared to the effect of being well interconnected and having a large population."

Source: http://www.edge.org/conversation/how-culture-drove-human-evolution