Liz Orna also makes the point (in Information Strategy in Practice) that it’s humans that create knowledge, not machines.

And for knowledge production, the creation of new knowledge, the development of theories and ideas, do we need such high inputs of technology? Back to Darwin; a great many of his observations that helped to develop his theories were based in his garden and immediate surroundings. He didn’t need to be rushing around the world to conferences in seven continents (which you’ll find some ‘management gurus’ do). He didn’t need the endless sensuous stimulation of a city centre or to be constantly checking email or surfing the web. Perhaps there’s a core methodology of study there that we would all do well to learn from.

We are led to believe we need to be connected, to be part of something called ‘the world wide web’. But does it just in fact flatten knowledge, leading everyone into predefined positions? Allowing a certain type of techno-path to dominate discussion, leave a residue of power with those that create and control the technologies ?

From my own experience, i) I don’t tend to surf the web that much apart from work issues and occassionaly to check a ‘fact’ about something; ii) I use it as a shop much more than as an information resource (it’s an addiction to books and music) and iii) I don’t find the web as such a source of new thinking or new ideas that make me re-think what I’m thinking about.

Email discussions - yes; maybe - I learn from specific ones such as the records management list, KIDMM, taxonomy and others. Forums and blogs; to some extent, but not much more than if I caught up with a certain circle of friends more frequently.

Twitter? Facebooks? I wonder when the backlash is going to start….