Talk:Knowledge worker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think that Drucker coined the term in 1946 in his book Concept of the Corporation, not 1959.
But perhaps in the Knowledge Age, since we Know that it is good for us, we shall all work on the land, sharing out the available exercise between us. Coriolise 17:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The earliest reference I can find to "knowledge worker" is in the Epilogue of the 1964 Mentor Edition of "Concept of the Corporation" on page 241. See: Drucker, P. F. (1964). Concept of the corporation: Mentor edition. New York: The John Day Company, Inc. Shevek57 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Managing information overload
This section is an extended advertisement for Factavia. It doesn't belong in an article about Knowledge Workers. Anyone can suffer from information overload. There's an MIS textbook case of a fighter pilot shot down over Vietnam in spite of hearing his AA missle alert siren. He heard it, but with tactical and command radios, his wizzo, the enemy, his mission, and his instruments, he didn't process the information correctly. In short, he suffered information overload. The point is, he certainly wasn't a knowledge worker. If you want to advertise your company, do it in some other article please. Rklawton 15:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- RKLawton - please read a little Peter Drucker before commenting on what is and isn't relevant to the knowledge worker. In particular "Knowledge-Worker Productivity: The Biggest Challenge." (unsigned comment by anonymous User:70.19.84.92).
-
- It isn't polite to assume what I have or have not read. I am well familiar with Drucker. The point, however, is that information overload isn't specific to knowledge workers. Indeed, the topic has its own article. If you read the version of this article in question, you'll see an editor raised matter simply to SPAM the article. Rklawton 18:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bullxxxx Bingo
oh, so a blacksmith is a knowledge worker? i mean, who would deny that those, too develop and use knowledge at their workplace... this is only one in a series of unbearably bloated articles whose common trait appears to be that they in some way or other cite simard (whom i don't know personally and against whom i bear no grudge). i pray to the self-healing powers of wp that this will sometime soon come to a good (and non-redundant) end. -- Kku 17:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I would call blacksmithing an example of skilled labor. However, given today's reliance on computer-aided drafting tools and computer-driven machine tools, a modern blacksmith might need as much computer knowledge as the average secretary.
- I currently work as a reprographer. I am a hybrid manual laborer and knowledge worker. My days are largely spent scanning large-format documents (11x17 - 36x48), then prepping the resulting image files for printing or conversion to digital archives (mostly PDFs). I also plot multiple formats for first-generation copies. I use IrfanView almost as much as the Oce scanning program, ReproDesk.
- Aside from architectural drawings, which are easily 97% of our workload, we also see several types of large-format art come through our black-and-white department. The most surprising print job we do is 12"x96" copies of quilting designs for a local artist, who caters to a national niche market online.
- It's surprisingly thrilling to take a vector PDF accidentally formatted for 8 1/2 x 11 paper, and blow it up to a precisely scaled 30x42 without losing any quality. --BlueNight (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Merge proposal
It is proposed that Intellectual worker and Brain worker merge into Knowledge worker.
Relocated discussion from Talk:Intellectual worker#Merge with Knowledge worker:
Should be merged with knowledge worker..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephan Mosel (talk • contribs) Is there any real reason NOT to merge them? They do seem to be adressing the same subject. I see no distinction, and no reason to further keep the two separate. One article with more information would be better than two articles which are, honestly, not much bigger than stubs. Mitchell 06:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you are talking about the brain worker & knowledge worker pages, I would definitely agree. As for the knowledge worker page, I think there's certainly a good case for merging this page with that one, as the terms are often used interchangably; however, it could be argued that there is a very subtle difference between "knowledge worker" & "intellectual/brain worker" and that there is therefore some merit in keeping them as separate articles. They are sometimes used in slightly different contexts & have a slightly different emphasis (i.e. intellect vs. knowledge - you can possess plenty of either one without much of the other!). "Knowledge worker" has become a management/occupational psychology/business buzzword, whereas "intellectual worker" is more often used in the context of politics/sociology/philosophy etc. Although I'm not sure if this subtle distinction is overridden by the fact that they are treated by most people as pretty much interchangable, especially since I am not aware of an writer who has emphasised the differences between the two. But brain worker & intellectual worker are definately interchangable & should therefore be merged. Missdipsy 17:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your comment is a bit confusing - I guess you meant that brain worker & knowledge worker are definitely interchangeable and should be merged, whereas intellectual worker may have a different emphasis? --Chris Howard (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Link?
There is a URL link in the body of the text indicating a website where the document that this entry refers to can be found for free. While I think including the URL is appropriate as a source it should be listed as a source and not jsut put willy-nilly in the middle of the entry. Would the Author please edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.110.146 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Clean-up from April 2009
I have read the WP:Style material in response to the editorial style annotations made to the clean-up work I've done, and will set to work on the additional references. I have plenty of sources, I do not believe there is any OR included; it's more a matter of being too general on references, and not using any specific footnotes; I'm working up the learning curve. JonesC-NC (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- The basic content looked sound when I reviewed it, although the phrasing at times looked like OR (hence the tags) and note removing it as a link from Knowledge management. Its potentially an important article so good to see someone working on it. --Snowded (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Weiss
Who is the Weiss mentioned in the article? The link just goes to a disambiguation page. --Zundark (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
