Talk:DIKW pyramid

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Earlier diagram version preferred:

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"into the rotation"?

The leading paragraph of this article includes the phrase "into the rotation". I do not know what that means and suggest it should be removed. Matthew C. Clarke 07:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've edited the lede and removed that unusual language. ElKevbo (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion of Michael Grieves

A new editor has recently been trying to add an opinion from Michael Grieves [1] who they claim is the person who "originated the Digital Twin concept".

First: There was work along that line earlier from others, notably David Gelernter. The term itself was coined later by John Vickers. Both of these facts are cited in our article at Digital twin. The claim would at best misleading (some would simply say 'false').

Aside from that, we're left with one person's opinion on DIKW, based on a primary source - in a journal from MDPI, a well known predatory publisher which appeared on Beall's list of predatory publishers. That is simply WP:UNDUE for this article. MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As asked, we will look into this, as time permits. Cheers. 73.211.140.61 (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request of interested editors

For those still at major universities or otherwise with such research/large library privileges: It would be helpful and enjoyable to have access to a PDF of the cited Harlan Cleveland article of December 1982, "Information as a Resource" in The Futurist (pp. 34–39). If any can find such—or for the academically active (and technologically astute), one could attach it as a PDF to an active faculty *.edu page—thereafter, please add the link to the citation, currently no. 15 of the article. We will next begin checking the Danny P. Wallace source, cited 36-times as of the moment, and trying to narrow the page ranges indicated, especially for the quotes. (I.e., per WP:VERIFY, we will first begin doing so for this critical source.) Cheers. 73.211.140.61 (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we?" Wikipedia accounts cannot be shared among multiple people. ElKevbo (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]