Informational humidity model: explanation of dual modes of community for social intelligence design [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
AI and Society 19 (1):110-122 (2005)
The informational humidity model (IHM) classifies a message into two modes, and describes communication and community in a novel aspect. At first, a flame message, dry information vs. wet information, is introduced. Dry information is the message content itself, whereas wet information is the attributes of the message sender. Second, the characteristics of communities are defined by two factors: the message sender’s personal specifications, and personal identification. These factors affect the humidity of the community, which corresponds to two phases of knowledge creation. In a rather wet community, members easily specify other members. This is effective for managing memberships and changing knowledge from tacit to formal. In a rather dry community, members barely identify with other members at all. This method is suitable for the formal-to-tacit phase of knowledge creation. Finally, it is discussed how social intelligence should be designed and what features are needed to support knowledge-creating communities
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Hiroaki Morio & Christopher Buchholz (2009). How Anonymous Are You Online? Examining Online Social Behaviors From a Cross-Cultural Perspective. AI and Society 23 (2):297-307.
Similar books and articles
Judith Bach (2002). Evolutionary Guidance System: A Community Design Project. World Futures 58 (5 & 6):417 – 423.
Khosrow Bagheri (2008). Globalization, Information Revolution, and Their Relations to Education: Emphasizing J. F. Lyotard's View. JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL INNOVATIONS 22:145-158.
David Harrah (1963). A Model for Applying Information and Utility Functions. Philosophy of Science 30 (3):267-273.
Gerry Stahl (2000). Collaborative Information Environments to Support Knowledge Construction by Communities. AI and Society 14 (1):71-97.
Boaz Miller (2013). When is Consensus Knowledge Based? Distinguishing Shared Knowledge From Mere Agreement. Synthese 190 (7):1293-1316.
Joan Woolfrey (2008). Group Moral Agency as Environmental Accountability. Social Philosophy Today 24:69-88.
Shaheena Janjuha-Jivraj (2003). The Sustainability of Social Capital Within Ethnic Networks. Journal of Business Ethics 47 (1):31 - 43.
Honorato Tessier (2003). A Shared Vision Model for Community Development in the Saltillo Valley of Northern Mexico. World Futures 59 (8):597 – 604.
Omar Dahbour (2005). Three Models of Global Community. Journal of Ethics 9 (1-2):201 - 224.
Dorcas M. Kamuya, Vicki Marsh, Francis K. Kombe, P. Wenzel Geissler & Sassy C. Molyneux (2013). Engaging Communities to Strengthen Research Ethics in Low‐Income Settings: Selection and Perceptions of Members of a Network of Representatives in Coastal Kenya. Developing World Bioethics 13 (1):10-20.
Michael A. Gilbert (2002). Effing the Ineffable: The Logocentric Fallacy in Argumentation. [REVIEW] Argumentation 16 (1):21-32.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-08-30
Total downloads1 ( #306,410 of 1,089,057 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?