Talk:Dave Snowden/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

This sounds rather subjective than factual "he is an entertaining speaker" Sorry your wrong the guy takes subjectivity and helps to make it objective —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulberry69 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, subjectivity needs to be balanced with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View. Not having any references for these claims makes them difficult to retain. Harvey the rabbit (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think someone took my CV and just pasted it in (I found it on a google alert). I have no objections if someone wants to improve it but other than dealing with gross inaccuracies or defamation I am staying out of the article itself. If anyone wants data they can email me. If someone wants to delete the whole article I am not going to loose sleep over it. --Snowded TALK 22:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Secondary material

This article is rather dominated by Snowden's own material. I've added some articles by other people, and I'll see if I can find some more. --Cat4567nip (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved from main page

Appointments

• Director for EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council UK) funding allocation on subject of Emergence
• Editor in Chief (with Peter Allen, Cranfield and Jeffrey Goldstein, ISCE & Aldephi) for Emergence, Complexity and Organisation
• Editorial Board of several academic and practitioner journals in the field of knowledge management including The Journal of Knowledge Management & The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management
• Adjunct Professor of Knowledge Management, University of Canberra, Australia
• Fellow of the Information Systems Research Unit at University of Warwick, England
• Adjunct Professor at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University
• Faculty Member and MiNE Fellow, The Master of Management in the Network Economy(MiNE) Program of the Universita' Cattolicaat Piacenza, Italy
• Visiting fellow at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies at Nanyang Technological University Singapore 2006.

Other roles

• Special award at Academy of Management in Washington 2000 for original contributions to Knowledge Management, in particular the use of narrative and complexity theory
• Founder member of the BIS Committee for Standards in Knowledge Management
• Editor of two CBI (Confederation of British Industry) short guides to Knowledge Management
• Annual Management Lectures at the Universities of Cardiff and Manchester
• Special Advisor on sense making, Singapore Ministry of Defense.
• Selected by IBM as one of six “on-demand” thinkers for a world wide advertising campaign
• Emeritus Director - KM Asia

Partial list of publications

• Willmott, H., and Snowden, D. (1997). ”Knowledge Management: Promises and Pitfalls.” Mastering Management—The Reader 8, [Financial Times], 17-22
• Snowden, D. (1999). “Story Telling: An Old Skill in a New Context.” Business Information Review, 16(1), 30-37. March
• Snowden, D. (1999). “The Paradox of Story: Simplicity and Complexity in Strategy.” Scenario and Strategy Planning, 1(5), 16-20. November
• Snowden, D.J. (1999) Spies Like Us in Leading Edge Vol 1 pp21–26
• Snowden, D.J. (2000) “The Art and Science of Story” two part article in Business Information Review Issue 17 (3) & (4)
• Snowden, Dave (2002). "Complex Acts of Knowing - Paradox and Descriptive Self Awareness". Journal of Knowledge Management , Special Issue. 6 (2): 100–111. doi:10.1108/13673270210424639. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Snowden, D. (2003) “Managing for Serendipity: or why we should lay off ‘best practice’ in Knowledge Management” in Journal of Knowledge Management ARK May 2003
• Kurtz, C & Snowden, D (2003) “The New Dynamics of Strategy: sense making in a complex complicated world” in IBM Systems Journal” Volume 42 Number 3 pp 462–483
• Mark, A & Snowden, D (2004) “Researching practice or practising research - innovating methods in healthcare the contribution of Cynefin” Presented paper at the Organisational
• Behaviour in Health Care Con-ference held by the Centre for Health and Policy Studies(CHAPS) University of Calgary at the Banff Centre Alberta Canada
• Snowden, D & Stanbridge, P (2004) “The landscape of management: creating the context for understanding social complexity” in Emergence: Complexity and Organisation Volume 6 Numbers 1&2 Fall 2004 pp 140 – 148
• Snowden, D (2005) “Multi-ontology sense making – a new simplicity in decision making” in Informatics in Primary Health Care 2005:13:00-00
• Snowden, D (2005) “From Atomism to Networks in Social Systems” in The Learning Organization Vol. 12, No. 6 (2005).
• Snowden, D. (1997) “A Framework for Creating a Sustainable Programme” in Knowledge Management Ed. Rock, S. London: Caspian Publishing (Republished in Knowledge Management Year Book 1999 Butter-worth April 1999)
• Snowden, D. (1999) “Liberating Knowledge” Introductory chapter to Liberating Knowledge CBI Business Guide, Caspian Publishing October pp 9–19 (also editor of guide)
• Snowden, D. (2000) “Cynefin: a sense of time and space, the social ecology of knowledge management”. In Knowledge Horizons : The Present and the Promise of Knowledge Management ed. C Despres & D Chauvel Butterworth Heinemann October 2000.
• Snowden, D.J. (2000) “Story Telling and other Organic Tools for Chief Learning Officers and Chief Knowl-edge Officers” In Action: Leading Knowledge Management and Learning ed. Bonner, D ASTD (www.astd.org)
• Snowden, D (2003) “Narrative Patterns: the perils and possibilities of using story in organisations” in Eric and Laurence Prusak eds. Creating Value With Knowledge Oxford University Press Sept/October
• Snowden, D. (2003) “Knowing what we know: language and tools for knowledge mapping” invited chapter in forthcoming book on Knowledge Management in HR from Butterworth
• Snowden, D (2004) “Strategy in the context of Uncertainty” in Patricia Coate (ed) The Handbook of Business Strategy Emerald Group Publishing
• Oliver, G.R./Snowden, D.J. (2005): Patterns of narrative in organizational knowledge sharing: Refolding the envelope of art-Luddism and techno-fabulism. In: Schreyögg, G./Koch, J. (Eds.): Narratives and knowledge management. Exploring the links between organizational storytelling and knowledge management. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 15-72.
• Lazaroff, M & Snowden, D “Anticipatory modes for Counter Terrorism” in Popp, R & Yen, J, Emergent Information Technologies and Enabling Policies for Counter-Terrorism-IEEE Press 2006
• Kurtz, C & Snowden D “Brambles in a Thicket” in Gibbert, Michel, Durand & Thomas, Strategic Networks: Learning to Compete Blackwell 2007 (forthcoming)

Okip (formerly Ikip) 01:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How to describe him?

I think the opening sentence needs to state much more clearly exactly what Snowden is, professionally speaking. A scholar, as the Cynefin article describes him? A scientist, as his title of "chief scientific officer" of Cognitive Edge, might imply? An academic? (He seems to have had "visiting" and adjunct appointments at various institutions around the world). And is there a term to describe a practitioner of the particular field in which he is engaged? Complexicist, perhaps? Irvine22 (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The opening sentence already describes what he is, namely a consultant, researcher, and lecturer in the field of knowledge management. What part of that sentence do you find obscure?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth missing

The article appears incomplete without Snowden's date and place of birth. All it says at the moment is that he's a native of Wales.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC) 1-4-54 --Snowded ^TALK 10:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

And the letter J stands for? I think a middle name looks more encyclopedic than an initial. Where in Wales was he born? That way, the article can read: A native of (place), Wales--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

John. Parents left Wales for a two year period when born (Ongar, Essex) returning when three, grew up in Mold, North Wales (Lloyd George a hero had the same experience) --Snowded ^TALK 10:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the info. How does it look?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying not to get involved other than providing data when requested! I may not be able to resist the temptation on the Cynefin Framework however which I created (rather than helped to create) --Snowded ^TALK 11:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I purposefully left personal details not relevant to his notability (such as full name, DOB, place of birth etc) on privacy grounds. If Snowden is happy with their inclusion then there is no issue, obviously, but there is no requirement that we include such information on relatively unknown, private individuals. Rockpocket 20:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd draw the line at my current address, but otherwise I am pretty relaxed. Thanks for the work by the way --Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope I didn't mangle things up too badly. Management is a new subject to me (I'm reading books in anticipation of becoming one myself in the next few months.) Rockpocket 21:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the books will take a systems approach so good luck! --Snowded ^TALK 21:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Och, sure it's mostly common sense. You'll be fine as long as you don't overthink things and show a bit of balls once ina while.Irvine22 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Snowded I'm sure you said your paternal roots came from North-East England, since Snowden is an Anglo-Saxon name. Lets get some form of a shout out to those English roots! :p - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia.

Could it be possible to give a breif mention of Mr. Snowdens work here? XD --Frank Fontaine (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

English person of Welsh descent?

Doesn't Snowden belong in [Category:English people of Welsh descent]? The article makes clear that he was born in England (an Essex boy, no less), that he lives in England now, and that his glittering higher education and highly distinguished career have all been pursued in England. Glancing at some of the other notables who populate the category, Snowden would be in elevated company. I think Dr Mr Snowden would be a credit to the category. He is truly one of Ongar's most notable sons. Irvine22 (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, as there seems to be no objection I'll go ahead and add him to the category. Irvine22 (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of comment was mistaken for agreement. The suggestion is not helpful. I will now revert. Daicaregos (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good move, Dai.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The information in the article seems to confirm that he is indeed an English person of Welsh descent - born in England to Welsh parents, like so many of those who populate the category. Do you have a reason you feel he doesn't belong in the category, or is it simply a case of "just don't like it"? Irvine22 (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If a dog is born in a stable it doesn't make him a horse. His parents are Welsh. He self-identifies as Welsh. He is Welsh. Daicaregos (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a verifiable source for his self-identification as Welsh? Thanks! Irvine22 (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Before I waste even more time: do you have a verifiable source for his self-identification as English? Thanks! Daicaregos (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article presently states he was born in England, was largely educated in England and lives in England now. I was just adding a category based on the information already in the article. If you are now suggesting that that information is unverified - and you may well be right about that -it seems we have a larger problem here. I'm now wondering if we should instead remove most of the unverified biographical information?Irvine22 (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have provided a verifiable source for his self-identification as Welsh, and that his parents are Welsh. As I said, his parents are Welsh. He self-identifies as Welsh. He is Welsh. Daicaregos (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The verifiable source being the subject's own website? Irvine22 (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Irvine, he's Welsh. Do you have a problem with that?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article contains ample information that appears to contradict that unverified assertion, to whit: he was born in England. He lives in England now. His higher education was in England. I'd say he's of Welsh descent, certainly. Or even that he's an English-born person who considers himself to be Welsh. Seems like a reasonable compromise. Irvine22 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Irvine, why are you so obsessed with Snowden's nationality; and indeed this page?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This page isn't for discussion of me or my obsessions. It's for discussion of the article on Dave Snowden. Irvine22 (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If your going to continually question the content of this article, Irvine, you should at least go over it and if you think a reference is not there or good enough for the content then you should point them out one at a time then perhaps they can be answered or rebuffed. The point concerning Snowden being Welsh. His parents are Welsh and he self identifies as Welsh, sound like a Welshman to me. Jack forbes (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You think his accent sounds Welsh? Sounds English to me... Irvine22 (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe, the subject of this article considers himself Welsh. So, let's go with Welsh. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen verification that he considers himself Welsh - other than a link to what appears to be the subject's own commercial website, which is not an acceptable source. Also, it's not clear to me that such self-identification, if verified, would in any case abnegate apparently contradictory information currently in the article, such as birthplace and place of residence. Irvine22 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you aren't sure whether a reference is acceptable or not, you can request clarification at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Daicaregos (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC) ]].

No, I'm pretty sure that the commercial website of the subject, which exists primarily to sell services, is not an acceptable source.= Irvine22 (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are only pretty sure a reference is not acceptable, you can request clarification at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Otherwise it's just WP:POV. Daicaregos (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough! Irvine22 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Your complaint doesn't make sense. To figure out a person's self-identification, we need some sort of indication from that person, direct or indirect. Here, we have a direct expression of self-identification as being Welsh. Unless there is something in particular about the source that raises a likelihood he is lying or joking about it, there is no reason to to take it as being anything other than a reliable source. -Rrius (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To meet Wikipedia standards of reliability and verifiablity surely we need published material from a third-party source stating that he self-identifies as Welsh? And even if we can verify that he does so identify, there is still the question of his birthplace, which isn't Wales, but Essex. The large majority of people in the Category: English People of Welsh Descent are in a similar situation to Snowden: born in England to Welsh parents. Anyway, I'm inclined to go with the suggestion at the RS noticeboard and add him to both "Welsh people" and "English people of Welsh descent". Also "People from Essex" in which he clearly also fits. I think we're making real headway here, and arriving at a real sense of the fluid, overlapping and complementary identities of this multi-faceted, complex and fascinating renaissance man. Irvine22 (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Subject.27s_own_commercial_website.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvine22 (talk • contribs) Irvine22

FAD I self identify as Welsh, as it clearly evident from my published material and my user page here. If there are factual questions from editors acting in good faith then I am happy to answer them. Anything else I will ignore--Snowded ^TALK 01:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You have compared your situation in this to that of David Lloyd George, who was born in Manchester. FYI the old rogue can currently be found in the categories Politicans from Manchester and People from Chorlton-on-Medlock, amongst many others. Do you also object to being in the category People from Essex? If so, perhaps we could create a new category - Welsh People from Essex? Irvine22 (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the article self-identifies as Welsh. Further attempts to delete 'Welsh', can only be seen as disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't belong in the Essex category per Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By place. I would suggest if the disruptive trolling regarding this continues an admin takes the appropriate step of removing Irvine22's editing on a permanent basis. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the link, which reads in pertinent part: "People are sometimes categorized by notable residence, in the form People from Foo (not "Natives of Foo"), regardless of ethnicity, heritage, or nationality."

Hence, Snowden can be both a person from Essex and Welsh. I have restored him to the categoryIrvine22 (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Irvine, you are being disruptive. I'd advise you to stop before you receive a block; people's patience is not infinite.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read the link, now that it has been provided. Though we seem to disagree on how it affects this article. The first sentence of the pertinent part says "People are sometimes categorized by notable residence ...". I do not believe that a three year old's residence should be considered notable. I am reverting. Daicaregos (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the three years after birth are considered by developmental psychologists to be crucial in the formation of an individual. It's clearly notable that he was born and lived in Essex for these formative years - for him and for Essex. The county is not so well-endowed with notable intellectual giants that it can forego a claim to one of the stature of a Snowden. Irvine22 (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW Dai your last reversion removed additional edits I made making sense of the language around his parents return to Wales, and his move there with them. Also his subsequent return to England. I have restored those. I will wait to allow further discussion before restoring him to the "People from Essex" category. Irvine22 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You are really determined to waste people's precious time here with your obsession over Snowden's nationality. He is Welsh, accept it and get over it!!!!! If you add the category again, I will simply reverse you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't dispute that he is Welsh. Other editors seem to dispute that he is also a Person from Essex, and we are presently discussing that question. Irvine22 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Let this go Irvine. If you are doing this to annoy Snowded it isn't working. Go and photograph your coins and upload them to commons. That would be far more useful than what your doing here. Jack forbes (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tsk, I'm doing it to improve the article. Accuracy is soooo important in an encyclopedia, don't you think? Irvine22 (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tsk, methinks your doing it to annoy Snowded. I know, assume good faith, blah blah blah. Go on, take a break, it'll do everyone good. Jack forbes (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not disputing that he was born in Essex. However we don't categorise people by everywhere they lived, only by "notable residence" (my emphasis). Since his brief residence in Essex is not notable, he doesn't go in the category. It's hardly rocket science... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Irvine, are you reading this? If so, can we now consider the subject closed once and for all?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Snowden himself evidently finds his residence in Essex notable, as he volunteered the information. He also suggested that David Lloyd George was in a similar situation to himself, having been born in Chorlton-on-Medlock, Manchester to Welsh parents, then moving to Wales as a child. Lloyd George is currently categorized on Wikipedia as a "Person from Chorlton-on-Medlock" (amongst many other categories). Then there is the question of whether it is fair to Chipping Ongar and Essex to deny their claim on this notable person? Irvine22 (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We need to remember that this is an encyclopaedia, not a political forum. The internationally recognised nationality here will be British; that's what it says on the subject's passport. You probably wouldn't call an American academic astronomer based out at the volcano observatories 'Hawaiian' unless he/she self-identified as such publicly, and for that to be the case there would be citable references. The same applies here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Little Fluffy Clod (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You are joining a six year old debate initiated by a much blocked sock farm. Irvine vandalised multiple pages in pursuit of some grudge. The practice on UK pages is to use the nationality with which the subject self-identifies. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, 'sock farms' notwithstanding, even if you're editing a page about yourself (which is, in itself, probably bad form) you still need to provide a reference. My understanding, as yours, is that local nationalities can indeed be used if the subject self-identifies so, but there needs to be some verifiable, published evidence that this is the case. Readers, and other editors, can't actually tell for sure that you are who you say you are, after all... Little Fluffy Clod (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Do a google search on my name and look at any of the conference descriptions. The model I created which made be notable in the first place has a welsh name and I am generally described as a welsh academic or welsh consultant. I openly declare my link to this page as well by the way and it has been admin verified. I'm also aware of the BLP rules and on editing - As such I do not create material unless it is a simple matter of fact - or a correction of a proposed change as in this case. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Amendments

I've made three amendments to the article:
* The only source we have as to Snowden's place of birth is here. It does not state whether the place of birth was in the town itself, or simply within the parish. I have, therefore, amended the article from Chipping Ongar to Ongar. If editors feel the Wikilink is inappropriate I will not object to it being unlinked.
* There is no citation for the assertion that Cynefin ”is commonly translated into English as 'habitat' or 'place'.” However, I have found a reference to "habitat", and also that it translated “as an adjective used to convey 'acquainted' or 'familiar'. “ I have, therefore, amended the page per WP:BLP which states: “We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. “
*I have reverted the WP:BOLD move, per WP:BRD that changed “Returning to Wales with his parents when he was three ...” to “Moving to Wales with his parents when he was three ...”. Returning has been used in the sense of returning to ancestral lands, which does not imply a previous physical presence. Its use is appropriate here. Daicaregos (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarified with the language you have kindly provided, Dai, I can go along with that. Irvine22 (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted theWP:BOLD move, per WP:BRD. That means it needs to be discussed here before deciding by consensus whether or not it is reintroduced. It is quite appropriate to explain things on a Talk page, that aren't noted on the article. I have reverted. Please stop edit warring. Daicaregos (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with your suggested language clarifying that he was "returning" only in a non-literal sense. I'll restore it, after a suitable period for discussion. Irvine22 (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I made no such suggestion. Do not try to twist my words. You do not have consensus to restore it. Daicaregos (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you clarified the sense in which "returning" was to be used - a rather particular, non-literal sense. I accepted that, as clarified. Irvine22 (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

NB. Irvine22 has been blocked indefinitely (see here). Daicaregos (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Notability Query

I didn't know about this article until alerted to it by Dave himself, via an edit in his Wikipedia persona. I suppose it's all fine and I am really not trying to be Mr Nasty, but it does make me wonder a little if this is really notable enough to remain an article in WP? Would it remain so if Dave was not quite such an active Wikipedian?

To start at the beginning, in the intro, there are a few claims to notability. One is referenced via a source from a 1998 Fortune magazine entry which we can't check online, at least, I assume not, so it is difficult to gauge how notable it sounds. The others relate to the (blog? magazine?) "Cognitive Edge" website. [1] This website carries the disclaimer "The views expressed in this blog are the personal opinions and views of Dave Snowden and do not nessessarily reflect the opions and views held by Cognitive Edge Pte." It appears from other Google entries to be run by Mr Snowden.

Apart from this, Dave's claim to fame is that he is a Professor in Knowledge Management in Australia and an Honorary Fellow in England. I am uncertain about the precise rules governing the level of merit in academic status that enables it to be noteworthy enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, but I feel a tingling in my fingers that tells me that Dave does not qualify. He brings up quite a few Google hits [2] but some of these seem to be advertorials for speakerships, etc - the sort of self-promotion many academics have to engage in these days, especially those affiliated to business-minded colleges like Warwick.

I am not proposing deletion, just wanting to see what the basis for notability is, at least at this stage. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As a footnote, please also see Cynefin, an article about a KM framework or methodology that is the work of Dave Snowden - the talk page carries an extensive dispute about it's notability. I tend to think these two articles should be treated together. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the relevant guidelines are here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I remove the tag. He is notable in his field. JuanJose (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

sources

I have also just found this article after meeting the described person on Wikipedia in a discussion following an AfD on antenarratives. While I do not claim that Dave Snowden is non-notable, I believe that the article does use weasel wording every now and then. I am going to clean it up, here is the summary of the changes with its justification (please, discuss before reverting):

1. ...known for his work on the role of narrative and sensemaking in organisational strategy. - this source does not support this claim, since it is a link to a post by Dave Snowden himself.
2. All references and info based on Cognitive Edge should be removed because of verifiability criteria, this is a website run by the person himself, but I'm leaving it in the bio section (I think it is reasonable to consider them ok there, while not in claims of his "being known").
3. The claim that Cynefin is "one of the first applications of..." is ungrounded and sounds a bit weasel without a proper source. The reference given does not work.
4. I have doubts whether Cynefin should be described basing on Snowden's works only and, quite honestly, don't consider the self-authored conference proceedings to be the most verifiable and impartial source (I'm not removing this for now, since Cynefin is not particularly well described by other authors, but it still is not a hoax and is occasionally mentioned).
5. The sentence ...According to Inside Knowledge, Snowden's early work in the field of decision support systems informed his principles of organic knowledge management, using "the natural contours of [an] organisation to allow knowledge to self-organise and self-manage."... is unsourced, since the given KMag does not exist (anymore?). I had trouble finding a verifiable source for this quote so I'm deleting it, please restore it if you know one.

Per notability issue: for scholars, h-index of 5 is very low. Typical tenure decisions (associate professor's level only, not full professorship!) are made at 11-12. Also, the described person does not pass the "professor test". Still, he is mentioned every now and then and maybe passes notability criteria as a business consultant/popular magazine pundit on the topic. It would be good to provide more verifiable sources for his recognition in the media though, since his academic impact is clearly borderline. Pundit|utter 16:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I restrict my comments here to anti-vandalism and responses on fact. In respect of item 3 you might want to check the Academy of Management award citation which is referenced. If you can find an earlier citation than the 2000 conference paper feel free, there isn't one as that is when the framework first appeared in its current form. As to notability - check the past records it passes on Editorship of a major journal (E:CO) aside from others. I realise that I have created some imagined slight to the Tamara group and your actions here conform with off-wiki threats from others so the actions and the tone of the comments are no great surprise. --Snowded ^TALK 17:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have however taken out the h-index. For a start it is not used in the lede of any comparable article. Secondly the bulk of my referenced papers are co-authored and that is an issue for that index. I think two Academy of Management awards aren't bad for someone who operates outside of mainstream academic life, but you may not. --Snowded ^TALK 17:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, are you really sure that calling my edits a vandalism is not a personal attack? Please refrain from such comments in the future. The insinuation that I supposedly take part in some organized movement against you is completely false and I treat it again as an ungrounded personal attack. I am not aware of, and not a part of any off-wiki threats you may be receiving and I find it disturbing that you asperse such accusations. Now, per your comments, which aren't personal:

1. pardon my ignorance, but I can't locate the Academy of Management award (which link do you mean?). Feel free to add it if it is missing and quote Cynefin primacy, I'm not saying it is not a fact, only that it is unsourced.
2. My objections to the conference paper are based on the fact that most conference papers do not satisfy full academic review criteria, I do not object to the content. I think it still would be better to refer to the first appearance of the notion in a regular publication.
3. Per editorship - the described journal cannot be considered major. It has h-index of 7, while any journal from Journal Citation Report list would be above 21-23 at least. So this clearly is not a claim to your automatic notability (yet), even though naturally adds to the general critical mass of possibly notable things.
4. Per personal h-index - you are mistaken that co-authored papers are not counted, they count just as single authored ones (compare with Publish or Perish if you want to). Still since it is not a common practice to give h-index in academic biograms, I'm not insisting on keeping it. Pundit|utter 19:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• One more thing - even one Academy of Management award is very impressive, but this article does not say anything about it. Please, add this important info (in my view, quite honestly, it is determining about notability - in fact I thought the described person is probably borderline non-notable, but I wasn't going to make a big fuss about it. Now, the awards are prestigious and should be mentioned, and they dissipate my doubts). Pundit|utter 19:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, I found a source for the HBR article award, please add the other one - these are possibly more important than others and definitely significantly add to notability. Pundit|utter 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll hunt it down, it was a special award for original contributions or something like that at the Washington AoM. I'm in Singapore for a week so will have little access until I get back, thanks for adding the more recent one in--Snowded ^TALK 21:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I tidied up the citations (e.g. removed extra links within references). By the way is this book from 1998 (and not 2010): The Land & the Sea, by Kyffin Williams? wcrosbie (talk), Melbourne, Australia 21:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --Snowded ^TALK 21:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is most unfortunate that misleading forms of citation are being introduced to suggest that Snowden was co-author on a serious scholarly peer reviewed article for the Harvard Buisness Review when it was a short piece in the Magazine only which as people very well know is not subject to the same kinds of peer review process and does not carry the same status. Attention must be drawn to this. A university or college would certainly pick up on this. Efforts to avoid correction have been subjected to summary removal by the very subject of the article himself. This is not at all acceptable practice.Sean Staunery (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted again, per WP:BRD. Please don't add it back without consensus. And I, for one, disagree with amending Harvard Buisness Review to magazine. Daicaregos (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Irvine22, I'm not sure why you create a new "Stauner" id every few months and vandalize this or other related articles but I suppose it amuses you. For the sake of any other editor looking at this the HBR is a "little more" than a magazine and a cover article with the whole editorial devoted to it is hardly a short piece. The main notability is the AoM award which is the result of a vigorous peer review process --Snowded ^TALK 10:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Irvine22 seems to be a persistent 'contributors' at this article, and his main preoccupation appears to be to antagonise Snowded, can this page not just be semied? RashersTierney (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. It appears that Irvine22, in the guise of his various permutations based on the Scots slang word for erection, cannot refrain from making sporadic pilgrimages to this page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It is most unfortunate Irivine, that you're continued to be allowed to create socks & harrass an established editor via his Wiki-bio article. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Date MBA granted

The grant date of Snowden's MBA needs to be established. If prior to 1992 then it was in fact granted by Middlesex Polytechnic/CNAA. If after 1992, then the current information for Middlesex University is accurate. The Registrar (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

The article should be protected from banned Irvine22's socks. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Easier said than done. These vanity articles are always low priority for admins. BTW do you know the date Snowden's MBA was granted? The Registrar (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice try Irvine. GoodDay (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No idea if it was pre-1992? The Registrar (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Chief Scientific Officer

This had become linked to Chief Scientific Officer (England) which describes a particular senior position in the UK NHS. (As an aside - is the England in that title accurate? Position seems to be UK wide?). So I've instead linked the CSO title to Chief science officer. This is better, but not perfect. If anyone can create a cleaner solution, have at it! --Quiet Editor (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Link to subject's commercial website requiring registration

I have removed the section headed "External Links " per WP:ELREG as the only link provided was to the subject's commercial website, which requires registration and an annual fee of $249 to access "premium content". Downley Head (talk)

"Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Our NLP supporting SPA is also wrong - the link points to a free set of articles ----Snowded ^TALK 11:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)