Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a23a5235bd9f24ce

Jump to content

Talk:Organizational memory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 11 years ago by BrianOrr2020 in topic Definition of organizational memory

Plagiarism?

[edit]

There is a lot of common content between this article and another paper. Christian Campbell (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

May also be self-publishing; either way, needs copy editing and verification of the references to ensure this is not original research. Harvey the rabbit (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Definition of organizational memory

[edit]

This article defines org memory in terms of data, information and knowledge. Meanwhile the article on Corporate amnesia defines organizational memory as "the unrecorded event-specific, organization-specific and time-specific ‘how’ of know-how that characterizes any organization's ability to perform". Can either of these apparently conflicting definitions be reliably sourced? --Cat4567nip (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The definition is inadequate. I added a reference to Kenneth Megill's book on Corporate Memory which is published by the oldest academic press in Germany and has come out in two editions and been translated into Serbo-Croation. I think the decision to merge corporate memory and organisational memory may have been ill-advised.

BrianOrr2020 (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Copy edit

[edit]

Completed a copy edit. Moved refs to footnote style in an attempt to make the article less confusing. Despite my best efforts, the text is still pretty impenetrable to the lay reader, and sounds like a business treatise, not an encyclopedia entry. It would be great if a topic expert could contribute more information and rewrite the article in a more accessible fashion. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply