The value of sources
It was during a meeting once near Seattle Washington when a friend posted my hashtag above on Wikipedia. It lacked a valid source so Wikipedia as expected removed it. They, the leaders of Wikipedia, removed a phrase for lack of a source, the ultimate compliment for #Ilackasourceism.
Now, the phrase was meant as more of a way of pointing out that there are many types of information and sources for that information.
· My source: What are the sources you use most? A collection of people, and sources other than people such as Google, Bing or the Encyclopedia?
· Your source: I ask you for help, you reach out to your sources. They are hopefully different than the one’s I’ve already used.
· Shared sources: sources we have in common – so they may get pinged twice.
· Peer reviewed journal or web site
· Internal Knowledge Management System
· External to your organization paid validated information source (Information broker)
· Validated source such as Microsoft, Apple, Google or any published organizational knowledge base
The reality of sources is this we have both a knowledge source I am aware of, and a trusted knowledge source. There are people that when I ask them questions, I trust their answer more than even professional sources. They have a knowledge of my specific situation and apply their knowledge to the question so it is more likely to match my problem. That said, normally 90% of the time I start with a professional source for information.
Source, when consider the three ingest, analyze and consume actually changes the order. Given a trusted source of information you may skip ingest and analyze going straight to consume. Given a non-or new source you may ingest and analyze the data multiple times before consuming. Taking this back to John Boyd’s OODA Loops, the validity of the source impacts orientation of the observation. Trust sources move us quickly to good decisions and actions. Untrusted sources require either a leap of faith, or decrease the speed of the overall decision system.