This is a straight copy and paste from the excellent blog hosted by Information Today

According to Weinberger, who is a philosopher as well as digerati, weare building a hugely messy web of linked metadata, and knowledge isnow constituted by what's interesting to us, not to an unknown expertor rigid Aristotelian hierarchy of information. Now, user-generatedmetadata completely flips the role of an expert. It flips the basicsfrom limits and experts and filters to a way of ordering that isinclusive and can handle an formerly overwhelming abundance ofinformation. No longer is there a limit on how much information we canhave, and no need to filter it on the way into a system, but only onthe way out, and then by a random group of users whose tracking andtagging converge to form knowledge.Weinberger said knowledge now is defined by:What: What's interesting (to us)How: By talkingWho: EveryoneWhere: In global conversationsWhy: Because we care"Knowledge IS the conversation," Weinberger said, turning upside downthe established frame of reference of most of the knowledge workers inthe audience.

Nancy GarmanInformation Today, Inc.ngarman@infotoday.comTechnorati Tag: oi05

http://www.infotodayblog.com/

see my draft article

http://www.acrobat-services.co.uk/drafts/highwire.html

so there is some new copy to work into this later

Meanwhile there are no easy quotes to use from visiting stands

Highwire Press definitely back the ide of proper academic structures and peer review for journal articles.

Google staff in person have nothing to add to what you can find on or through Google.

However, the idea of knowledge push and knowledge pull makes some kind of sense.