The DOI matches its Crossref record.
WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide an understanding of the WEB 2.0 phenomenon and its implications on knowledge management; thus, in order to learn whether using WEB 2.0 concepts and tools can yield better assimilation of knowledge management in organizations. Design/methodology/approach: A range of recently published articles regarding WEB 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 and KM 2.0 are examined and critiqued (2005‐2007). These are analyzed and compared to knowledge management principles and attributes as known and learned from works defining the sharing of knowledge in organizations (1995‐2005). The sources are divided into three basic elements: The Internet (WEB 2.0), the organizational implementation (Enterprise 2.0) and the organizational implementation of knowledge sharing (KM2.0). Findings: WEB 2.0 is very close in its principles and attributes to knowledge management. WEB 2.0 should affect knowledge management in organizations; yet, it cannot be copied, as differences between the two will not enable organizations to benefit from such. In the first stage, tools can be adopted, and in further stages, deeper aspects such as active users' participation will be followed. Practical implications: Organizations are encouraged to start using WIKI's and in some cases also blogs. Knowledge Managers should examine if younger employees can serve as knowledge catalysts. WEB 2.0 concepts should be tested as to organization's maturity, to decide if they can be adopted as part of the organizational knowledge sharing. Originality/value: This paper analyzes an important issue whether better assimilation of knowledge management can exist triggered by the WEB 2.0 phenomenon. It is unique in its broad analysis of the three related terms – WEB 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 and KM2.0.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a strategic research agenda
von Krogh, G. (2012) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2012.04.003 · Cited by 414
Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies
Paroutis, S., & Al Saleh, A. (2009) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/13673270910971824 · Cited by 395
Factors Affecting Bloggers' Knowledge Sharing: An Investigation Across Gender
Chai, S., Das, S., & Rao, H. R. (2011) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222280309 · Cited by 374
Sivarajah, U., Irani, Z., Gupta, S., & Mahroof, K. (2020) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.04.005 · Cited by 332
Social networking, knowledge sharing, and student learning: The case of university students
Eid, M. I. M., & Al-Jabri, I. M. (2016) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.007 · Cited by 326
Metadata
- Authors
- Levy, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Knowledge Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2009-02-20
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 120-134
- ISSN
- 1367-3270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2124991404
- Cited by
- 409
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 103.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/13673270910931215
- The paper
- Levy, M. (2009). WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910931215
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.