Evidence
I work for a very large organization. Our head office routinely sends out directives, instructions and records the activities of the branch offices. In practice, 10% of it is followed, and even less of what goes on is recorded. Should someone want to study and analyze my employer's organization 60 years from now, and relied on the written record, they would get a woefully distorted picture of how things are today. There's a theory that says to understand the past, look to the forces that drive the present.
In my line of work, we rely on 'best evidence' when original evidence is not forthcoming. There's also a 'priority of evidence' rule: physical evidence is most reliable, followed by secondary evidence that reasonably dates to a time when original evidence existed and last, oddly enough, written records. The thinking is that you rely on those things humans are least likely to mistake. I haven't been fired yet so I must be doing something right.
And I don't think it's running off. It's more selecting where you choose to share your knowledge.
|
20-11-09, 13:42
Threaded Mode