I want this article to be correct because it would validate my failed attempts at knowledge management. But I can't say that it isn't just some random person st

I want this article to be correct because it would validate my failed attempts at knowledge management. But I can't say that it isn't just some random person stridently arguing against the positions of a bunch of other random people. (And the author has the disadvantage that they totally misused the "bull in a china shop" metaphor...) I certainly find it believable that people will fetishize knowledge graphing, because it's something I would do: spend lots of time to produce something sophisticated and fancy and utterly useless for real-world impact. But the abuses of people like me don't disprove the value. And the argument that it won't magically do some things, like derive the importance of specific bits of data, doesn't prove that it won't do other things. Anything we produce or decide is based on a substrate of information, sort of a soil in which ideas and conclusions can grow. It doesn't seem ridiculous that it could be beneficial to take some intentional action to enrich that soil. Just don't expect that it's going to produce amazing results all by itself; I agree with the author that willful linearization and filtering is critical when you're trying to make something out of it.