In reading the Buckland article, Information As Thing, and the Meadow reading, Data, Information, and Knowledge, I was surprised by how ambiguous the concept of “information” really is. It is difficult to define. The Buckland article explores information as a process, as knowledge, and as a thing. Each of these uses of “information” is valid way to define the concept. The Meadow reading defines information more along the lines that it is data, which has been made meaningful. It recognizes that what constitutes “information” is subjective, and depends on context. Meadow uses the example of horse number 5 winning the race as information, if the race is honest. However, horse number 5 winning the race would not be information if the race was “fixed”, to the person who fixed the race. That person’s knowledge hasn’t changed because there was no discovery.
All of the definitions, from both readings, are true. Information is a process. It is both knowledge and a thing. It does depend on context and the subjectivity of the individual. Also, isn’t how data, or knowledge, is organized what makes it meaningful, and therefore, what makes it information?