I understand the sentiment but it all seems rather silly to me - especially when KM is far more than just Knowledge Sharing. As I have argued for a long time - KM is not meant to be a descriptive term - its simply a LABEL, a NAME for a diverse collection of practices that seek to 'leverage' knowledge. But the IBM article is well worth a read as to my mind IBM really seem to have understood what KM is all about. See:
IBM now sees organic and unimposed sharing as the biggest agent in the circulation of knowledge. Its stated strategy is to facilitate that sharing, not through any vertically integrated structure but through the empowerment of its many communities and individuals to network as openly and efficiently as possible.