That's right. All of these are practices. And except for the rare instances of pure single-actor practices, where the actors need no external support to do their work, practitioners succeed by taking advantage of both formal business functions and an informal network of colleagues -- a community, to use a more old-fashioned term.
Communities form around shared interests and sustain themselves on trust. Their members need to interact as human beings, not as robotic repositories of skills, knowledge, and experience. Back in the last century, employees sustained their communities through water-cooler conversations about sports, hobbies, movies, television programs, and general-purpose gossip.
But although few companies have trimmed water coolers as a cost-cutting move (so far), an increasing number range from housing employees in multiple locations to being entirely virtual. Some community members might actually be able to meet and chat in real time. Far more can't because they're across town, in a different state, or standing upside down in a time zone 12 hours away, relying on gravity to keep them from falling off the earth (bet you weren't expecting a physics lesson, were you?).
All of which explains why most of the last-century attempts at implementing knowledge management systems failed dismally. It also explains why, if companies are to have any hope of leveraging the knowledge currently trapped in individual heads (including those that are habitually upside down), they need internal social networks.
Companies that tried to institute knowledge management generally viewed it as a process -- a series of steps employees were supposed to follow to make what they knew available to other employees through the use of the knowledge management system. Because companies defined it as a process -- whose purpose was to benefit the company -- they failed to pay attention to the radio station all employees listen to on their way to work in the morning. In case you don't know this old joke, it's WIIFM: what's in it for me.
In fact, it was worse than ignoring WIIFM, because many of these same companies jumped into the lean-and-mean movement (correct, award-winning translation: "famished and feeble") with both feet at more or less the same time.
All this left employees wondering how it was that a company that was busily cutting staff and adding to the workload of those who remained expected them to add more to their workload by spending time they no longer had sharing what they knew so as to make themselves more expendable than they obviously were already.
Knowledge management wasn't a bad idea. It was an excellent idea, trapped in impersonal implementations built around the unreasonable expectation of employee altruism.