…knowledge is IN the connections: This to me has more significance in that it’s not just that there is a connection, but recognizing the tie (strong or weak) within the connection as well.
…knowledge IS the connections: This has less significance to me because it seems that the connection is all that matters, not so much the tie within the connection.
Regardless of the language, I think the point is that connectivism is based on the notion that what we know is a complexed arrangement of connections that is particular to the individual at a particular point in time. The arrangement of connections (e.g., knowledge) is in a constant state of flux; that is, it’s either growing or diminishing on a continuous basis (it never stays the same). I equate this to learning a musical instrument. Back in the day, I used to practice the upright bass for hours, whether preparing for a concert or some music event somewhere. I was well aware that if I was playing – putting forth my best effort – I was improving. If I wasn’t playing, I was becoming a worse bass player. I can say that I´m sure that no one in the rest of the world played the upright bass exactly the way I did (which is a good thing). The same goes for connective knowledge. My understanding of Paris is the capital of France is unique and unlike everyone else’s understanding of the same.
This is why knowledge is not a thing. If it were, I could have found other upright bass players who played exactly the way I did. Wow, what a group that would have been!