My take on Connectivism is that increasing understanding maps to increasing connectedness, as so:
The difference between data and information is understanding the relationships amongst the data; knowns, unknowns, etc. Knowledge consists of understanding the patterns amongst information, and to put knowledge into practice (or praxis) leads to understanding principles. But practice can be good or bad, it is using practice to accomplish a purpose (or telos) that can lead to understanding experiences. But experiences can be good or bad. This graph projects that further increases in understanding then expand more in the direction of connectedness through a concept labeled understanding mesh. Lisa Gansky has a good TED talk on mesh at this link. But, in terms of connectivism, we might look to the wikipedia for a one sentence definition of a mesh network:
Mesh networking (topology) is a type of networking where each node must not only capture and disseminate its own data, but also serve as a relay for other nodes, that is, it must collaborate to propagate the data in the network.
Connectivism makes the most sense to me when I think about it in systems terms.