<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wikiality &#8211; Computer geeks don&#8217;t make the best historians</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.goodroi.com/wikiality-computer-geeks-dont-make-the-best-historians/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.goodroi.com/wikiality-computer-geeks-dont-make-the-best-historians/</link>
	<description>Online Profits Are A Good Thing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:15:51 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Matt Gorecki</title>
		<link>http://www.goodroi.com/wikiality-computer-geeks-dont-make-the-best-historians/comment-page-1/#comment-900</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Gorecki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:29:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodroi.com/2006/08/02/wikiality-computer-geeks-dont-make-the-best-historians/#comment-900</guid>
		<description>This is how the history has always been.  History is always written by the winner and that includes all of the historian&#039;s ideas and beliefs.

However, I think Wikipedia is a much better way to write down our history.  Wikipedia introduces some checks and balances into history, whereas the traditional method does not.  How do you know that Christopher Columbus landed in America in 1492?  Because one dead white guy proclaimed it?  (By the way, he didn&#039;t actually make landfall until 1498.)

I trust the Wikipedia method to give me something accurate.  I realize it won&#039;t be 100% accurate, but nothing ever really is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is how the history has always been.  History is always written by the winner and that includes all of the historian&#8217;s ideas and beliefs.</p>
<p>However, I think Wikipedia is a much better way to write down our history.  Wikipedia introduces some checks and balances into history, whereas the traditional method does not.  How do you know that Christopher Columbus landed in America in 1492?  Because one dead white guy proclaimed it?  (By the way, he didn&#8217;t actually make landfall until 1498.)</p>
<p>I trust the Wikipedia method to give me something accurate.  I realize it won&#8217;t be 100% accurate, but nothing ever really is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tricia</title>
		<link>http://www.goodroi.com/wikiality-computer-geeks-dont-make-the-best-historians/comment-page-1/#comment-897</link>
		<dc:creator>Tricia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:13:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodroi.com/2006/08/02/wikiality-computer-geeks-dont-make-the-best-historians/#comment-897</guid>
		<description>On a side note, I don&#039;t think theres a single most article in the wiki thats changed on such a frequent basis as the SEO article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Search_engine_optimization&amp;action=history</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On a side note, I don&#8217;t think theres a single most article in the wiki thats changed on such a frequent basis as the SEO article:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Search_engine_optimization&amp;action=history" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Search_engine_optimization&amp;action=history</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
