<?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: Unreliability</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sj/unreliability/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sj</link>
	<description>One Longnow per Human</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:50:38 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: No maps for these territories &#187; planning for the future</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sj/unreliability/comment-page-1/#comment-45964</link>
		<dc:creator>No maps for these territories &#187; planning for the future</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:51:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/metasj/unreliability/#comment-45964</guid>
		<description>[...]  A proposal for offering the public validity metrics on the Wikipedia &#8212; which needs some clarification, but is an interesting idea. Evaluation is such a subjective process, that the thought of systemizing it brings up theoretical issues akin to sense-making &#8212; how and under what circumstances do people get value out of information? This assumes, in other words, some measure of objective truth/value/&#8221;goodness&#8221; for any particular article (or rather, category, since the individual article level is way too fine-grained at the moment). Furthermore, the details make my head hurt. Wouldn&#8217;t this require some measure of editorial review that a) would have to be agreed apon, and b) would have to somehow be maintained over time? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  A proposal for offering the public validity metrics on the Wikipedia &#8212; which needs some clarification, but is an interesting idea. Evaluation is such a subjective process, that the thought of systemizing it brings up theoretical issues akin to sense-making &#8212; how and under what circumstances do people get value out of information? This assumes, in other words, some measure of objective truth/value/&#8221;goodness&#8221; for any particular article (or rather, category, since the individual article level is way too fine-grained at the moment). Furthermore, the details make my head hurt. Wouldn&#8217;t this require some measure of editorial review that a) would have to be agreed apon, and b) would have to somehow be maintained over time? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
