<?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: Google&#8217;s latest idea! GooglePedia!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16488/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16488</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:59:30 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16488/comment-page-1#comment-628728</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:42:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16488#comment-628728</guid>
		<description>I agree.  Anyway, it will be another good source that we can use to make Wikipedia better.  Wikipedia folks are always looking for good reliable sources, and it sounds as though this project may qualify.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree.  Anyway, it will be another good source that we can use to make Wikipedia better.  Wikipedia folks are always looking for good reliable sources, and it sounds as though this project may qualify.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16488/comment-page-1#comment-626809</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:16:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16488#comment-626809</guid>
		<description>Competition is always a good thing. If google can do a better job than wikipedia, then I say fine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Competition is always a good thing. If google can do a better job than wikipedia, then I say fine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Chapin</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16488/comment-page-1#comment-624770</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Chapin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:32:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16488#comment-624770</guid>
		<description>Hi Jon, 

&quot;“Our goal is to encourage people who know a particular subject to write an authoritative article about it,” continues Udi Manber, VP engineering on the the Google blog.  That looks familiar. Like, isn’t that what Wikipedia does?&quot;

Actually, no it is not.  Wikipedia has a standing order against &quot;Original Research&quot;, as they call it.  In effect they limit their content to information that can be verified through other websites.

And Wikipedia certainly has its problems.  I would enjoy seeing Google give them a run for their (donated) money.

Ciao
Robert Chapin
Chapin Information Services, Inc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jon, </p>
<p>&#8220;“Our goal is to encourage people who know a particular subject to write an authoritative article about it,” continues Udi Manber, VP engineering on the the Google blog.  That looks familiar. Like, isn’t that what Wikipedia does?&#8221;</p>
<p>Actually, no it is not.  Wikipedia has a standing order against &#8220;Original Research&#8221;, as they call it.  In effect they limit their content to information that can be verified through other websites.</p>
<p>And Wikipedia certainly has its problems.  I would enjoy seeing Google give them a run for their (donated) money.</p>
<p>Ciao<br />
Robert Chapin<br />
Chapin Information Services, Inc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
