<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>librarian.net &#187; searcher</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.librarian.net/tag/searcher/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.librarian.net</link>
	<description>putting the rarin back in librarian since 1999</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:37:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Wikipedia vs. Britannica from a librarian perspective.</title>
		<link>http://www.librarian.net/stax/1666/wikipedia-vs-britannica-from-a-librarian-perspective/</link>
		<comments>http://www.librarian.net/stax/1666/wikipedia-vs-britannica-from-a-librarian-perspective/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:34:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jessamyn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[britannica]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[searcher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wikipedia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wikis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.librarian.net/stax/1666</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good article in this month&#8217;s Searcher Magazine comparing and contrasting Wikipedia and Britannica with an eye towards castigating neither. Let’s act like careful, reasonable people. Wikipedia is a great starting point. It’s a lesson in research methodology, a fun way to share expertise, and a groundbreaking new way of working. Its consensus model represents a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good article in this month&#8217;s Searcher Magazine <a href="http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/mar06/berinstein.shtml">comparing and contrasting Wikipedia and Britannica</a> with an eye towards castigating neither.<br />
<blockquote>Let’s act like careful, reasonable people. Wikipedia is a great starting point. It’s a lesson in research methodology, a fun way to share expertise, and a groundbreaking new way of working. Its consensus model represents a shift in management styles and away from hierarchical organization. You might say that Wikipedia is Zen-like. Its ever-changing nature means that when you read it, you are completely in the moment. And its collective brain is like a conscious universe in which we are all one.</p>
<p>Britannica is a different animal. Flawed, yes. Behind the times with regard to non-Western and minority leadership, sure. Indispensable? You betcha.</p></blockquote>
<p> <small>[<a href="http://www.tk421.net/librarylink/">link-o-day</a>]</small></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.librarian.net/stax/1666/wikipedia-vs-britannica-from-a-librarian-perspective/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

