<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Yorker on Wikipedia</title>
	<link>http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/24/new-yorker-on-wikipedia/</link>
	<description>New Media researcher</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:31:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Andrew Lih &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Atlantic on Wikipedia</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/24/new-yorker-on-wikipedia/#comment-1049</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:05:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/07/24/new-yorker-on-wikipedia/#comment-1049</guid>
					<description>[...] This piece, along with the New Yorker piece in July by Stacy Schiff (Know It All), give some of the best reporting on the Wikipedia phenomenon so far. Good historical perspective in both. Some areas that have not been written about much - the dynamics of edit wars, how community consensus is reached and how new policy is proposed and decided. I hope to address these things in my book about Wikipedia. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] This piece, along with the New Yorker piece in July by Stacy Schiff (Know It All), give some of the best reporting on the Wikipedia phenomenon so far. Good historical perspective in both. Some areas that have not been written about much - the dynamics of edit wars, how community consensus is reached and how new policy is proposed and decided. I hope to address these things in my book about Wikipedia. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
