<?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: Wikipedia - Is it credible and can we use it?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tech.savvyteachers.com/2007/10/08/wikipedia-is-it-credible-and-can-we-use-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tech.savvyteachers.com/2007/10/08/wikipedia-is-it-credible-and-can-we-use-it/</link>
	<description>Helping Technology Work For You!</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Stephen</title>
		<link>http://tech.savvyteachers.com/2007/10/08/wikipedia-is-it-credible-and-can-we-use-it/comment-page-1/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:55:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.savvyteachers.com/2007/10/08/wikipedia-is-it-credible-and-can-we-use-it/#comment-8</guid>
		<description>I beleive Wikipedia IS trustworthy.    Just because it is written by non-academic researchers and the pages have not been checked by a publishing house editor, does not mean that the people who write the pages are uncreditable.  There are many ordinary people out there who are quite knowledgeable on what is going on in their world.  

Additionally, Wikipedia is good at presenting the truth when something is disputed by disclaiming it and then asking people to discuss and work out the facts.   When this happens, people update the articles.

The other thing I like about Wikipedia is that the pages on issues are very current and regularly updated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I beleive Wikipedia IS trustworthy.    Just because it is written by non-academic researchers and the pages have not been checked by a publishing house editor, does not mean that the people who write the pages are uncreditable.  There are many ordinary people out there who are quite knowledgeable on what is going on in their world.  </p>
<p>Additionally, Wikipedia is good at presenting the truth when something is disputed by disclaiming it and then asking people to discuss and work out the facts.   When this happens, people update the articles.</p>
<p>The other thing I like about Wikipedia is that the pages on issues are very current and regularly updated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.337 seconds -->
