<?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: The precursor to Facebook groups 450 years ago worked much better	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://alexanderchalkidis.com/2012/09/21/precursor-facebook-groups-450-years-worked/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://alexanderchalkidis.com/2012/09/21/precursor-facebook-groups-450-years-worked/</link>
	<description>Personal Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:58:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: admin		</title>
		<link>https://alexanderchalkidis.com/2012/09/21/precursor-facebook-groups-450-years-worked/#comment-17</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:58:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alexanderchalkidis.com/?p=1191#comment-17</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Email from Paul about this article, think it is worthy of bein public!

&quot;Using the power of a community to create something worthwhile is difficult. Sales force Chatter is a case in point: a social media tool for communicating within an organisation or company, it fails to build a body of corporate knowledge and remains as transitory as that swell of noise one hears at a pub: you overhear a snippet that intrigues, but the gist of the conversation is drowned out by your neighbour&#039;s crunchy nuts. Crowdsourcing is the ultimate aim of things like LinkedIn questions, but you are quite dependent on the quality of response given by people who, it seems, do nothing else with their day than respond to the angst of others. What you are describing, perhaps Alex, is more along the lines of an &#039;open&#039; software project than the edited noise of a Wikipedia - something useful, with defined goals, and clever people seconded by interested organisations. On a personal level I am intrigued by the news that Connotate and CrowdSource will be working together to provide competitive intelligence. I wonder if the result will be musical, or as dischordant as the rattle of glasses at the Rose and Crown?&quot;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Email from Paul about this article, think it is worthy of bein public!</p>
<p>&#8220;Using the power of a community to create something worthwhile is difficult. Sales force Chatter is a case in point: a social media tool for communicating within an organisation or company, it fails to build a body of corporate knowledge and remains as transitory as that swell of noise one hears at a pub: you overhear a snippet that intrigues, but the gist of the conversation is drowned out by your neighbour&#8217;s crunchy nuts. Crowdsourcing is the ultimate aim of things like LinkedIn questions, but you are quite dependent on the quality of response given by people who, it seems, do nothing else with their day than respond to the angst of others. What you are describing, perhaps Alex, is more along the lines of an &#8216;open&#8217; software project than the edited noise of a Wikipedia &#8211; something useful, with defined goals, and clever people seconded by interested organisations. On a personal level I am intrigued by the news that Connotate and CrowdSource will be working together to provide competitive intelligence. I wonder if the result will be musical, or as dischordant as the rattle of glasses at the Rose and Crown?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
