<?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: Sow, na</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.moronacity.com/blog/2008/12/09/sow-na/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.moronacity.com/blog/2008/12/09/sow-na/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:15:45 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Di</title>
		<link>http://www.moronacity.com/blog/2008/12/09/sow-na/comment-page-1/#comment-419</link>
		<dc:creator>Di</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 04:14:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moronacity.com/blog/?p=551#comment-419</guid>
		<description>Wikipedia was not used as a source.  It was a reference (meaning you should check it out for further information).  In fact, Wikipedia is a spectacular resource.  It basically gives a synopsis on a topic, and if you feel like exploring it further, the sources for that article are listed at the bottom of the article.  Most of the Wikipedia articles have been verified with at least five quite credible sources.

Now, I have read many credible, scientific papers that really aren&#039;t that accurate.  Scientific studies are often skewed and manipulated to make a point.  These are papers with over twenty &quot;credible&quot; sources - basically referencing other papers that have referenced other papers and so on.

While I often do informational posts and recommend good, &quot;credible&quot; internet articles, I prefer to give my readers some credit and think that they are capable of digging deeper - even in Wikipedia articles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wikipedia was not used as a source.  It was a reference (meaning you should check it out for further information).  In fact, Wikipedia is a spectacular resource.  It basically gives a synopsis on a topic, and if you feel like exploring it further, the sources for that article are listed at the bottom of the article.  Most of the Wikipedia articles have been verified with at least five quite credible sources.</p>
<p>Now, I have read many credible, scientific papers that really aren&#8217;t that accurate.  Scientific studies are often skewed and manipulated to make a point.  These are papers with over twenty &#8220;credible&#8221; sources &#8211; basically referencing other papers that have referenced other papers and so on.</p>
<p>While I often do informational posts and recommend good, &#8220;credible&#8221; internet articles, I prefer to give my readers some credit and think that they are capable of digging deeper &#8211; even in Wikipedia articles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: josh</title>
		<link>http://www.moronacity.com/blog/2008/12/09/sow-na/comment-page-1/#comment-417</link>
		<dc:creator>josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:50:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moronacity.com/blog/?p=551#comment-417</guid>
		<description>wikipedia should not be used to as a source. even in a blog post</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>wikipedia should not be used to as a source. even in a blog post</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

