<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Folksonomy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://theryanking.com/entries/2005/05/03/folksonomy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://theryanking.com/entries/2005/05/03/folksonomy/</link>
	<description>Music and Technology, but NO TECHNO!</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 07:10:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: ryan</title>
		<link>http://theryanking.com/entries/2005/05/03/folksonomy/#comment-293</link>
		<dc:creator>ryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2005 06:29:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theryanking.com/blog/archives/2005/05/03/folksonomy/#comment-293</guid>
		<description>Yeah. I wasn't too impressed by the Wikipedia article, myself. Then again, I had read all of this stuff ages ago (where months seem like ages on the Inkernet).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah. I wasn&#8217;t too impressed by the Wikipedia article, myself. Then again, I had read all of this stuff ages ago (where months seem like ages on the Inkernet).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vanderwal</title>
		<link>http://theryanking.com/entries/2005/05/03/folksonomy/#comment-292</link>
		<dc:creator>vanderwal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2005 01:26:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theryanking.com/blog/archives/2005/05/03/folksonomy/#comment-292</guid>
		<description>On the reading list, you may want to discount the Wikipedia entry on Folksonomy as it has been blatantly wrong.  The entry changes with the wind it seems.  All the other entries are rather good.  The best two in this bunch are the Adam Mathes and Joshua Porter articles.  

You may also want to question Technorati as a folksonomy tool as it is not, it is about social tagging but the focus of the tagging is completely wrong.  Folksonomy focuses on the person consuming the information being the person creating the tag not the content creator.  There is a huge difference cognitively on how tagging is approached.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the reading list, you may want to discount the Wikipedia entry on Folksonomy as it has been blatantly wrong.  The entry changes with the wind it seems.  All the other entries are rather good.  The best two in this bunch are the Adam Mathes and Joshua Porter articles.  </p>
<p>You may also want to question Technorati as a folksonomy tool as it is not, it is about social tagging but the focus of the tagging is completely wrong.  Folksonomy focuses on the person consuming the information being the person creating the tag not the content creator.  There is a huge difference cognitively on how tagging is approached.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

