<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Justifying the Value of the Social Web</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.webtastings.net/2007/12/13/justifying-the-value-of-the-social-web/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.webtastings.net/2007/12/13/justifying-the-value-of-the-social-web/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:31:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Pete Shelton</title>
		<link>http://blog.webtastings.net/2007/12/13/justifying-the-value-of-the-social-web/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete Shelton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:25:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webtastings.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/justifying-the-value-of-the-social-web/#comment-2</guid>
		<description>This argument is centered on justifying the social web within research institutions, which like most bureaucracies tend to be very hierarchical and resistant to change. While it is true that the social web is full of what many academics would call &quot;noise,&quot; even their highly conservative peer-review system seems bound for change (albeit slow), hopefully following the lead of Pub Med Central and other open access initiatives.

Many of the tips shared at the end of your post certainly have rung true during a series of weekly Web 2.0 trainings recently held at IFPRI. I would also raise two additional points Chris Addison raised at this September&#039;s Web2fordev conference: the need for organizations to provide staff not only with training but also &quot;play time&quot; to explore new tools and adapt them to their own work, and critical analysis of how these tools and approaches fit into their overall knowledge management strategy. In fact, such top-level buy in is a necessary precursor to keeping pace in a rapidly changing digital age of information. Without it, talking about Web2 in any kind of organizational context just becomes a bunch of hot air...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This argument is centered on justifying the social web within research institutions, which like most bureaucracies tend to be very hierarchical and resistant to change. While it is true that the social web is full of what many academics would call &#8220;noise,&#8221; even their highly conservative peer-review system seems bound for change (albeit slow), hopefully following the lead of Pub Med Central and other open access initiatives.</p>
<p>Many of the tips shared at the end of your post certainly have rung true during a series of weekly Web 2.0 trainings recently held at IFPRI. I would also raise two additional points Chris Addison raised at this September&#8217;s Web2fordev conference: the need for organizations to provide staff not only with training but also &#8220;play time&#8221; to explore new tools and adapt them to their own work, and critical analysis of how these tools and approaches fit into their overall knowledge management strategy. In fact, such top-level buy in is a necessary precursor to keeping pace in a rapidly changing digital age of information. Without it, talking about Web2 in any kind of organizational context just becomes a bunch of hot air&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
