<?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: Chris Anderson admits to &#8220;screwup&#8221; that led to unattributed passages in his latest book</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.regrettheerror.com/2009/06/26/chris-anderson-admits-to-screwup-that-led-to-unattributed-passages-in-his-latest-book/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.regrettheerror.com/2009/06/26/chris-anderson-admits-to-screwup-that-led-to-unattributed-passages-in-his-latest-book/</link>
	<description>Mistakes Happen</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:06:26 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: devika_melora</title>
		<link>http://www.regrettheerror.com/2009/06/26/chris-anderson-admits-to-screwup-that-led-to-unattributed-passages-in-his-latest-book/comment-page-1/#comment-22549</link>
		<dc:creator>devika_melora</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:38:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.regrettheerror.com/?p=8427#comment-22549</guid>
		<description>Not to mention, what non-fiction author (especially a tech writer) would use Wikipedia as a definitive source? The entries are notoriously error-laden. And for that matter, what kind of author/researcher would cite a secondary source rather than seeking out the primary source (if available)? Even if a writer stumbles upon some interesting tidbit in Wikipedia, they should at least go to the reference linked to it to verify. The citations are linked right next to the information, for Pete&#039;s sake! I love(d) Wired mag, but I call BS on Chris Anderson&#039;s explanation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not to mention, what non-fiction author (especially a tech writer) would use Wikipedia as a definitive source? The entries are notoriously error-laden. And for that matter, what kind of author/researcher would cite a secondary source rather than seeking out the primary source (if available)? Even if a writer stumbles upon some interesting tidbit in Wikipedia, they should at least go to the reference linked to it to verify. The citations are linked right next to the information, for Pete&#39;s sake! I love(d) Wired mag, but I call BS on Chris Anderson&#39;s explanation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: proscriptus</title>
		<link>http://www.regrettheerror.com/2009/06/26/chris-anderson-admits-to-screwup-that-led-to-unattributed-passages-in-his-latest-book/comment-page-1/#comment-22546</link>
		<dc:creator>proscriptus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.regrettheerror.com/?p=8427#comment-22546</guid>
		<description>Why would any reputable editor allow their author to cite Wikipedia in the first place?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why would any reputable editor allow their author to cite Wikipedia in the first place?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
