<?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: Richard Smith: Multiplicity: the power of the many, or what we can learn from Barcelona FC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/01/02/richard-smith-multiplicity-the-power-of-the-many-or-what-we-can-learn-from-barcelona-fc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/01/02/richard-smith-multiplicity-the-power-of-the-many-or-what-we-can-learn-from-barcelona-fc/</link>
	<description>Just another blogs.bmj.com weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:13:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Collee</title>
		<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/01/02/richard-smith-multiplicity-the-power-of-the-many-or-what-we-can-learn-from-barcelona-fc/#comment-16376</link>
		<dc:creator>John Collee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/?p=23533#comment-16376</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lovely article. Heres a paradox - the internet should foster multiplicity, but it also allows groups of people with a particular mind-set to find a host of people who agree with them - no matter how loopy or marginal their opinions. We&#039;re creating international networks but we&#039;re also creating various massive echo-chambers in which - if you so wish -  you can choose to hear nothing but your own views reflected back at you, and reinforced.
In my own main field of interest - climate change - this takes on a very sinister dimension, with groups of climate deniers,  all of them in furious agreement, hijacking scientific discussions en masse and making proper reasoned debate impossible. How do we mitigate against the passionate intensity of ideologues without resorting to censorship? One bright spot is Wikipedia which seems better them most at filtering out misinformed ranting. Many discussion fora would benefit from their techniques of benign oversight.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lovely article. Heres a paradox &#8211; the internet should foster multiplicity, but it also allows groups of people with a particular mind-set to find a host of people who agree with them &#8211; no matter how loopy or marginal their opinions. We&#8217;re creating international networks but we&#8217;re also creating various massive echo-chambers in which &#8211; if you so wish &#8211;  you can choose to hear nothing but your own views reflected back at you, and reinforced.<br />
In my own main field of interest &#8211; climate change &#8211; this takes on a very sinister dimension, with groups of climate deniers,  all of them in furious agreement, hijacking scientific discussions en masse and making proper reasoned debate impossible. How do we mitigate against the passionate intensity of ideologues without resorting to censorship? One bright spot is Wikipedia which seems better them most at filtering out misinformed ranting. Many discussion fora would benefit from their techniques of benign oversight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
