<?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: Syndicated Web ratings - an idea whose time has come?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.citizendium.org/?feed=rss2&#038;p=319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=319</link>
	<description>Weblog about the Citizendium project and its Citizens.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Citizendium Blog &#187; Syndicated Web ratings again</title>
		<link>http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=319#comment-225688</link>
		<dc:creator>Citizendium Blog &#187; Syndicated Web ratings again</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:41:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/07/09/syndicated-web-ratings-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/#comment-225688</guid>
		<description>[...] just had a question for everyone &#8212; has anyone heard that anything like syndicated Web ratings, as described here, was under new or renewed development by [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] just had a question for everyone &#8212; has anyone heard that anything like syndicated Web ratings, as described here, was under new or renewed development by [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Citizendium Blog &#187; Sir Tim endorses syndicated Web ratings</title>
		<link>http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=319#comment-153160</link>
		<dc:creator>Citizendium Blog &#187; Sir Tim endorses syndicated Web ratings</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:41:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/07/09/syndicated-web-ratings-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/#comment-153160</guid>
		<description>[...] Berners-Lee agrees with me   that the Internet really, really needs a Web rating system. It really is an idea whose time has [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Berners-Lee agrees with me   that the Internet really, really needs a Web rating system. It really is an idea whose time has [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George Bigger</title>
		<link>http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=319#comment-125380</link>
		<dc:creator>George Bigger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:41:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/07/09/syndicated-web-ratings-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/#comment-125380</guid>
		<description>What you have introduced is a simple formula for progress based on 1)Collaboration- 2)Consensus- 3)Change (CYCLE). It can have profound impacts that will also be disruptive. 

I might suggest a catch phrase/tag-line: "Simply Profound and Profoundly Disruptive". However to realize those intended results, it may take a new means of collaboration to arrive at consensus that drives sustainable change. 

Online threaded discussions usually tend to 'unravel'. While certain elements of the current Internet are ready, the process infrastructure is lacking to drive social (or business) conversations along a critical path toward results. "Chat won't cause Change - and Rant won't cause Results".

Nothing online (that I am aware of..?):
- captures existing knowledge, 
- measures any (knowledge/solution) gap, 
- analyzes all (solutions) options, 
- develops equitable consensus 
that is ABSOLUTELY necessary before an initiative can be proposed or any cooperation can be engendered. 

As you are suggesting, a cooperative initiative (to create a standard) should be encouraged. I agree, and standards (one of many solutions) should come from and serve toward those who are so 'governed'. Jay Deragon refers to these as  'Socialutions'.

The key to this need, and its solution, resides in:
- an equitable representation of all stakeholders
- who interact within an objective process 
- to identify mutually beneficial options. 

That would at the least require a process designed to:
1. Endear and then acknowledge all stakeholder viewpoints
2. Identify current impacts and desired alternates
3. Uncover root cause by objective consensus 
4. Enable corrective action (by priority/through cooperation)
Certainly nothing that is federated or syndicated is prominent online to support this, yet.

For what it may add to this conversation, I had begun discussing a 4-question problem-solving tool (ASK4). It can be deployed to identify and resolve issues and then to establish, co-manage, and correct or replace whatever processes occur within its ecosystem.     

By its use, knowledge would be syndicated, web sites could become inter-operable and their visitors become active co-managers of a self-correcting system that co-governs their mutually beneficial universe (U-Netted Nations).

Perhaps it is timely to introduce it here, to be used BY the people and FOR the people who are already a part of something larger than us all. 

That’s one of my dreams...perhaps it's a part of yours..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What you have introduced is a simple formula for progress based on 1)Collaboration- 2)Consensus- 3)Change (CYCLE). It can have profound impacts that will also be disruptive. </p>
<p>I might suggest a catch phrase/tag-line: &#8220;Simply Profound and Profoundly Disruptive&#8221;. However to realize those intended results, it may take a new means of collaboration to arrive at consensus that drives sustainable change. </p>
<p>Online threaded discussions usually tend to &#8216;unravel&#8217;. While certain elements of the current Internet are ready, the process infrastructure is lacking to drive social (or business) conversations along a critical path toward results. &#8220;Chat won&#8217;t cause Change - and Rant won&#8217;t cause Results&#8221;.</p>
<p>Nothing online (that I am aware of..?):<br />
- captures existing knowledge,<br />
- measures any (knowledge/solution) gap,<br />
- analyzes all (solutions) options,<br />
- develops equitable consensus<br />
that is ABSOLUTELY necessary before an initiative can be proposed or any cooperation can be engendered. </p>
<p>As you are suggesting, a cooperative initiative (to create a standard) should be encouraged. I agree, and standards (one of many solutions) should come from and serve toward those who are so &#8216;governed&#8217;. Jay Deragon refers to these as  &#8216;Socialutions&#8217;.</p>
<p>The key to this need, and its solution, resides in:<br />
- an equitable representation of all stakeholders<br />
- who interact within an objective process<br />
- to identify mutually beneficial options. </p>
<p>That would at the least require a process designed to:<br />
1. Endear and then acknowledge all stakeholder viewpoints<br />
2. Identify current impacts and desired alternates<br />
3. Uncover root cause by objective consensus<br />
4. Enable corrective action (by priority/through cooperation)<br />
Certainly nothing that is federated or syndicated is prominent online to support this, yet.</p>
<p>For what it may add to this conversation, I had begun discussing a 4-question problem-solving tool (ASK4). It can be deployed to identify and resolve issues and then to establish, co-manage, and correct or replace whatever processes occur within its ecosystem.     </p>
<p>By its use, knowledge would be syndicated, web sites could become inter-operable and their visitors become active co-managers of a self-correcting system that co-governs their mutually beneficial universe (U-Netted Nations).</p>
<p>Perhaps it is timely to introduce it here, to be used BY the people and FOR the people who are already a part of something larger than us all. </p>
<p>That’s one of my dreams&#8230;perhaps it&#8217;s a part of yours..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
