<?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: &#8220;Benign,&#8221; he says</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080810/benign-he-says/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080810/benign-he-says/</link>
	<description>It's only a website... it's only a website...</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:04:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ray Girvan</title>
		<link>http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080810/benign-he-says/#comment-1798</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray Girvan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:27:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wikipediareview.com/blog/?p=116#comment-1798</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;extremely effective vehicle for Western cultural and technological hegemony&lt;/i&gt;

Another aspect to be questioned is having a global information source whose content is shaped by a battleground that favours the most energetic and persistent editors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>extremely effective vehicle for Western cultural and technological hegemony</i></p>
<p>Another aspect to be questioned is having a global information source whose content is shaped by a battleground that favours the most energetic and persistent editors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: An</title>
		<link>http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080810/benign-he-says/#comment-1792</link>
		<dc:creator>An</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wikipediareview.com/blog/?p=116#comment-1792</guid>
		<description>Was Moulton banned for his criticism at Oct. 2, 2008 of WR staff? Was his post deleted; moved to a non-public forum, or what? Sorry, for the OT, but how else can one communicate anonymously (safely) with WR staff?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was Moulton banned for his criticism at Oct. 2, 2008 of WR staff? Was his post deleted; moved to a non-public forum, or what? Sorry, for the OT, but how else can one communicate anonymously (safely) with WR staff?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moulton</title>
		<link>http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080810/benign-he-says/#comment-1775</link>
		<dc:creator>Moulton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:14:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wikipediareview.com/blog/?p=116#comment-1775</guid>
		<description>The distinguished CBS News journalist, Eric Sevareid, made a similar observation that is now called The Sevareid Effect.

He observed that every solution introduced to solve the pressing problems of the day creates a whole new set of problems that will have to be solved in the future.  

More to the point, those downstream problems are typically not anticipated or minimized, because political processes generally fail to employ the caliber of systems thinking and model-based reasoning that would have led to devising best practices (rather than haphazard, ad hoc, and ill-advised short-term solutions).

In Medicine, a new treatment is not approved unless and until doctors are confident the new treatment is not iatrogenic -- not likely to exacerbate or spread the disease they are trying to cure.

In politics, nearly all solutions are ridiculously and transparently iatrogenic, for reasons that political animals rarely seem able to learn.

(Actually, if one does learn it, one ceases to be a political animal and evolves up the ladder to become more like a real scientist and systems thinker).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The distinguished CBS News journalist, Eric Sevareid, made a similar observation that is now called The Sevareid Effect.</p>
<p>He observed that every solution introduced to solve the pressing problems of the day creates a whole new set of problems that will have to be solved in the future.  </p>
<p>More to the point, those downstream problems are typically not anticipated or minimized, because political processes generally fail to employ the caliber of systems thinking and model-based reasoning that would have led to devising best practices (rather than haphazard, ad hoc, and ill-advised short-term solutions).</p>
<p>In Medicine, a new treatment is not approved unless and until doctors are confident the new treatment is not iatrogenic &#8212; not likely to exacerbate or spread the disease they are trying to cure.</p>
<p>In politics, nearly all solutions are ridiculously and transparently iatrogenic, for reasons that political animals rarely seem able to learn.</p>
<p>(Actually, if one does learn it, one ceases to be a political animal and evolves up the ladder to become more like a real scientist and systems thinker).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
