<?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: Dan Gillmor breaks down the exploitative side of participatory culture</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thelearnedfangirl.com/2008/01/31/dan-gillmor-breaks-down-the-exploitative-side-of-participatory-culture/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thelearnedfangirl.com/2008/01/31/dan-gillmor-breaks-down-the-exploitative-side-of-participatory-culture/</link>
	<description>a critical take on online culture and social media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:03:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Emily Barney</title>
		<link>http://thelearnedfangirl.com/2008/01/31/dan-gillmor-breaks-down-the-exploitative-side-of-participatory-culture/#comment-26</link>
		<dc:creator>Emily Barney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thelearnedfangirl.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/dan-gillmor-breaks-down-the-exploitative-side-of-participatory-culture/#comment-26</guid>
		<description>Michael Arrington&#039;s been complaining about &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/07/facebook-turns-1500-users-into-spanish-translation-slaves/&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Facebook using this strategy&lt;/a&gt; lately, but as the comments below that post point out, it&#039;s been around for a long time. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I&#039;ve been watching them work it out on &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/12/fifteen-new-languages.php&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;LibraryThing&lt;/a&gt; for the last few months - for small sites that make it clear they don&#039;t have the staff or money to do such things but do want to make themselves useful, it seems to work pretty well. They have recently &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.librarything.com/blog/2008/01/librarything-in-hindi.php&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hired a translator&lt;/a&gt; for Hindi, which they hadn&#039;t been able to figure out with the group translation work. As they make clear in their &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/12/librarything-in-hebrew-with-hebrew.php&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Hebrew language post&lt;/a&gt;, enthusiasts can help them expand in new areas very quickly, but also take on projects that aren&#039;t financially feasible. There&#039;s a whole &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.librarything.com/groups/translationissuesgen&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;group devoted to translation issues&lt;/a&gt; too, helping to make it very collaborative. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I think it bothers me on sites like facebook a lot more than sites like LibraryThing, simply because facebook is becoming so much more commercial and impersonal, while LibraryThing continues to be very open to user feedback (&lt;a HTTP://WWW.LIBRARYTHING.COM/BLOG/2008/02/WSJ-DOES-LIBRARYTHING.PHP HREF=&quot;&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;even checking on site design issues)&lt;/a&gt;. Where is that &quot;taking advantage of the user&quot; and where is that showing respect for the user?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael Arrington&#8217;s been complaining about <a HREF="http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/07/facebook-turns-1500-users-into-spanish-translation-slaves/" REL="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Facebook using this strategy</a> lately, but as the comments below that post point out, it&#8217;s been around for a long time. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been watching them work it out on <a HREF="http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/12/fifteen-new-languages.php" REL="nofollow" rel="nofollow">LibraryThing</a> for the last few months &#8211; for small sites that make it clear they don&#8217;t have the staff or money to do such things but do want to make themselves useful, it seems to work pretty well. They have recently <a HREF="http://www.librarything.com/blog/2008/01/librarything-in-hindi.php" REL="nofollow" rel="nofollow">hired a translator</a> for Hindi, which they hadn&#8217;t been able to figure out with the group translation work. As they make clear in their <a HREF="http://www.librarything.com/blog/2007/12/librarything-in-hebrew-with-hebrew.php" REL="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Hebrew language post</a>, enthusiasts can help them expand in new areas very quickly, but also take on projects that aren&#8217;t financially feasible. There&#8217;s a whole <a HREF="http://www.librarything.com/groups/translationissuesgen" REL="nofollow" rel="nofollow">group devoted to translation issues</a> too, helping to make it very collaborative. </p>
<p>I think it bothers me on sites like facebook a lot more than sites like LibraryThing, simply because facebook is becoming so much more commercial and impersonal, while LibraryThing continues to be very open to user feedback (<a HTTP://WWW.LIBRARYTHING.COM/BLOG/2008/02/WSJ-DOES-LIBRARYTHING.PHP HREF="" REL="nofollow" rel="nofollow">even checking on site design issues)</a>. Where is that &#8220;taking advantage of the user&#8221; and where is that showing respect for the user?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

