<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (Vaguery)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from Vaguery</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.adamhyde.net/federated-publishing/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://indalogenesis.com/2014/01/08/whose-knowledge/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/12/19/complete-2012-roundup/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/2012/07/introducing-future-perfect.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://scienceoftheinvisible.blogspot.com/2012/03/mapping-republic-of-letters.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2011/11/16/free-ride-digital-parasites-robert-levine/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2011/08/26/the-performativity-of-networks-2/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.foundhistory.org/2010/12/02/stuff-digital-humanists-like/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4270"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://davecormier.com/edblog/2008/06/03/rhizomatic-education-community-as-curriculum"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://zenpundit.com/?p=3348"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2010/02/how-to-split-up-the-us.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/2010/01/reshaping-relationships-through-passion.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://p2pfoundation.net/Main_Page"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="https://www.adamhyde.net/federated-publishing/">
    <title>Federated Publishing – Adam Hyde</title>
    <dc:date>2022-04-30T14:35:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.adamhyde.net/federated-publishing/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[What we need is a federated architecture for online book production and publishing. Anyone should be able to set up their own online book production/publishing service and share books with other book production/publishing networks, enabling anyone to reuse any book, anywhere.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing federated-architecture Fediverse distributed-architecture network-culture to-write-about consider:vaguepress</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:76500ba5d65c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:federated-architecture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Fediverse"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:distributed-architecture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:vaguepress"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://indalogenesis.com/2014/01/08/whose-knowledge/">
    <title>Without people there is no knowledge | In the Flow</title>
    <dc:date>2014-01-31T14:07:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://indalogenesis.com/2014/01/08/whose-knowledge/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[While there is clearly a need to maintain corporate information, managing records effectively to help with decision making and to meet statutory compliance, companies need to recognise the necessity and power of shared knowledge too. The first step is to recognise the importance and centrality of their people to knowledge management. The next is to embrace the concept of knowledge residing in the network rather than with any one individual. Companies need to encourage their knowledge workers to cultivate relationships, building networks of contacts through both their physical and online interactions. As Harold Jarche observes in a recent Change Agents Worldwide post on The Network Era, ‘Knowledge in a network is about connecting experiences, relationships, and situations.’

People need to know who to turn to rather than have all the answers themselves. They have to accept that relationship management is inextricably linked to knowledge management in the network era.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>network-culture knowledge business-culture knowledge-management admonition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:68a8553704c6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:knowledge"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:business-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:knowledge-management"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:admonition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/12/19/complete-2012-roundup/">
    <title>Complete 2012 Roundup</title>
    <dc:date>2012-12-19T14:40:36+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/12/19/complete-2012-roundup/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Writing as a Calling: Take Two

I now understand the difference between writing as a calling and writing as a hobby. Most educated and reasonably smart people can pull off an occasional piece of good writing, just as every home cook can pull off a great meal once in a while. The challenge for someone making a living off writing is to do so consistently, week after week, through good moods and bad, through inspiration peaks and troughs. It is exactly the challenge faced by an executive chef.

Last year, in The Calculus of Grit, I noted that while number of words written is the key metric for all writers, the difference between experienced and inexperienced writers is not the number of words written, but rewriting capacity. 

Beginners generally find it hard to even see where improvements can be made in a chunk of text, let alone deploy an arsenal of techniques to actually make those improvements.  As you write more and more, somewhere around the 500,000 word mark, you find that both your “first dump” quality and time spent rewriting are steadily going up. Within a few years of consistently sitting down week after week to write for public consumption (though these days I often use a standing desk), you find that your first draft quality usually beats the final draft quality of many beginning writers, and that you are also then able to spend 4x more time improving it, without running out of ideas. As you progress, you find that your quality even under extreme stress, and while drunk, starts to beat many beginner efforts.

All that still holds true, but this year, I think I figured out how to thoughtfully connect inner growth as a writer to external validation. It is not enough for your internal compass to tell you that you are improving. You need to be able to hit the external target you want consistently as well. The inner compass remains primary, but the external hit rate helps you keep it calibrated. What you measure varies depending on your intentions, but you do need to assess whether a piece worked the way you intended it to.

The big danger is being tempted into seeking a 100% hit rate of external success in terms of traffic and reader appreciation. This means you focus on repeating the formulas that you already know how to work well, and give up on all the experimentation. Which is where both the personal growth and surprise hits come from."]]></description>
<dc:subject>worklife experiment writing blogging cultural-engineering personal-brand portfolio-lives network-culture</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:084e60a1708d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:experiment"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:writing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:blogging"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-engineering"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:personal-brand"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:portfolio-lives"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/2012/07/introducing-future-perfect.html">
    <title>stevenberlinjohnson.com: Introducing Future Perfect</title>
    <dc:date>2012-08-13T14:20:23+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/2012/07/introducing-future-perfect.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The funny thing about this new movement was that it didn’t readily fit the categories of either political party in the US. Because it favored decentralized, bottom-up solutions, it broke with the statist, Big Government solutions of the Left, and yet it looked nothing like the free market religion of the libertarian Right. And it wasn’t the moderate’s safe middle ground between those two poles. It was something altogether new. And more that that, it was a political worldview with a real track record of practical success. In an age of great disillusionment with current institutions, I thought, here were individuals and groups that could inspire us, in part because they had attached themselves to a new kind of institution, more network than hierarchy--more like the Internet itself than the older models of Big Capital or Big Government."]]></description>
<dc:subject>network-culture economics popularization progressivism-by-the-net-door anarchism I-remember-trying-to-get-Steve-to-say-the-A-word-and-failing</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:a6e13790bb0f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:popularization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:progressivism-by-the-net-door"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:anarchism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:I-remember-trying-to-get-Steve-to-say-the-A-word-and-failing"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://scienceoftheinvisible.blogspot.com/2012/03/mapping-republic-of-letters.html">
    <title>Science of the Invisible: Mapping the Republic of Letters</title>
    <dc:date>2012-03-21T11:32:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://scienceoftheinvisible.blogspot.com/2012/03/mapping-republic-of-letters.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[It is time to suppress this sort of research. If we're not careful, people will start looking at contemporary dynamics. Please have your Posterity Docent initiate Elephant Protocol Mu now.

Also: I want the little bead-flow animations.]]></description>
<dc:subject>network-culture history enlightenment correspondence</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:5ba9c5c6fdd6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:enlightenment"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:correspondence"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2011/11/16/free-ride-digital-parasites-robert-levine/">
    <title>Free Ride: Digital Parasites and the Fight for the Business of Culture | Brain Pickings</title>
    <dc:date>2011-11-28T13:10:32+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2011/11/16/free-ride-digital-parasites-robert-levine/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["For my part, I started Brain Pickings more than six years ago as what’s commonly referred to as a “passion project” (though I don’t like the fleeting noncommittal relationship this phrasing suggests) and didn’t have a business model — but I did have a crystal-clear editorial model, which remains the same today: get people interested in meaningful cross-disciplinary things they didn’t yet know they were interested in, and in the process empower their networked knowledge and combinatorial creativity; break out of the filter bubble, if you will, though conceived long before we had the very vocabulary to articulate it. So when an aggregator like the Huffington Post, a business-model wolf wearing an editorial-authenticity sheep’s skin, takes my (ad-free) content and regurgitates it on its (ad-plastered) site, it lives up to the term “parasite” at the heart of Levine’s argument, derived from the Greek parasitos and used to describe “someone who ate at someone else’s table without providing anything in return.”"]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing disintermediation reintermediation intellectual-property creativity collaboration network-culture</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:b8606d77c60c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:reintermediation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:intellectual-property"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:creativity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:collaboration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2011/08/26/the-performativity-of-networks-2/">
    <title>The Performativity of Networks - Kieran Healy</title>
    <dc:date>2011-11-26T15:03:14+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2011/08/26/the-performativity-of-networks-2/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The “performativity thesis” is the claim that parts of contemporary economics and finance, when carried out into the world by professionals and popularizers, reformat and reorganize the phenomena they purport to describe, in ways that bring the world into line with theory. Practical technologies, calculative devices and portable algorithms give actors tools to implement particular models of action. I argue that social network analysis is performative in the same sense as the cases studied in this literature. Social network analysis and finance theory are similar in key aspects of their development and effects. For the case of economics, evidence for weaker versions of the performativity thesis in quite good, and the strong formulation is circumstantially supported. Network theory easily meets the evidential threshold for the weaker versions; I offer empirical examples that support the strong (or “Barnesian”) formulation. Whether these parallels are a mark in favor of the thesis or a strike against it is an open question. I argue that the social network technologies and models now being “performed” build out systems of generalized reciprocity, connectivity, and commons-based production. This is in contrast both to an earlier network imagery that emphasized self-interest and entrepreneurial exploitation of structural opportunities, and to the model of action typically considered to be performed by economic technologies."]]></description>
<dc:subject>network-theory network-culture economics cultural-dynamics theory-and-practice-sitting-in-a-tree</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:9b8935637b16/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:theory-and-practice-sitting-in-a-tree"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.foundhistory.org/2010/12/02/stuff-digital-humanists-like/">
    <title>Stuff Digital Humanists Like: Defining Digital Humanities by its Values</title>
    <dc:date>2011-05-20T12:09:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.foundhistory.org/2010/12/02/stuff-digital-humanists-like/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Here are five to start us off:

Like: Twitter / Don’t like: Facebook. The first thing we have to mention, which we have mentioned a few times already, is Twitter. The reasons we like Twitter are complex and I won’t pretend to understand them all, but I’ll throw out a few suggestions. First, its “follow” rather than “friend” model is more open, allows for the collaboration and non-hierarchy that the Internet and digital humanities values. Second, and related to this, Twitter is the place where content-creators—journalists, writers, artists, web developers, etc.—tend to hang out. We overlap with those communities, or at least seek to overlap with them, in productive ways. They are the distant nodes from which we hope new innovations will come. Third, Twitter, in the way we use it, is mostly about sharing ideas whereas Facebook is about sharing relationships. Scholars are good at ideas, maybe less so at relationships.
Like: Agile development / Dislike: long planning cycles. The second thing I’ll mention is agile development, the philosophy of “releasing early and often,” which we do not only with software/code but also with our ideas and writing when we Tweet, blog, and chat. We do this as good neighbors but also in the hope that releasing our code and ideas will improve with contributions from end points of our networks.
Like: DIY / Dislike: Outsourcing. Most of the most successful digital humanities projects are those done by scholar/technologists not those imagined by scholars and implemented by technologists. Likewise, the most successful digital humanists are scholars who know the technology, often those who are self-taught, not ones who seek a client-vendor relationship with technologists. We take this insight to heart in our hiring at CHNM, looking for people with formal training in the humanities and self-taught tech skills.
Like: PHP / Dislike: C++. Fourth, and following from the last point, we like PHP not C++. This is another way of saying we like the transparent, easy-to-learn, and simple (if sometimes ham-handed) technologies of the Web more than the more powerful, more sophisticated, more elegant, but less approachable compiled code of the desktop. A focus on getting the most out of simple, transparent, vernacular technologies allows us to keep the door to the field open to new entrants.
Like: Extramural funding / Dislike: Intramural funding. In one respect, this may seem obvious: everybody likes grants. In another respect it’s probably going a little too far to say we don’t like intramural funding: it is essential to building and maintaining capacity for our centers and staff. But it seems to me the most successful digital humanities projects are those that result from competitive grant making processes, especially the federal grant making process. Why is this? I can point to at least three reasons: 1) Attracting grant money keeps us innovating, which, like it or not, is a premium in our business. Grants are given for new work, not for more of the same. 2) Writing grants and serving on panels keep us in conversation with the field. We have to keep current and keep in touch with one another to justify our projects to grantmakers and to recommend others’ projects for funding. Increasingly, funding guidelines themselves require collaboration. 3) Unlike much traditional scholarship, which often requires one big deliverable (a book) after years of close-kept study, research, and writing, grant work requires defining and meeting a set of closely timed, concrete deliverables, a mode of work which encourages the kind of agile development so valued by the Internet and digital humanities community."]]></description>
<dc:subject>digital-humanities cultural-norms open-access openness network-culture</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:7fdcea57e1d2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:digital-humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:openness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4270">
    <title>[1006.4270] Two-dimensional ranking of Wikipedia articles</title>
    <dc:date>2010-06-28T22:14:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4270</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The Library of Babel, described by Jorge Luis Borges, stores an enormous amount of information. The Library exists {\it ab aeterno}. Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia, becomes a modern analogue of such a Library. Information retrieval and ranking of Wikipedia articles become the challenge of modern society. We analyze the properties of two-dimensional ranking of all Wikipedia English articles and show that it gives their reliable classification with rich and nontrivial features. Detailed studies are done for countries, universities, personalities, physicists, chess players, Dow-Jones companies and other categories."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>wikipedia search-engines multiobjective-optimization network-theory network-culture</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:049d5833c117/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:wikipedia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:search-engines"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:multiobjective-optimization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://davecormier.com/edblog/2008/06/03/rhizomatic-education-community-as-curriculum">
    <title>Rhizomatic Education : Community as Curriculum @ Dave’s Educational Blog</title>
    <dc:date>2010-05-17T18:53:39+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://davecormier.com/edblog/2008/06/03/rhizomatic-education-community-as-curriculum</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["In the rhizomatic model of learning, curriculum is not driven by predefined inputs from experts; it is constructed and negotiated in real time by the contributions of those engaged in the learning process. This community acts as the curriculum, spontaneously shaping, constructing, and reconstructing itself and the subject of its learning in the same way that the rhizome responds to changing environmental conditions…"
]]></description>
<dc:subject>education pedagogy generalism agility academic-culture social-norms network-culture</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:d03ff3470e7b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:education"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:pedagogy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:generalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:agility"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://zenpundit.com/?p=3348">
    <title>zenpundit.com » Blog Archive » Arquilla on the New Rules of War</title>
    <dc:date>2010-02-25T23:20:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://zenpundit.com/?p=3348</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA['These developments suggest that the United States is spending huge amounts of money in ways that are actually making Americans less secure, not only against irregular insurgents, but also against smart countries building different sorts of militaries. And the problem goes well beyond weapons and other high-tech items. What’s missing most of all from the U.S. military’s arsenal is a deep understanding of networking, the loose but lively interconnection between people that creates and brings a new kind of collective intelligence, power, and purpose to bear — for good and ill…..”'
]]></description>
<dc:subject>war social-dynamics military tactics planning strategy it's-more-complicated-than-you-think network-culture network-thinking American-cultural-assumptions</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:599aa972df7a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:war"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:military"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:tactics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:planning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:strategy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:it's-more-complicated-than-you-think"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-thinking"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:American-cultural-assumptions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2010/02/how-to-split-up-the-us.html">
    <title>PeteSearch: How to split up the US</title>
    <dc:date>2010-02-10T14:35:04+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2010/02/how-to-split-up-the-us.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Stretching from New York to Minnesota, this belt's defining feature is how near most people are to their friends, implying they don't move far. In most cases outside the largest cities, the most common connections are with immediately neighboring cities, and even New York only has one really long-range link in its top 10. Apart from Los Angeles, all of its strong ties are comparatively local."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>social-networks cultural-norms sociology American-cultural-assumptions Facebook geography network-culture visualization GIS</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:6ecaf1e8899e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:American-cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Facebook"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:geography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:visualization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:GIS"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/2010/01/reshaping-relationships-through-passion.html">
    <title>Edge Perspectives with John Hagel: Reshaping Relationships through Passion</title>
    <dc:date>2010-01-30T22:41:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/2010/01/reshaping-relationships-through-passion.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The Big Shift suggests we are moving away from a world where stocks of knowledge and short-lived transactions are the key to success. In its place, we find a world where participation in many, diverse flows of knowledge and long-term, trust-based relationships determine success. In this new world, shy people can be at a significant disadvantage. We run the risk of becoming increasingly stressed and marginalized by the extroverts who welcome the opportunity to broaden and deepen relationships. They thrive in crowded rooms while we are deeply uncomfortable with exposing and sharing."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>social-norms learning network-culture stock-and-flow cultural-dynamics knowledge collaboration trust</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:431bf3c13d12/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:learning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:stock-and-flow"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-dynamics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:knowledge"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:collaboration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:trust"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://p2pfoundation.net/Main_Page">
    <title>The Foundation for P2P Alternatives - P2P Foundation</title>
    <dc:date>2007-10-29T11:06:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://p2pfoundation.net/Main_Page</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[via Sam Rose
]]></description>
<dc:subject>collaboration p2p commons social-networks wiki network-culture resources</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:fa7cdfad4a4a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:collaboration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:p2p"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:commons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:wiki"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:resources"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>