<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: crowds</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'crowds'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22crowds%22&t=%22crowds%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:15:33 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>The Wisdom of Crowd Review</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4318337&amp;cid=t_225876_88_f&amp;fid=38129&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2Flifeinthefastlane%2FWZHV%2F%7E3%2FbYYKshUIGYU%2F</link>
            <description>Almost immediately after finishing ‘Time to publish then filter?’ &amp;#8211; a post that highlighted a recent editorial in the BMJ outlining the need for an effective system of post-publication peer review &amp;#8212; I came across this in the Annals of Emergency Medicine: Millard WB. The Wisdom of Crowds, the Madness of Crowds: Rethinking Peer Review [...] (Source: Life in the Fast Lane)</description>
            <author>Life in the Fast Lane</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4318337</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:00:17 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4318337</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Housebound: Paralyzed with Anxiety</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3969051&amp;cid=t_225876_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2010%2F09%2F14%2Fhousebound-paralyzed-with-anxiety%2F</link>
            <description>Within the last six months, I have treated two patients whose visits to my office were among the very few times they had left their homes — in years. They are just a few of the million or more Americans who suffer from anxiety conditions or weight problems or psychotic illnesses that lead them to dread leaving the house. Some are literally housebound and never venture outside, even confining themselves to a single room or barricading doors and windows.
The housebound population is a kind of secret in America, because these folks are often embarrassed about their situation and don’t know how to get help for it. House calls, after all, went out of vogue decades ago.
Conditions leading people to be housebound include agoraphobia (an intense fear of crowds and being publicly humiliated) an...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3969051</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:55:52 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3969051</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How social proof can help you</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3581848&amp;cid=t_225876_150_f&amp;fid=38374&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FePharmaSummit%2F%7E3%2F3ZEk2ayeasg%2Fhow-social-proof-can-help-you.html</link>
            <description>(Source: ePharma Summit)</description>
            <author>ePharma Summit</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3581848</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 19:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3581848</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Crowdsourcing With Twitter</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2786303&amp;cid=t_225876_180_f&amp;fid=38607&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2Fsuccessbeginstoday%2FBHWQ%2F%7E3%2FvlVrQwutCQw%2F</link>
            <description>One of my favorite business books is The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki. This book really opened my mind as far as group think goes. It showed that under certain circumstances that the crowd was actually smarter than any individual person on a subject or topic (product reviews etc). Yet under different circumstances the crowd could easily lead you blindly over a cliff (subprime loans etc).
Given that group think can be beneficial, a great way to research a product or service is to use the immediate feedback of Twitter to help you access a very vocal crowd.
You can do this in a couple of ways.
The first way is to use Twitter Search to find keywords about your individual item.
 
Twitter has a great search feature that lets you filter by attitude to find positive reviews and negative re...</description>
            <author>Success Begins Today</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2786303</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:38:59 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2786303</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Tea Parties</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2347792&amp;cid=t_225876_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F-gC-BKFCULQ%2F</link>
            <description>There hasn’t been much here on the Cato blog about the Tea Parties this week, so I thought I should write a bit about them.
A number of sources report around 750 individual events across the country, from small towns to big cities. Hundreds of thousands of people attended.
Many if not the vast majority of these people do not go to protests or even political rallies. My parents, who sent along the pictures below of the large rally in Cincinnati, do not do big crowds or political events. Neither do many of their friends. But they were there.
The general tenor and talk were non-partisan — people are angry at both political parties for many of the same reasons: spending, growth of government, and the ever-expanding reach of federal involvement in every aspect of our lives.
It’s not just...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2347792</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:23:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2347792</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Situational Effect of Groups</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2348436&amp;cid=t_225876_109_f&amp;fid=36089&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F04%2F17%2Fthe-situational-effect-of-groups%2F</link>
            <description>In his Guardian article, &amp;#8220;Hands up if you&amp;#8217;re an individual,&amp;#8221; Stuart Jeffries offers a brief summary of some social psychology classics.  Below, we have included excerpts.  After reviewing Milgram&amp;#8217;s famous experiments on obedience, Jeffries writes:
* * *

This was one of the classic experiments of group psychology, though not all have involved duping volunteers into believing they had electrocuted victims. Group psychology has often involved experiments to explain how individuals&amp;#8217; behaviours, thoughts and feelings are changed by group pressures.
It is generally thought to have originated in 1898 when Indiana University psychologist Norman Triplett asked children to spin a fishing reel as fast as they could. He found that when the children were doing the task ...</description>
            <author>The Situationist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2348436</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:01:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2348436</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Positive Situation of Crowds</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2249547&amp;cid=t_225876_109_f&amp;fid=36089&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2F08%2Fthe-positive-situation-of-crowds%2F</link>
            <description>The Economist has an interesting piece on the psychology of crowds.  We excerpt the piece below.
* * *
One researcher who is interested in this approach is Mark Levine, a social psychologist at Lancaster University in Britain who studies crowds. Crowds have a bad press. They have been blamed for antisocial behaviour through mechanisms that include peer pressure, mass hysteria and the diffusion of responsibility—the idea that “someone else will do something, so I don’t have to”. But Dr Levine thinks that crowds can also diffuse potentially violent situations and that crime would be much higher if it were not for crowds. As he told a symposium called “Understanding Violence,” which was organised by the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland earlier this month,...</description>
            <author>The Situationist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2249547</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:13:22 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2249547</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Presenting Highlight HEALTH 2.0</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1208969&amp;cid=t_225876_107_f&amp;fid=36585&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FHighlightHEALTH%2F%7E3%2F230029767%2F</link>
            <description>This article was published on Highlight HEALTH.          Related articlesSocial Networks and Health - The Research and the ReviewsThe Best of Highlight HEALTH 2007 - The Year in ReviewMedicine 2.0 #10 - Medicine and the Second Generation of Internet-based ServicesMedicine 2.0 #10 Call for SubmissionsHEALTH Highlights - July 10th, 2007 (Source: Highlight HEALTH)</description>
            <author>Highlight HEALTH</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1208969</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 04:35:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1208969</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Could peer production work for biological annotation?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=742625&amp;cid=t_225876_132_f&amp;fid=35011&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2Fmndoci%2F%7E3%2F134948684%2F</link>
            <description>Curating annotations in for biological informatics is hard. There are companies that have many people searching through literature looking for protein-protein interactions and other similar relationships. A large part of what makes some databases more attractive is the level of curation, manual or otherwise. What if we could change the way that this goal is achieved, perhaps via some of the same resources that we are using the tech world? Many of us have talked about Freebase and its possibilities. Earlier today I was reading up a little on Phrasetrain, a local Seattle company that is using peer production to create a natural language technology. I am not quite sure how it works, although I have signed up for the beta. From their About page (emphasis mine)
Phrasetrain is a small new techno...</description>
            <author>business|bytes|genes|molecules</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=742625</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:30:03 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">742625</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bringing the wisdom of crowds to peer review</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=723240&amp;cid=t_225876_132_f&amp;fid=35011&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2Fmndoci%2F%7E3%2F132181958%2F</link>
            <description>The new release candidate allows you to rate articles using the following criteria

Insight - How thought-provoking a user found the article or how much it advances our scientific understanding
Style - How well performed and presented a user considers a study to be
Reliability - How secure a user feels the results and conclusion are in a study

The criteria are interesting. They are along the lines of peer review, in a more open, wisdom of crowds kind of way. Are these criteria sufficient? Are they the most important ones?
Pedro has some nice screenshots, and as a member of the group, I should really start following what&amp;#8217;s being posted on Facebook
Technorati Tags: PLoS One, Wisdom of Crowds, Peer Review (Source: business|bytes|genes|molecules)</description>
            <author>business|bytes|genes|molecules</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=723240</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:09:02 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">723240</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

