Encyclopaedia Britannica to let readers edit content

Just go away. Anyone else see this toolbag crying about Google's preference for Wikipedia over EB?

"If I were to be the CEO of Google or the founders of Google I would be very [displeased] that the best search engine in the world continues to provide as a first link, Wikipedia," he [Jorge Cauz] said."Is this the best they can do? Is this the best that [their] algorithm can do?"

Hey look friend, maybe if your site was free and DID NOT HARASS VISITORS to sign up for a (free TRIAL) account, Britannica would be a worthy quick reference resource. Instead, they're intent is to be the Microsoft of Encyclopaedias. Good luck with that.

What a snobbish attitude - I bet that Britan. does not actually have anything like as many articles on as many different subjects as Wikipedia. There are many good, informative math articles on Wikipedia, which Encyc. Britan. probably doesn't have.

Encyclopedia britannica has reputation for excellence that they will lose if they wikipedia themselves. I have seen messages on bulletin bods discussing how hackers have broken into wikipedia and posted false ratings for people and how they have otherwise changed other people's postings. If this trend continues the truth will be dead.

Well the algorithm is based on the popularity and links to one specific site. Where google crawls and finds a hub of popularity, it marks, stores, and indexes at home. Then depending on overall popularity, and your own preference in terms of clicks it puts the more preferred page on the top.

People don't necessarily like wikipedia for it's accuracy, but because it presents its information by itself very well. Pictures assist but don't intrude, articles aren't long, and the information is very detailed. It's neither a dry read, a wet read, but maintains its own nice balance.

NeilFarbstein: You don't have to be a "hacker" to "break into" wikipedia and vandalize it. Anyone can do it; that's just the nature of that type of endeavour. However, there are several automated sentinel programs that rove Wikipedia undoing vandalism (they are amazing. I've seen them undo very subtle vandalism, both to articles and to people's userpages and comments). And for stuff that the sentinels bots miss, there are people. I've rarely seen a vandal job go more than 30 seconds uncorrected on a major article, and rarely more than 5 minutes even on the most backwater article on Wikipedia.

As for Britannica, it is an excellent source of high quality information. Unfortunately I'm not willing to pay a (substantial) monthly fee to access that information online. They need a new business model. If they don't get one, then they will go down in flames. And that really will be a sad day (and I say that as a fan of Wikipedia. Encyclopedia Britannica is great).

neilf*...ok the hacker thing can predominantly be taken care of by proper security measures, without doubt. i am in IT security myself, and I can tell you, yes, a good hacker can and likely will get into any system eventually if they really want to, but with the proper security in place, you can greatly increase the amount of time this can take, allowing for the network intrusion to be detected and eliminated. with all that being said...i dont think it would be worth any serious hackers time to manipulate an encyclopedia if they had to go through a ton of security measures to get there...realistically, we could be talking years of attempts from a typical desktop PC, or weeks-months (or even years) with a massive supercomputer. theres no profit in doing this, so there really isn't much point other than kid stuff, to mess with people. IMO anyways.

i am a big fan of wikipedia myself. i also read many many years of sets of EB while growing up just to learn things (yea yea I know), and it be a good book. but, to compete with wikipedia, they definitely need to either create an online division, offering sponsor based online encyoledia services/access, or change their entire business model, and only charge subscriptions for those few and far between that actually want a hard copy of the books to impress the neighbors at an in home BBQ on their bookshelf.

somethin i wasnt considering in my statements above though...this is actually a marketing ploy "buy a subscription to me and you can edit our articles if your info is correct"

My kids school will NOT accept references for assignments(homework)from Wikipedia articles. They are not considered a 'verifiable reference' source. Britannica however is considered ok. In my experience Britannica articles are often outdated and narrow in scope, disallowing evolving theory and practice. This move by Britannica maybe a last cry as it dies because its business model is outmoded and too expensive.

Britannica never thought that an open source product like Wikipedia would seriously challenge the credibility of its brand. They were wrong and Encyclopaedia Britannica's staff seriously misread the global market. They are now very concerned about the widespread use of a free Wikipedia vs their paid subscription model From a corporate and financial perspective, Encyclopaedia Britannica is in serious trouble.

It will be interesting to see if Encyclopaedia Britannica survives, but recent indications do not look good. It is the combination of a) the success of Wikipedia and b) improved search engines that has put financial pressure on Encyclopedia Britannica over recent years. Many libraries, schools & individuals are questioning the need to pay for sets of expensive books, or to subscribe to Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, when the content is free on the internet, and often much more comprehensive.

bluehigh: Uh... yeah. Because isn't what Wikipedia is suppose to be used for! As an example, I write articles at Wikinews, and even *we* don't allow Wikipedia as a source, even though we're a fellow project of the Wikimedia Foundation.

What you're suppose to do is look at the references in the Wikipedia article, see if they're any good, and then use *those* in your schoolwork.

*That* is the point of Wikipedia - to be an repository of encyclopedic knowledge, not to be a homework helper. It is a tool that gives you an overview of a topic, not the end-all authority on a topic. Any teacher/prof worth their salt should be able to tell you that.

Course, half my profs at uni wouldn't even touch computers, which, I suspect, is where a large portion of the anti-wiki thought comes from. Even the math and physics ones were computerless dorks. Know why? It's cause they're 90 FRAKING YEARS OLD. Old people shouldn't be allowed to work:P. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks".

For example Wikipedia has an article on Frechet spaces, a math concept. Encycl. Brit. doesn't. Encyc Brit seems to be much more limited.

I edit Wikipedia, a lot. Why? Even though I would be considered an expert in a couple subject areas (papers, conferences etc.), I can't get near the Britannica, because it's controlled by salaried professionals. In other subject areas, where I'm not especially expert, I still sometimes have things to contribute.

However, Wiki articles are often amazingly trivial and one-sided. Many people who contribute only have knowledge about recent events, or only understand a subject from reading a couple recent popular books. For a balanced perspective on a subject I didn't know, I'd pick the Britannica, every time.

That being said, the Britannica itself has a great weakness, which is that it is often too technical for people being introduced to subjects, and too brief for people who are experts. Wiki at least potentially can cover all audiences.

Britannica opening up is a smart move on their part. After all, Wikipedia isn't standing still with innovation, either.

1.5 million visitors per day for Britannica verses 6 million for McWiki is very good numbers for Britannica. McWiki is good for quick reference, to get the 'jist of it', or to read about homer simpson, thats why the difference in #'s,,.. but its not what Diderot envisioned. I find some of the technical pages of McWiki to be utterly useless, without contextual explanation; a clearly written by anyone quality.

Britannica's printed version is broken up into micro (wiki like) short articles and much longer in depth macro articles,...They should make the micropedia version available for free and the extended macro subscription based.

Britannica would do even better if their online version was equivalent in size to their macropedia printed version, tens of pages long per article. (maybe this is already the case). They should also incorporate the complete text of their Great Books Series, ... then McWiki's flimsy single pages would be laughable in comparison.

McWiki - great for arguing over the internet, for when you need quick superficial knowledge, or just curious all of a sudden about anything.

Brittanica - great proper in depth overview of core subjects; that don't change completely in a short time;

Texts/Books - For when your actually interested in a subject

Britannica should stay away from 'anyone' authors. Big mistake imo. Instead they should work out deals with publishing companies for use of excerpts from existing authoritative books. They need to differentiate themselves from McWiki, more not less.

English Wikipedia has over 1 billion words, 25 times as much as Encycl. Brit. Many technical subjects Encycl. Brit. is silent on. I think Encycl. Brit. is more like a resource for schoolchildren, Wikipedia really does have a lot of advanced information. I've found their articles on math to be fairly good.

noumenon-
if the "anyone" authors are qualified experts in the sbjuect field, then EB will effectively WAY out do wikipedia in its depth of knowledge. the problem with using already published items, is that already published items get revamped to correct the incorrect parts of them. EB therefore would have to continually research those updates and make updates to their own content in turn.
I agree that letting just anyone write on any subject would not be the best thing. But I know there are technical books out there (for instance on PKI), that I could absolutely school the authors of the books on the subject with. So if you get experts in the are that they are wanting to add additions on, you will actually get much better, and much more up to date content, and from a real world perspective. Book knowledge is just that, book knowledge...experience really runs the game in the end (this is actually why I hire people with experience over people with degrees and less experience..that book work really didn't teach them anything about the real thing)