Encyclopaedia Britannica to let readers edit content
January 23, 2009
Encyclopaedia Britannica, the authoritative reference book first published in 1768, is to let readers edit its entries, it said Friday, as it battles to keep pace with Internet resources like Wikipedia.
Encyclopaedia Britannica, the authoritative reference book first published in 1768, is to let readers edit its entries, it said Friday, as it battles to keep pace with Internet resources like Wikipedia.
Content from AFP expires 1 month after original publication date. For more information about AFP, please visit www.afp.com .
Similar stories from PHYSorg:
Macmillan books coming back to Amazon
Feb 06, 2010 |
2 / 5 (1) |
0
Netherlands adds to UN climate report controversy
Feb 05, 2010 |
4.4 / 5 (9) |
16
Feds still troubled by Google's digital book deal (Update)
Feb 05, 2010 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
Big book explores a small world: Professor debuts first complete guide to nanoscience
Feb 04, 2010 |
4.2 / 5 (6) |
0
Researchers fight world hunger by mapping the soybean genome
Feb 01, 2010 |
not rated yet |
0
23 hours ago
"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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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
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)