After years of more or less ignoring its open-source competitor, the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) will soon be taking a page from Wikipedia's playbook and allowing members of the public to contribute to articles and other content at Britannica.com.
That's according to Jorge Cauz, president of the 240-year-old institution, which at one time was synonymous with knowledge in many Western households and schools.
The Britannica head told the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia and The Times in the U.K. that Britannica plans to offer the new features on its Website soon.
Cauz made it clear, however, that anything submitted by users will have to be vetted by one of the encyclopedia's staff of paid researchers before it appears either on the Website or in the actual print version of the EB. "We're not trying to be a wiki -- that's the last thing we want to be," he told The Times. "Britannica doesn't offer that voyeuristic benefit. Users won't be able to write anything they want and have it published."
The changes -- which are just part of the creation of a larger Britannica community portal -- were first described last June, and it was made clear then that Britannica didn't plan on letting the whole "crowd-sourcing" thing get out of hand: "We are not abdicating our responsibility as publishers or burying it under the now-fashionable 'wisdom of the crowds,' " a blog post said at the time.
Of course, Encyclopedia Britannica's Cauz probably knows that in many cases, users can't just write anything they want and have it published in Wikipedia, either. There are dozens of moderators and editors working for the open-source encyclopedia (although they are unpaid volunteers), who check page changes for accuracy and to make sure they uphold the Wikipedia principles of fairness and a "neutral point of view."
While there are some pages that can be edited freely, where mistakes might not be noticed quickly, other pages (including the one about President George Bush) are "locked" and cannot be edited by anyone but a Wikipedia-sanctioned moderator.
Currently, a well known comparison between Britannica and Wikipedia found that the error rate in each case was roughly equivalent.
It seems pretty obvious from the Britannica president's comments that he is: (a) more than a little envious of Wikipedia's traffic numbers (the open-source encyclopedia gets about 6 million visitors a day, while Britannica gets about 1.5 million a day); and (b) irritated that Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) features Wikipedia links so prominently in the search results for many common terms for which people might otherwise go to Britannica.com.
"If I were to be the CEO of Google or the founders of Google I would be very [cheesed] that the best search engine in the world continues to provide as a first link, Wikipedia," Cauz told the Sydney Morning Herald. "Is this the best they can do?" He also made it clear that he sees Wikipedia as the fast-food version of knowledge, saying many people turn to it for answers, but that many people are also "happy to eat McDonald's every day."
Britannica isn't the only one to try and take the Wikipedia model and blend it with the authoritative voice of the expert. A project called Citizendium, which started up a little over a year ago, was created by Larry Sanger -- a former co-founder of Wikipedia -- as an attempt to create a "crowd-sourced" encyclopedia, but with input from subject-matter experts rather than just anyone.
Google has taken some steps in that direction as well, with a service called Knol (derived from "knowledge"), which encourages experts to create Wikipedia-style entries on specific subjects.
But neither Knol nor Citizendium has gotten much traction. They are certainly nowhere near challenging Wikipedia for the title of "the people's encyclopedia." Whether Britannica's changes can make a difference -- and put the company back in the race -- remains to be seen.
— Mathew Ingram, technology writer for The Globe and Mail in Canada
True, but like Mr. Vellante said - at least they are doing something in this decade. It only took them 8 years.
I wouldn't bet against openness, and I'm sure that factors in why Wikipedia ranks higher than EB in Google. Recent history has shown that people want 'openness' and being part of something bigger than themselves, like Wikipedia.
And everyone should have expected this, but I would like to see if Wikipedia has ever thought of going to Britannica's main market (maybe printing them, or selling a SD card with the entire site there).
Root Maniac, it's not cynicism, it's just a reflection of objective reality:))))When we say Britannica we mean the quality of the information.Opening a book with the name on the cover, we don't have any shadow of uncertainty in what we read. While using Wiki is much more easier, one can find information about anything from who is Karl Marx to who is Eric Kartman ( who is obviously not mentioned in Britannica:))) So, we still need Wikipedia even if it is too provincial and antisocial:).So I guess every "pedia" has its own fans:)
Although, they are late in the game, Britannica is making asmart move in challenging Wikipedia.
They do have the name and it still is a strong branding namefor many people today especially, those of us who grew up using their encyclopediasat home, school, or libraries.
The challenge for them is to reengineer their business modelthat would make it appealing for a mass audience.
Medicine is an area where we would not do very well without experts, many would suffer if we relied on knowledge from anonymous sources.
I think if you don't know anything about a subject Wikipedia is sometimes better, but if you are performing a delicate surgical operation and need more information you would want to be reading only from experts. Same with airline pilots and navigation, you would not want to get rid of air traffic controllers and rely on enthusiastic kids on rooftops scanning the skies naked eye!
The consequence of the search, what's at stake, determines to what extent we need expert opinion. But sometimes too if we are writing as experts we want to be relying on other experts!
A lot of preference for information sources has to do with habit. For news I go to CNN, it is a habit, but hard to break. It is not that I think CNN is better than other sources, it is just what I am familiar with and used to. Many people are familiar with and used to Britannica, others are used to Wikipedia. They are unlikely to change their habits unless they encounter really bad data in their own searches (like dead live people!).
The elitism of food and knowledge is similar, probably people who eat out at fine restaurants and never go to McDonald's are more likely to use Britannica!
It is nice to go to McDonald's sometimes. Writing partner Nikki Olson says:
There is considerable hostility in the academic community to Wikipedia; many professors make a point of warning us not to use it—in papers, or for information in general. That being said, I think a lot of us realize that for non-academic matters it is a more than acceptable source—in most cases it is not fast food, it is just food.
Differentiating 'credible' sources from 'non-credible' sources, or weighing the 'value' of information is a matter that goes beyond the 'wisdom of crowds' vs 'expert' source debate. In the end, I think it is the nature of the knowledge we are seeking that should determine the best source. People need to be mindful of their sources, and not just take the easy way out in situations where it matters. Just like one should check the nutritional information of their food, most of the time, but sometimes it makes sense not to!
Sometimes one has to pay for the more valuable/academically reinforced knowledge, that's just how it goes. Experts become experts because they pay thousands of dollars a year in tuition and subject themselves to concentrated, challenging, and competitive study. I think most people realize this and do not feel entitled to all that academic knowledge for free.
EB is an instutition already in the Knowledge business. But they do not have the monopoly of data gathering. They may be more professional and their people more expert in data gathering, evaluation and verification, and more. Still they rely on people to provide them with data.
Wikipedia also rely on people and though these people who contribute to it may not be that professional or skillful in accordance with the standards of EB, yet many of them also have the talent, the time, the resource, the vision, the generosity, etc to share knowledge. After all those who utilize Wiki could verify the data against other available sources, perhaps including EB.
Hence the move of EB to be a little more like Wiki in some ways without admitting it would make them more "user-friendly".
It is very pleasing to know that britannica is going to jump into the race of open-knowledge base.But question is to see if "the 240-year-old institution, synonymous with knowledge" is going to win the hit-race or not.
Yes, you got it right, homesteadtraders. Being able to be used as a credible reference and the quality supported by years of experience in the business are probably the only few things left that set Britannica and Wikipedia apart.
But I also think that Britannica is not in a good situation right now because of Wikipedia. Many years ago, if people wanted to look up for something and were looking for a reference, most people would go to the library and find a good encyclopedia, and in many cases, the first reference they would think of was Britannica. Some people even had a whole set of the books at home as a collection. But now, I think the first thing many people have in mind when thinking about an encyclopedia is Wikipedia. Wikipedia in many ways becomes "the name" for encyclopedia - it's quick, it's free and it's easy to read (most of the time anyway). Britannica would need to reinvent itself and adapt to the ever changing online world, or else it could become something of the past and be forgotten.
Perhaps Brittanica should just buy Wikipedia and be done with it. The worst thing about Wikipedia is not just inaccurate information, it's the poorly written, incoherent, grammatically nonsensical entries that proliferate. Perhaps Brittanica could nurture the best of both worlds by bringing professional editing to user-generated content. But somehow I don't think the people at EB are forward-thinking enough to do it without killing the goose that laid the golden egg, and "Wikipedians" are too shrill, provincial, anti-social, and vindictive to allow an "outsider" to take over...Maybe I'm just being too cynical...
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
The idea that the Internet might be used for scientific collaboration shouldn't come as much of a surprise, since the Web's predecessor was originally created as a way to connect researchers at different institutions so they could solve problems together.
Not that long ago, blogs were a mysterious animal that most reputable companies shied away from, an untrustworthy medium populated by cranks in their pyjamas.
The battle between eBay Inc. (Nasdaq: EBAY) and Skype Ltd. is escalating, and in the end, users of the Web-based phone-calling application could be the ultimate losers.
In 1891, Nicola Tesla held up a discharged light bulb and showed how it could be lit up anywhere in a room with a specialized magnetic field. More than a century later, businesses and consumers may soon be able to tap into commercial wireless electrical services, if a couple of entrepreneurs have their way.
Should Facebook and Google users in the U.S. thank the Canadian government for protecting their privacy? A pretty good case could be made that they should.
Based on reactions in Nicole's Newsfeed, everyone hates this version of Facebook. This should matter to Facebook now that there's a real competitor on the scene named Google+.
Facebook's Graph Search may face some profound challenges and risks, first, because Facebook users haven't been thinking of their posts as product reviews; and second, because Facebook will now have to contend with the social-network equivalent of SEO "gaming" of results.
Congrats to the best-selling author who persuaded Facebook to allow him to register an account as Salman, rather than under his "real" but never used name, Ahmed Rushdie.
Allowing users to share music and video on Facebook might sound like good news, but is this part of a coherent strategy, or is Facebook just stumbling from idea to idea?
Facebook's "Improved Friends Lists" are rolling out, but they're very different from Google+ Circles. The latter are like private labels; you're the only one who sees them. The former are like rooms you can invite visitors to, where they see you and each other. Google's approach is better.
The US boasts a commitment to "Internet freedom," but in practice that commitment falls short. What Internet freedom really means is freedom of the mind.
A decade after the dotcom boom, the Internet continues to dramatically change the way that business gets done and individuals communicate. More than a trillion email messages traveled over the Net last year, and dramatic changes loom on the horizon.
New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority is conducting a pilot test of digital kiosks to guide subway users to where they want to go more efficiently and at lower cost.
The whole Amazon.reader debate is a double-stupid. It's stupid to think that there's any e-book buyer who doesn't know Amazon's URL, and it was stupider to let ICANN launch the whole free-form TLD initiative to start with.
While NFC's original goal was to enhance mobile commerce applications, it is finding its way into a number of other uses, which is creating both opportunity as well as challenges for IT departments.
Enterprises would like to move to cloud computing but are hesitant because they are concerned about providers’ ability to secure company data. Here are some tips that help to ensure that if breaches occur, the business is not left holding the bag.
Edmunds separates customers into segments based on the info it collects on its site and from partners, and uses that to push out custom content, said Brian Baron, director of business analytics for Edmunds.com, at Predictive Analytics Innovation Summit.
The automotive website uses propensity modeling to target ads and customer registration forms, said Brian Baron, director of business analytics for Edmunds.com, at Predictive Analytics Innovation Summit.
Expert Integrated Systems: Changing the Experience & Economics of IT In this e-book, we take an in-depth look at these expert integrated systems -- what they are, how they work, and how they have the potential to help CIOs achieve dramatic savings while restoring IT's role as business innovator. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
M2M: Rise of the Machines? Not Yet David Weldon In the 1970 science fiction thriller Colossus: The Forbin Project, two giant supercomputers from the United States and Soviet Union secretly join forces to take control of the collective nuclear might of the two countries. In the film, the two machines discover each other's existence, communicate back-and-forth, share their collective data, and cut their human creators out of the process. It is the ultimate example of machine-to-machine communications, or M2M. CLICK FOR MORE
M2M: Rise of the Machines? Not Yet David Weldon In the 1970 science fiction thriller Colossus: The Forbin Project, two giant supercomputers from the United States and Soviet Union secretly join forces to take control of the collective nuclear might of the two countries. In the film, the two machines discover each other's existence, communicate back-and-forth, share their collective data, and cut their human creators out of the process. It is the ultimate example of machine-to-machine communications, or M2M. CLICK FOR MORE
Email This
