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.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. 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.
YouTube launches 'YouTube Direct' to give 'citizen' journalism a better platform and in so doing may just ensure that 'quality' journalism soon becomes a thing of the past.
The Google backlash continues. After seeing their Project 10^100 submissions disappear into the bowels of a Google server farm, a group of irate developers has started their own site to re-collect and vote on the ideas.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
