The real difference between Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica
15 December 2008 comments (2)
Only on Wikipedia can you find nearly three years of debate about whether sudo is short for “substitute user do” or “superuser do.”
Comments
The comments about Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia are interesting.
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.
The smart move for Britannica, if they can figure how to pull it off, would be to make their content available online for free. It would be a shame to see them disappear altogether — I’m a heavy Wikipedia user, but it definitely has its faults, and the Macropaedia part of EB is a resource that hasn’t been replicated anywhere online.
(Yes, I’m using a Wikipedia link in support of EB. Hopefully this won’t disrupt the fabric of the space-time continuum.)
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.