I am commercially responsible for Britannica’s operations in Europe, Middle East and Africa. In these markets our academic, library, schools and consumer business grows. Over the last two years, for example, more people have paid us more money each year in each sector to subscribe to our products. Our subscription renewal rate in academic and library markets is 98%, indicating approval and confidence in what we publish and how we do it.

The difference between Britannica and Wikipedia is between mission, values and execution. In the schools context, for example, you have to be a consenting adult to understand how to read Wikipedia: you have to know how to read the medium, as you do with any other communications medium – newspapers, TV etc. A schoolchild doesn’t have the experience to do this: she or he has no means of telling whether a Wikipedia article is written by a professor, a mad professor or a madman or all three. In all my discussions with Wikipedia folk, they don’t suggest that anyone should use the material in Wikipedia as facts in school or academic work without checking a second source. Which is fine, they know what they are doing.

Britannica has a different proposition. We have 4,500 contributors around the world who are eminent in their fields. We commission them to write articles and pay them. We have 100 editors who fact-check the material, edit it for style and tone so that there is a consistency of reading level; we edit it for language level, since we publish separately for adults, teenagers and children. We refresh and update continuously. People use Britannica because they have confidence in the material.

We believe this way of publishing offers editorial value to our users and that this value can be expressed as a commercial transaction. For consumers we ask that they pay us the equivalent of One Pound Sterling per week. We think this is very reasonable. Teachers and students receive the material free in any institution that subscribes on their behalf – as growing numbers do.

I ask Mr or Ms Stephens (or Williams) to be a little less Wiki and a little more Britannica in her or his public correspondence – and write fresh text rather than simply pasting old opinions.

Ian Grant

Encyclopaedia Britannica did not think that an open source product like Wikipedia would significantly challenge the credibility of its brand. They were dead 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 significant 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 much more comprehensive.

The other side of the coin – that the editorial board play fast and loose with the mix of public and private information about their own status, identity and experience – has to be a serious showstopper.

http://tinyurl.com/bnlcbm

http://tinyurl.com/c7auds

http://tinyurl.com/gwo7l

http://tinyurl.com/csxnra

http://tinyurl.com/coujon

http://snurl.com/djc47

Disclosure: Nicholas Carr is today a member of Britannica’s editorial board, but he was not at the time he wrote the above posts.

Tom Panelas
Encyclopaedia Britannica

At least a “proper” encyclopedia is accountable for what it publishes. It’s reputation rests with the accuracy of its research into the subjects it choses to publishes. In contrast, every Tom, Dick or Harry (well almost – if you ignore Dick Pountain) can publish anything they like. The breadth of material on Wikipedia is now so large that I would guess that it is impossible to verify the accuracy of any of it. Where is the accountability? Is the news of the world any more or less a reliable source than Wikipedia. How do we know that for example, Microsoft, or Gordon Brown are not abusing the resource to publish the material it would like people to read, rather than the facts Having said that I do look up many technical things on it and give the links to my Students (yes I am an academic). In many cases it differs sufficiently from the original published work for it to be mi-interpreted.

Perhaps the root of the problem now is that Wikipedia’s invitation to participate is 90% spin? I certainly edited a page early on, based on personal information, and gave up on the whole idea when it subsequently, simply vanished. No explanation, no right to appeal, no due process: what that proved to me is that the dominant knowledge-acquisition metaphor on Wikipedia owes more to figuring out Zork, than it does to capturing the realities of contemporary life. Oh, unless you want to exhaustively catalogue twists and turns in soap-opera plotlines. Then it’s brilliant.