Steve Bennett wrote:
On 1/26/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Seriously, by a number of quite reasonable standards Wikipedia already _has_ become the best encyclopedia in the world. It's got more breadth, it's cheaper, its IP rights are more flexible, and it's probably more widely used than the old standbys like Britannica or World Book. It even has comparable levels of accuracy. I'm very, very happy with what Wikipedia has made of itself and have no desire to throw out any bits of baby on account of the bathwater that's still mixed in with it.
I bought EB on CD. Dunno if I didn't get the full edition or something, but it doesn't come close to WP. I never use it, except for idle speculation about where they get their ego from.
I bought it too, and it's the full thing - compared sample articles with old and new print editions. I think they only have the resources to update articles that need changing to reflect current events, and no money left over to expand or improve coverage in other areas. They'll get to coast on the name for a while longer.
Stan