On 6/26/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I can see a scenario in which the determining factor is that Wikipedia is free on-line, and Britannica is not. Therefore, as long as money is a more important factor, we are going to tend to drive them out of the market. The only countervailing factor is quality, but markets are notoriously tolerant of poor quality. Wikipedia is already "the encyclopedia everyone consults even though they know it often isn't very good."
Certainly. Wikipedia is better than a Google search, and it's certainly better than a Britannica you don't have to hand on your desk.
Well, it's interesting, because I find myself doing a lot of "-wikipedia" Google searches these days. I suppose that's partly because a lot of those searches are done for Wikipedia. However, except in a few restricted fields I go to other sources whenever I need any kind of systematic knowledge about something. Wikipedia is definitely good for the "I've never heard of this before" search, but I've tended to find it lacking for more in-depth treatment. The articles tend to be too incoherent-- not gibberish, but they tend not to hold together as a unified exposition.