Charles Matthews wrote:
Durova wrote:
Their main advantage in the current market is that their content is vetted. Question is whether they can afford the staff to keep up with submissions, and whether that value added is worth the price they charge for it. The market seems to be saying no. And if they walk away from that strategy what other working model is there?
Actually I don't know that the question is rhetorical. There is the hidden assumption: EB is the universal encyclopedia (for English-language readers). There must be ways of running a reference website for money that drop the comprehensiveness and timeliness (WP's major strengths) as the central ambitions.
I think in fact that the headline is misleading. This isn't really a case of Britannica taking on Wikipedia. It is more like they may have seen Veropedia in their rear view mirror, and gotten scared. A peer reviewed study that unfavorably compared Britannica with Veropedia in terms of timeliness, scope and accuracy would be quite devastating to Britannica, since Veropedia also vets its contents.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen