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