On 13/02/2008, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 13, 2008 6:34 PM, Meg Ireland
<megireland99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Not so sure. If all encyclopaedias stopped being
paper and went online
> free, it could seriously bite into the number of people donating to
> Wikipedia. It stands to reason more people may spend their internet
> time looking at these encyclopaedias for information, than Wikipedia.
... If they had all the qualities of Wikipedia then
why would we need
donations? Mission accomplished!
But they don't. Thus my prior post.
So how do we emphasize qualities W,X,Y of Wikipedia when the public
still thinks of it mostly in terms of Z?
It's not clear to me how they could compete with Wikipedia without
becoming Wikipedia.
Wikipedia gained its present hideous popularity through convenience -
an encyclopedia with a ridiculously wide topic range, with content
good enough to be *useful* no matter how often we stress it's not
"reliable" (certified checked) as such.
Britannica may be theoretically higher quality, but is not right there
on everyone's desktop - it fails on practical availability. Most of
Wikipedia's readers - the people who make it #8 or #9 site in the
world - wouldn't have opened a paper encyclopedia since high school.
So the paper encyclopedias put their content online. Can they provide
a better website than Wikipedia? Ignoring the process, just looking at
the resulting body of text? It'll be interesting to see. I bet it'll
work to improve us too.
I think it'd be a bad thing for Britannica and Brockhaus to go bust.
I'm not sure how to save their business though.
- d.