With respect intended, it may be simpler than that. When a patient with
advanced cancer changes his diet, it's seldom because he recently learned he
also has a cholesterol problem.
*Britannica's* business plan for generations could rely on a steady stream
of institutional purchases. From schools to public libraries to
universities, virtually every organization that attempted to keep a general
purpose library would buy a set of encylopedias, and then buy updates and
new editions. It was a purchase they made if they possibly could even if
the budget was small--especially if the budget was small--because if they
couldn't obtain specialty texts in diverse areas the librarians could at
least direct patrons to a basic overview of most subjects in the
encyclopedia.
A lot of small town libraries and elementary schools probably scrambled for
funds in order to get *Britannica*. If a free and reliable substitute
existed, they'd have an excuse to deprioritize that purchase. Then
*Nature*said, essentially, that
*B* is wrong nearly as often as Wikipedia. I'd hate to have been a fly on
the wall of their sales office during the months that followed.
That's their bread and butter.
What they've done in response to that loss has not been innovative. They're
following trends. What they still have is a brand name and a reputation for
respectability. In my country, most native speakers age 25 or older used to
open a volume of *Britannica* now and then, or at least thought they ought
to. Those people are parents now and grandparents. And one thing Wikipedia
does not try to be is a babysitter. When Dad's fixing dinner and Mom's not
home from work yet, a lot of parents would prefer to sit their little ones
down to something educational without having to worry about what they'll
find. And a lot of parents don't know diddly about installing screening
software.
This may be blue sky speculation, but it wouldn't be entirely surprising if
sometime in the next few years *Britannica* gets purchased by a conglomerate
that cuts the price and cross-sells its other products. So in order to
provide Junior a *guaranteed vandalism-free* article about a blue whale, the
tyke will sit through movie promos and toy commercials.
-Durova
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
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.
I suppose your point is since Veropedia
fact-checks Wikipedia articles,
but then makes no effort to update them, EB's timeliness would be poor
if it lagged that effort. But there is a more traditional reference
model, the almanac, where updates are on a one-year cycle. Part of the
point I was trying to make is that there are these models between
"instant" updating, which WP allows, and a long revision cycle
traditional for encyclopedias (of the order of a decade).
Charles
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/