EB trades size for reliability. They may get a fact wrong here and there or be slightly out of date, but they aren't going to publish absolute hoaxes and they're relatively family-friendly.
Whether consciously or by default, EB has opted for a niche market. Where can they reposition themselves if that niche market proves unprofitable? Their window of opportunity to go head to head on an open edit format probably closed in 2003.
-Lise
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> 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.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l