David Goodman wrote:
The combination of user generated content, user-based editorial control, and free content is our characteristic. That doesn't mean it's the best way for all purposes, or even that it will always be us that implements it best.
It is perfectly possible that if there were an equally free encyclopedia that was equally comprehensive, but did have editorial control in a more authoritarian conventional manner, that people might prefer it for many or most purposes. Even so, we will have the distinction for being not just the first large project of our sort, but the one that stimulated change elsewhere. It's an acknowledgment of our importance that we are influencing conventional publication also.
It's important that we learn from Britannica's history. Its current crisis is not the first time it's been on its deathbed. Its revival often depended on the injection of new management with new ideas. We have yet to figure out how to make our own rule-making processes dynamic. There's a natural tendency for majorities to be comfortably protectionist about their vicarious accomplishments. The status quo can have a warm and fuzzy feeling of the kind that makes babies reluctant to leave the womb.
Ec