Mathias Schindler wrote:
As you can see at http://info.eb.com/PDFs/EB_PrePub.pdf, Britannica will be selling a 2010-version of their 15th edition. The "fun fact" is to advertise with a biographical entry on the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. You can't make up stuff like that. According to http://www.caminfo.co.uk/pdfs/BRIT2010_001.pdf, they will tell you *how* to start a blog. Extrapolating from this, they will explain in their 2013/2014 edition to start a twitter account. It must be sad for encyclopedia authors to see how PR is forced to focus on "brand new facts", an area where the failing promises of an (printed) encyclopedia are most visible.
The fundamental underlying question is how are these changes documented. Ehud Olmert absolutely belongs in the new edition. If, however, that new edition requires 2 pages then maintaining the overall manageable size of the encyclopaedia requires that those two pages be offset by removing a comparable amount of data elsewhere, perhaps from totally unrelated material. In the more distant future the Olmert article may itself become the victim of editorial condensation for reasons that have nothing to do with Olmert.
If a 19th century poet had to be completely sacrificed for the sake of the Olmert article, how are we to know that that poet ever existed. There are some very important editorial decisions involved, and as long as the end user remained oblivious to the changes they could go unnoticed. Now, however, more are likely to argue for the notability of the obscure poet, and they must confront the recentist hordes who defend a contemporary politician. Such debates generate considerable mistrust.
An online Britannica can justifiably argue something similar to "Wiki is not paper", but at some as yet undefined future point it must still confront limitations to growth.
Size, price, features and most of the content seem to be unchanged from former versions.
"Most of the content" suggests that, still, some has changed. How do we know which? ... and why? The old material is still protected for the full usual copyright period, but no longer continues to be available from the publisher.
Given EBIs still-strong position in libraries, they might have a financial basis that will allow them to continue that path for a while.
Not a very long while. A small village library in one room of less than 20 square metres can now afford a computer, with internet access, for less than the price of a traditional encyclopaedia set.
Ec