Andrew Lih wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:33:48 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
The new Britannica FUD was interesting: Their new take is that Wikipedia is too detailed and one of the things that makes EB great is that they make careful decisions on what is most important to include.
So that looks to me like they are giving up and declaring their much smaller size and long time between updates to be 'features.' :)
For Britannica, it's going to be much harder to come to grips with the two things you mentioned.
The broad popular participation in Wikipedia, and the deep pockets that support Encarta suggest that EB's attitude is based on desparation. Where is their growth potential? I'd love to look at their financial statements. As Bill Cosby's God once chastised Noah: "How long can you tread water?" :-)
Ec