Erik Zachte wrote:
Britannica is a well respected encyclopedia and rightly so. I think it wont hurt to set ourselves a goal and learn from the strengthes and weaknesses of the 'competition'. It is not a deathmatch though, just for honours.
True. However, I think it's also important to remember that Wikipedia and Britannica, although similar in some respects, are really very different beasts. Britannica's venture into the digital world was slow and clumsy; by the time they has found their footing, Microsoft's upstart Encarta was eating their lunch. Someone pointed out before that Encarta is more our competition. Even still, the first version of Encarta was simply the text of Funk and Wagnal's encyclopedia rebranded, with added multimedia. Wikipedia was born on the Internet, the strange and marvelous result of a ménage à trois between Open Source, Nupedia and the WikiWikiWeb.
I would hate to see Wikipedia push Britannica out of the market in four years time.
As strange and marvelous as Wikipedia is, I can't see that happening. :)
Stephen G.
sgilbert@nbnet.nb.ca wrote:
Someone pointed out before that Encarta is more our competition.
Well, I think that depends on each person's vision of what we're doing. I don't think of what we're doing in terms of market share or marketability, although I do agree that those things are worth thinking about.
I think about what we're doing in terms of grand visions about presenting the finest repository of the knowledge in the history of the world, to all the people of the world, for free, as our gift.
I suppose that the finest English-language encyclopedia has been Britannica for quite some years now. Encarta, well, feh. Not in the same category. :-)
I would hate to see Wikipedia push Britannica out of the market in four years time.
As strange and marvelous as Wikipedia is, I can't see that happening. :)
No, it'll take at least 5 years before that happens. :-)
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org