I know many of you are interested in how Wikipedia's traditional competitors are doing, especially the unusual event that new print editions appear.
The Swedish encyclopedia, Nationalencyklopedin, was produced in 20 volumes in 1989-1996 and has since made many transformations as CDROM, DVD, and online. The original 20 volumes contained 172,000 articles, which have expanded to 460,000 in the current online edition, which is only open to paying subscribers.
One year ago, a new printed edition appeared, a compact 3 volumes with only 64,000 short articles. These volumes have the same 3 columns per page, 25 cm tall, as the original 20 set. At the same time, the website was revised so that 64,000 short articles (I assume they are the same ones) were made available for free.
Yesterday, we learned of yet another printed edition, this time in 20 volumes, to be sold in collaboration with two newspapers Dagens Nyheter and Expressen. It appears that these volumes are rather thin, maybe 200 pages and set in only 2 columns. Although I don't have any numbers, it seems that this could be the same 64,000 short articles.
The old print set of 20 big volumes + 3 supplements sells for 700 euro in plain binding or 1100 euro for leather spines (half-calf, Halblederband). The 3 volumes sell for 190 euro. The new 20 volume compact edition sells for 8 euro/volume (including shipping) with the first one free, for a total of 150 euro.
The two newspapers belong to the same publisher. Dagens Nyheter is Sweden's largest morning subscription newspaper, delivering the volumes with 14 day intervals directly to your home. Expressen is Sweden's second largest evening newspaper, only sold in stores, and you get the volume for an extra 8 euro when you buy your newspaper. Expressen has earlier done this with DVD films and some minor books, and so has its competitor Aftonbladet. Some stores might offer a reduced price for the newspaper supplement to customers who buy other products for more than a certain amount.
My interpretation is that printed encyclopedias and newspapers are two industries in crisis that are trying to find each other. Using a highly respected brand for a much smaller new product is a strategy that has been tried before (e.g. Mercedes-Benz A-Class), but I'm not convinced it makes any sense in the long run. People might set their expectations too high and get disappointed. Old arguments that the Swedish Wikipedia needs to become as good as Nationalencyklopedin, suddenly got a lot more confused.
Hi Lars,
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Lars Aronssonlars@aronsson.se wrote:
I know many of you are interested in how Wikipedia's traditional competitors are doing, especially the unusual event that new print editions appear.
Thanks for your remarks on the situation in .se.
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.
Size, price, features and most of the content seem to be unchanged from former versions.
Given EBIs still-strong position in libraries, they might have a financial basis that will allow them to continue that path for a while.
Mathias
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
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org