Mark Gallagher wrote:
We aren't out there to create a new Britannica. We're creating something different. We should look to Britannica, and its competitors, as something to emulate. We should *aspire* to be as good as them. But, in the end, we're *not*. There's always a niche market for creatures like Britannica --- for people who are worried about accuracy (but not money) and are not prepared to put in the effort required to find out if a Wikipedia article is true or not, for example.
Of course, unintentionally, we're hurting Britannica. And we're hurting the other encyclopaedias out there as well. We're bringing an encyclopaedia into the homes of people who couldn't afford the fees charged by the others. Decent and free will always trump excellent and bloody expensive. It's only natural that Britannica, whose management presumably know one or two things about business, will see this and get scared. They don't want to peddle to a niche subset of the 'paedia audience, and they don't want to risk going under if it doesn't work.
And frankly, that's not just Britannica's problem --- it's ours as well. "Decent and free" is fine when there are better encyclopaedias out there. If we're the best the world can offer, then we *have* to be great, not good, not decent, but *great*. We'd owe it to the world, after taking away their best encyclopaedias, to provide a valid alternative.
Cheers,
That's why we should now, after hitting the psychologically important 1,000,000 article mark in the en: encyclopedia, be focusing on quality improvement, not growth.
-- Neil * *