dave lacrone : blog

Encyclopaedia Britannica announced this week that it is opening up its content to users, wiki-style.

Way to strike while the iron is hot, guys.

Most reactions around the web consist of unbridled pleasure at this apparent submission to Wikipedia's publication model. But I'm not so giddy, because it doesn't seem like Wikipedia's model at all. From the Britannica blog post:

"As part of our longstanding tradition, engaging a prominent community of scholars will continue to be a key requirement. With this new site and initiatives we will be able to recruit new members beyond our current contributor base, through recommendations from existing contributors, applications from expert communities, and by inviting select members of our user community."

Does that sound like Wikipedia to you? How about this:

"Interested users will be able to prepare articles, essays, and multimedia presentations on subjects in which they’re interested. Britannica will help them with research and publishing tools and by allowing them to easily use text and non-text material from Encyclopaedia Britannica in their work."

Isn't that great? They will let us use Britannica as a source while adding to Britannica's knowledge base.

Really go read the post - there is a lot of talk about professional scholarship there. I think they seriously overestimate the academic credentials of the average Wikipedia contributor. Britannica is trying to have it both ways. And while they are having it both ways, they want you to contribute to their for-profit enterprise which they can use to sell 30 volume, leather bound tomes to libraries and wealthy, overzealous parents with gifted children. The beauty of Wikipedia is that users are contributing to a freely available public resource that can be used by anyone for any purpose.

Here's the best part: user-submitted content that has been verified and approved by Britannica editors will be blessed with the label "Britannica Checked."

I think the biggest issue is that Britannica is not free, and Wikipedia is. It seems like they may be fixing that? But is this clear to anyone? If by "Users" they refer to people who ponied up the money for subscriptions, then this is really no announcement at all. It will be a pathetic publishing outlet for late career professors at middling universities who just don't care anymore.

I designate you "Britannica Checked"

Libraries did not stop purchasing Britannica because of Wikipedia, either in print or online forms. When I was a student (not long ago!) and needed an encyclopedia, I used the Library's online subscription to Britannica. It was good information, I didn't have to "worry" about the content of Wikipedia.

But if I wanted to know what years Starsky & Hutch aired on TV, or find out when Whitney Houston said "crack is wack" then Wikipedia is the way to get the job done.

Open content has taught us all a lot about how information can be assembled, crafted and constructed, but Wikipedia is not Britannica (Wikipedia is Funk & Wagnalls--zing!). So this announcement seems a little lame, because it doesn't address to core issues of price, accessibility, and openness. As far as I'm concerned Britannica could go on being Britannica.