Britannica 2.0 to take on Wikipedia
Nibble
Rule Britannica
Thursday, 22 January 2009, 10:29
THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA is going to allow the great unwashed to start contributing to its online version.
The move, which is clearly a push to counter Wackypedia, will enable the inclusion of this user-generated content.
A spokesbrit said that the likes of Google were pretty dumb linking to information as dodgy as Wackypedia as their first result when Britannica would be much more reliable.
Changes or additions made to Britannica entries online would have to be vetted by one of the company's staff or freelance editors before the changes appeared, he said.
This is unlike Wackypedia where accurate articles are ripped to bits by self appointed 'experts' and editors who consider themselves Gods of Knowledge. µ
L'Inq
AP
Share this:
Share
Advertisement
Subscribe to the INQ Newsletter
Sign-up for the INQBot weekly newsletter
INQ Whitepapers
Business Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
Jobs
Advertisement
INQ Poll
Ok, the content maybe good, but Britannica's website design stinks. Ugly, unwieldy and flash laden - Wikipedia is clean and easy to use. Ok, the content isn't quite as authoratitive, but the diversity and frequency of updates makes up for it. I predict a failure here for Brit.
I find the last two paragraphs quite funny. If anything the Britannica staff must be just as guilty, if not even more so, of the things accused of Wikipedians in the last paragraph.
That of course was likely intentional sarcasm, but I have no sense of humor.
Fake-penises against Real-penises.
The consumer always win I guess.
There is absolutely no reason to trust Britannica's content more than Wikipedia's, there is no such thing as an authoritative source. If anything, Britannica is more suspect due to possible commercial interests, corporate ties etc. Critical reading is a necessecity in any case. Trust no one, question everything!
Or will Britannica also delete her with some petty, trumped up reason?
Ultee'Pedia AKA Commentos@theINQ, is filledwith verbage & Galaore ideas. While Britanica is $400, it is Much More ThoughtOut. Compared to WikiPedia, Britanica is Accurate & insightful. Wiki could be anything, so often less than truth. It is mold your ideas fit within. When Britancia comments, people read, Hope Public dosn't screw it up too much. There still must be form to write from, so maybe more like Britanica Childrens Edition?
i A spokesbrit said that the likes of Google were pretty dumb linking to information as dodgy as Wackypedia as their first result when Britannica would be much more reliable. /i
See http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
I for one look forward to a more reliable source of information than the MOSSAD / US Government infected wikipedia.