Encyclopedia Britannica to Take User Contributions

Barence writes "Britannica has long been a vocal critic of Wikipedia's user-generated content, and has repeatedly attacked the accuracy of its articles. Surprisingly, then, it is rolling out a new system allowing readers to potentially contribute to articles, Wiki-style. But Britannica is keen to stress that its new website will not be following the Wiki-model, describing it 'as a collaborative process but not a democratic one.' You can try out the new Britannica beta site."

Comments

First article submission

[Stanistani]

I shall submit an article on the 'electronic encyclopedia, which anyone can edit.'

Re:Kafka said it

[Joe the Lesser]

Or as Yosemite Sam says: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

Open Source (sorta?)

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

Let me get this straight. The encyclopedia Britannica will now be powered through user generated (but not user selected) articles... To me, it sounds like they're getting free work for a paid product.

1. Make encyclopedia
2. Get a lot of people to submit articles for free
3. Pay a few people to edit and select the best articles
4. ???????
5. Profit!

A grab for unpaid labor is all this is

[analog_line]

From the terms of service on the linked Britannica site:

By sending information or material, you automatically grant to Britannica, a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, publish, edit, translate, distribute, perform, and display it alone or as part of other works in any form, media, or technology whether now known or hereafter developed, and to sublicense such rights through multiple tiers of sublicensees.

Wikipedia may have serious accuracy problems in a lot of areas (not all of coruse, but it's not hard to find them) but at least they aren't using me as unpaid labor to save them from having to hire researchers.

Brilliant strategy

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

1 - Capitalize on the buzz created by Wikipedia, falsely open Britannica to contributions
2 - Keep hand on content, unlike Wikipedia, edit contributed content and sell as own
3 - Profit

I know there's truth in their beef against the wiki process, but really what I mostly see is a great way for Britannica to get raw material faster without having to pay anybody.

Encarta tried it

[Anonymous Coward]

Encarta already tried it.

It didn't work because it doesn't feel like you're collaborating and "owning" the submission, it feels like you're giving your time and effort to some large entity which has control over the content.

Clay Shirky explains it better in Here Comes Everybody but the basic idea is that WikiPedia belongs to the people who submit, in a way, which means people are more likely to.

Britannica misses the point,... again.

[nharmon]

But Britannica is keen to stress that its new website will not be following the Wiki-model, describing it "as a collaborative process but not a democratic one." First, Wikipedia is not a democracy.

Second, facts are not democratic. You can't VOTE on what will be true. Trust me, it's been tried.

Britannica is still around?

[alen]

shocking, who still uses it?

Appending to existing articles?

[lobiusmoop]

I would add an appendage to their article on 'Alchohol' about the best drink in existence.

First impressions

[consonant]

Waaay too much "rich content" for my tastes. When visiting a site for information, I, for one, do NOT want:

• Videos auto-running
• Random elements zooming around
• Mouseover actions that surprise (I still don't think mainstream WWW pages are ready for a http://www.dontclick.it/ - like UI)

This also sounds suspiciously a LOT like Google Knol. Encyclopaedia Britannica is reacting to Wikipedia the way Microsoft reacted to Google/Firefox. Giant established behemoth in its field getting its comeuppance from upstarts due to its inability to adapt to changing times, and trying to pick itself off the ground to play catch-up..

What about small changes

[wile_e_wonka]

It sounds like the article is suggesting people can offer whole articles for submission. It seems that Wikipedia works because people can write just bits and pieces. And then, if I see something wrong, or if something changes, I can just make that minor little change myself. So, to fix some minor error in an Encycopedia Britannica article, I have to write a whole article? What if the article has some error within an article, or something has changed making the article no longer up-to-date and I want to just suggest a correction?

Re:Britannica misses the point,... again.

[bsDaemon]

Second, facts are not democratic. You can't VOTE on what will be true. Trust me, it's been tried. That may be true for maths and science articles, however anything remotely political is going to be biased as hell in one way or another, and those that agree with the bias will say its a "fact" and those that don't will say its lies.

For instance, in the article about Benito Mussolini, they go out of their way to talk about how he was violent and evil right up front.

In the article on Che Guevara, there is only a passing mention about how some people find his methods controversial, and its buried half way down.

Was Mussolini heavy-handed? Yes. But Guevara killed hundreds of people with his own gun, sentenced kids to prison for sassing their parents, etc. He exported violent revolution from Cuba to Africa and the rest of Latin America which lead to the deaths of tens of thousands, if not more.

Che Guevara was NOT a nice guy who gave candy to kids. However, clearly Wikipedians love him.

This is an example of "facts" being "voted on," and an example of why reliance on wikipedia for anything other than science or maths is a bad idea.

hell, be wary even of that, no matter what sort of good news that it espouses for African elephants.

Obligatory Monty Python reference...

[denzacar]

            (Scene : A front door of a flat. A man walks up to the door and rings bell. He is dressed smartly, like a Salesman.)

            Salesman: Burglar! (longish pause while he waits, he rings again) Burglar! (woman appears at other side of door)

            Woman: Yes?

            Salesman: Burglar, madam.

            Woman: What do you want?

            Salesman: I wart to come in and steal a few firings, madam.

            Woman: Are you an encyclopaedia salesman?

            Salesman: No madam, I'm a burglar, I burgle people.

            Woman: I think you're an encyclopaedia salesman.

            Salesman: Oh I'm not, open the door, let me in please.

            Woman: lf l let you in you'll sell me encyclopaedias.

            Salesman: I won't, madam. I just want to come in and ransack the flat. Honestly.

            Woman: Promise. No encyclopaedias?

            Salesman: None at all.

            Woman: All right. (she opens door) You'd better come in then.

            (Salesman enters trough door.)

            Salesman: Mind you I don't know whether you've really considered the advantages of owning a really fine set of modern encyclopaedias...(he pockets valuable) You know, they can really do you wonders.

            (Cut back to man at desk.)

            Man: That man was a successful encyclopaedia salesman. But not all encyclopaedia salesmen are successful. Here is an unsuccessful encyclopaedia salesman.

            (Cut to very tall building; a body flies out of a high window and plummets. Cut back to man at desk.)

            Man: Now here are two unsuccessful encyclopaedia salesmen.

            (Cut to a different tall building; two bodies fly out of a high window. Cut back to man at desk.)

            Man: I think there's a lesson there for all of us.

Re:Kafka said it

[zappepcs]

Slow down, take the lens cap off for a bit.

I said "If you learned to research anything with some efficacy you would know that you CAN go to wikipedia and use the cited references there to write your own information."

So, lets say this, if you find me terrifying, perhaps you should rethink your opinion of yourself. If you go to wikipedia and find the cited references are not any good (circular, tabloid, etc.) then keep searching, unless of course you want to cite such references, but don't blame me or wikipedia, or anyone because you did not do YOUR part in researching the information that you need. DAMN!

I heartily reject the idea, and your assertion that my teacher are wiser than I am. They may well be more educated, but that does NOT make them wiser. meh

Encyclopedias as sources

[intellections]

Generally Encyclopedias are not considered valid sources for research papers anyway. They're great for getting a quick handle on what you're supposed to be doing your paper on but there aren't too many circumstances where they are considered okay for that use. I still feel wikipedia is just as good if not a better source than any other encyclopedia, it's amazing how fast those articles are updated. As long as you're careful not to believe every little thing you read you are probably going to get the best and most updated information from wikipedia