Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Encyclopedia Britannica to Take User Contributions

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the just-not-how-we'd-expect dept.

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."

8 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Kafka said it by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  2. Open Source (sorta?) by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  3. A grab for unpaid labor is all this is by analog_line · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
  4. Encarta tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Britannica misses the point,... again. by nharmon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. First impressions by consonant · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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..
    --
    [Slashdot Comments We Liked]
  7. What about small changes by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  8. Encyclopedias as sources by intellections · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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