Comments:Encyclopædia Britannica fights back against Wikipedia, soon to let users edit contents

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

I can see where Cauz is coming from, distinguishing his publication as a primary source compared to Wikipedia, which emphasizes sources cited rather than the article itself as primary; and the relative reliability implied. But the elitism slathered over his public statement is likely to constrict Britannica's niche even more. They're trying to put themselves in a competitive position, and the only way they could succeed is for Wikipedia to adopt the contribution model they're proposing, which isn't too different from the one suggested should be ratified (and already ratified by German Wikipedia.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 97.81.77.13 (talk • contribs)

Encyclopaedia Britannica vs Wikipedia

Britannica never thought that an open source product like Wikipedia would seriously challenge the credibility of its brand. They were wrong and Encyclopaedia Britannica's staff seriously misread the global market. They are now very concerned about the widespread use of a free Wikipedia vs their paid subscription model From a corporate and financial perspective, Encyclopaedia Britannica is in serious trouble.

It will be interesting to see if Encyclopaedia Britannica survives, but recent indications do not look good. It is the combination of a) the success of Wikipedia and b) improved search engines that has put financial pressure on Encyclopedia Britannica over recent years. Many libraries, schools & individuals are questioning the need to pay for sets of expensive books, or to subscribe to Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, when the content is free on the internet, and often much more comprehensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 115.129.23.114 (talk • contribs)

hmmm. I note that this exact same comment was written on the physorg.com article on this subject a few days ago, by someone called "1768". Do copyrights apply to comments too? Gopher65_talk 02:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It may simply be the same author copying his own post . And copyleft is less aggressive than copyright—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.179.130 (talk • contribs)

Copyright automatically applies unless waived. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of EB asking for user contributions if they already have a panel of experts? Also, what about censorship--who decides what content to publish on the site? Tell someone (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinion piece

I recently criticized the BBC and other media outlets for getting the FlaggedRevisions issue and various other relevant facts wrong, despite easy fact checking opportunities... I would have expected editors from within the Wikimedia community to do better.

This article needs a lot of heavy editing to improve its clarity in terms of quoting and description, a lot of heavy editing to remove unsubstantiated opinion, and a lot of fact-checking to backup broad claims made using little evidence before it should be described as a solid piece of reporting. Avruch (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)