Open Access NewsNews from the open access movement Jump to navigation |
|||
More on Britannica's wiki-like features Stephen Hutcheon, Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica 2.0, Sydney Morning Herald, January 22, 2009. (Thanks to Resource Shelf.) Excerpt:
Comments
Update (1/25/09). A sentence in my comment yesterday was imprecise: "This may be an innovation for Britannica, but it's not the way to compete with Wikipedia." Let me distinguish competing with Wikipedia (1) for quality, (2) for scope, and (3) for eyeballs and links. Britannica is already competitive with Wikipedia for quality, and the limited nature of its new wiki-like features is designed to preserve its quality. (Conversely, Wikipedia is competitive with Britannica for quality.) Britannica will never be competitive with Wikipedia in scope and isn't apparently trying, which is wise. Hutcheon's article suggested, however, that Britannica is trying to compete with Wikipedia for eyeballs and links. In passages I didn't include in my excerpt, Cauz criticized Google for ranking Wikipedia articles above Britannica articles, as if Google rank were about quality, or as if the quantity of links to TA articles would ever rival the quantity of links to OA articles. When I said that Britannica hadn't found a way to compete with Wikipedia, I was referring to eyeballs and links. Entirely apart from Britannica's quality, and its partial openness to user contributions, it will never compete for eyeballs and links as long as the bulk of its content is TA. (Disclosure: I'm on the advisory board of the Wikimedia Foundation.) Correction (1/25/09). My information on Brockhaus is outdated. Here's better information from Mathias Schindler, posted with permission (thanks Mathias):
|