244 Years Later, Encylopedia Britannica is Going Out of Print

[back_by_demand]

I still have a red leather bound 26 volume edition from the 1970's, mint condition, that belonged to my Dad. I think I will keep it for my own kids now, just in case they don't know what a "book" is.

 

[phraun]

[citation][nom]mayne92[/nom]Wikipedia - a source of info that "anyone can edit" and is discouraged to solely use in academia settings
Brittanica - info that has been true and sound for 244 years...allows for user content recommendations but still needs to be validated....Yeah that's tough competition.[/citation]

Wikipedia is generally accurate, easily navigable, has an established internet presence, and does a better job by far of covering "new" things. More than anything else though, Wikipedia is invariably on the top of Google results, or close to it. I don't think I've EVER seen results from EB on the first page of a Google search. The only way Britannica is going to catch up is if they somehow redirect www.wikipedia.org to www.britannica.com for a few months.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]mayne92[/nom]Wikipedia - a source of info that "anyone can edit" and is discouraged to solely use in academia settingsBrittanica - info that has been true and sound for 244 years...allows for user content recommendations but still needs to be validated....Yeah that's tough competition.[/citation]
Sure the info can be edited by anyone, but here's a pearl of wisdom i found on an article about Wikipedia vandalism:
http/www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/060726-wikipedia

Wikipedia survives and even flourishes in its open environment, mostly because the builders have been, at least so far, more dedicated and persistent than the vandals. A vigilante army of self-styled Wikipedians defend the site and enforce community policies based on the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for advertisements, slanderous remarks or pictures of your cat. They police the site to try to establish a neutral point of view, warn users against violating copyrights, and call for respect toward the contributions of others. Wikipedians also have a secret weapon built into the site’s software, which saves every version of an article and allows users to reinstate an older version with a simple click of a button. If I were to replace all the text in the entry on “influenza” with the phrase “my cat’s breath smells like cat food,” the wit and wisdom of Ralph Wiggam would not be likely to last long. Diligent, sleepless Wikipedians would swoop in and revert the page to its previous version. According to the Wikipedia’s vandalism entry, “A 2002 study by IBM found that most Wikipedia vandalism is reverted within five minutes.”

As surely as I can deface and ruin a paper copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica by drawing a picture of a cock on one of the pages, or rip out a page and wipe my arse on it, those are a lot more effort to fix than worrying about someone deliberatly putting bogus information into existing factual content.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Sure the info can be edited by anyone, but here's a pearl of wisdom i found on an article about Wikipedia vandalism:http/www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/060726-wikipediaAs surely as I can deface and ruin a paper copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica by drawing a picture of a cock on one of the pages, or rip out a page and wipe my arse on it, those are a lot more effort to fix than worrying about someone deliberatly putting bogus information into existing factual content.[/citation]

Yes, but who are these Wikipedians? What are there credentials? What is there expertise? What do they bring to the subject matter in terms of bias.

I would much rather have a trusted source like Brittanica or even World Book than Wikipedia. I don't mean that as an insult to Wikipedia, they most certainly have their place, especially in terms of up to date information. But for general knowledge and such, I think something with a little more reputation is good.

 

[11796pcs]

[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]Yes, but who are these Wikipedians? What are there credentials? What is there expertise? What do they bring to the subject matter in terms of bias.I would much rather have a trusted source like Brittanica or even World Book than Wikipedia. I don't mean that as an insult to Wikipedia, they most certainly have their place, especially in terms of up to date information. But for general knowledge and such, I think something with a little more reputation is good.[/citation]
You are forgetting that Wikipedia uses lots of sources from trusted publications. And most of the time those sources are from real printed books made by experts with way too much time. Ever seen a Wikipedia article? The article for influenza alone has 205 different sources. Is Wikipedia perfect? No, we are humans and Wikipedia is a human project. We are naturally biased and sometimes information is falsely reported. But is Wikipedia by far better than 99% of the things on the web? Hell yes. Remember that Wikipedians are vectors for knowledge. They don't actually manipulate the information. They just write down the important parts of any trusted sources they find.

 

[brucen13]

[citation]The only way Britannica is going to catch up is if they somehow redirect www.wikipedia.org to www.britannica.com for a few months.[/citation]
All Britannica need do is cover more subjects. They already have the name and reputation to be the leader, all they are missing is the breadth of subject matter of Wikipedia. Every time I read something on Wikipedia, I always have a hint of doubt about specific facts that aren't footnoted, mostly because of the nature of how information is collected and maintained on Wikipedia. As much as Wikipedia is an amazing collection of information, there is a reason it is sometimes not allowed as a source reference in academia.

 

[palladin9479]

The difference between Wikipedia and something like EB is their academic esteem. Turn in a paper to your professor with Wiki as your source, watch the look on their face. Turn in same paper but with professional publications (EB is one of them) as your source. Different grade is given.

Wiki is great, I use it constantly every day, but it's not 100%. It's the 90% solution, academia and engineering require 100% solutions. If anything wiki will most likely source EB for articles.

 

[klavis]

I wish I could afford to by this last set. Not sure I'd ever use it, but it's just such a symbol of the changing of the times.

 

[tomfreak]

10-20yrs from now we will heard the same story that magazine and newspaper corp, stop printing, going digital totally.

 

[virtualban]

A long time ago I had to install Britannica disc version for a friend who wished to have something to use offline. He had already downloaded (illegally 😛) the source, but could not set it up. I did this for him, and as a test on how to use the thing I searched for something. I searched for google, just for fun. Found only reference to a picture. It was 2005 or 2006, and 'to google' was already a word, but Britannica did not show me what Google was. If I am the ignorant alien from another time period or planet that does not know what something is, and Britannica did not show me, I would say it was not important enough to be put in an encyclopedia, but come on, it is Google the term I searched for. I was upset at the fact, and even though I had a flash drive with me at the time to take the downloaded disc image with me, I did not, and instead left my friend with "have fun with this POS that does not need internet connection"

 

[shqtth]

If a set sells for $1500+, they make $$$.

But how can they make money online?

Multiple souces of income is the key, not just rely on the internet.


Very stupid decision.

 

[COLGeek]

[citation][nom]zak_mckraken[/nom]@COLGeek : You read a 32-volume collection several times and you only learned a thing or two??? I'd be a regular know-it-all if I'd have only read a couple of pages![/citation]
My wife says I am a "know-it-all". So, maybe I did learn more than a couple of things...

 

[RADIO_ACTIVE]

Ohh the days of going to the card catalog to research an essay. Kids have it rough these days...

 

[headhunter187]

Good Ridence !