Encyclopedia Britannica Online Still Smells Like Old Media • 04.20.08
TechCrunch pointed out that Encyclopedia Britannica Online is allowing web publishers to sign up for free one-year accounts and share the content with their readers via a new program called Britannica Webshare. Well, dear readers, I myself signed up for the service and was accepted. When I signed up, I thought that this would be another very useful resource that I could point to from time to time to add value to whatever I may be blogging about. However, in the process of writing this blog post, I started exploring their site, and quickly found that I didn’t love it. In short, Britannica Online is too similar to Britannica offline. It doesn’t link out. It’s very much a dead-end street on the information highway (albeit, perhaps, as far as dead ends go, it’s more of a nice cul de sac of well-read information). This is not to say that I won’t ever be linking to them. It’s just that I think they could be doing what they’re doing better.
Here’s a link to Britannica Online’s entry for Wikipedia and here’s a small excerpt:
Reliance on community self-policing has generated some problems. In 2005 the American journalist John Seigenthaler, Sr., discovered that his Wikipedia biography falsely identified him as a potential conspirator in the assassinations of both John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy and that these malicious claims had survived Wikipedia’s community policing for 132 days. The author of this information could not be easily identified, since all that is known about contributors is their computers’ IP, or Internet protocol, addresses (many of which are dynamically generated each time a user goes online).
For comparison purposes, here’s Wikipedia’s entry on Wikipedia and an excerpt:
Wikipedia (pronunciation ) is a free,[4] multilingual, open content encyclopedia project operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites) and encyclopedia. Launched in January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[5] it is the largest, fastest-growing and most popular general reference work currently available on the Internet.[6][7]
All the above bracketed numbers are references that I cannot be bothered to link directly from here, but which Wikipedia does link in the actual article. Keep them in mind.
Now, reading the Britannica entry, I’m struck with two things. First, it’s written more stoically. Something about it sounds more like a dictionary than the Wikipedia’s entry. More like I’m getting the definition of Wikipedia from a teacher who has no first-hand knowledge of what a wiki is or what it does. Secondly, they don’t have any references listed with the entry. They do have a short list of related links, but they’re all internal links and they use the following language to introduce the links:
Related Links
Aspects of this topic are discussed in the following places at Britannica.
They’re the Encyclopedia Britannica, so I suppose their ethos counts for quite a bit and we’re supposed to trust that whoever wrote this particular entry for them spent the time to diligently fact check everything.
While Wikipedia definitely has errors, such as the one mentioned by the E.B. article on Wikipedia, that creep up in it from time to time, the facts that are there are thoroughly referenced in most cases. Wikipedia’s Wikipedia entry currently has 141 references at the bottom. If the entry is incorrect, you can double check the references rather easily and carefully weigh any information presented that is not supported by references. On Encyclopedia Britannica, you cannot do that. You must simply trust in the Encyclopedia and know that the knowledge you will gain from it is limited by the knowledge it contains. The fact that the Wikipedia links to all these other resources is what makes it an invaluable resource.
That’s one Web 2.0 lesson that I’d like to see Encyclopedia Britannica learn. It’s more important than their new widgets, their blog, or their Twitter stream (which btw has a bio that really thrusts that ethos down your throat: “Encyclopaedia Britannica Webshare: Links and news from the authoritative encyclopaedia“; emphasis mine; they even use the archaic spelling of encyclopedia to sound more authoritative), because they are treating those technologies as just another form of distribution of their “authoritative” information, rather than as a nexus for communication, discussion, and an information hub linking outward to all the other great information resources online.
Here’s my unasked for advice for Encyclopedia Britannica and any other old school media publication trying to thrive in today’s new media: It’s no longer about just being a great resource. You have to be a great resource and engage and participate with the other great resources out there. People like this because it gives them more choice while giving them a sense of community. It’s not how many followers you have; it’s how many people you follow. It’s not how many people subscribe to your RSS feed; it’s how many RSS feeds you subscribe to. It’s no longer about having all the answers succinctly stated in one spot; it’s about filtering and processing the best of the plethora of information out there and providing direction to that information without limiting that information.
Update: Just for fun, here’s one of their widgets; it is on American Literature, pre-configured of course, and there is no way that I can see for me to customize it:
I would really *love* this widget, if I could plug any E.B. entry I wanted into it and customize the look of it so that it matched my blog. I should also probably mention that I’d prefer it not to be an iframe, but that’s just me being overly picky. Also, supposedly it’s not always working for people using Internet Explorer. If you’re using IE, you really should download Firefox NOW!
Recommend on Mahalo



