Not surprisingly, the Encyclopedia Britannica is trying to become Wikipedia by allowing users to edit Britannica entries. There’s a catch though. Unlike Wikipedia which will allow anonymous edits to entries, Britannica will require people to be registered users whose real names and addresses will be used (to verify their authenticity, I suppose). Another difference between the two encyclopedias is that edits to an entry will not go live until someone on the Britannica end of things vetts the information as being correct. Supposedly, there will be a 20 minute turn around between when you edit something and when it gets put live on the site. That seems like an awfully quick turn around to me and considering that edits can take place all over the world, I am surprised that they would be suggesting that they could verify that information in such a short amount of time.
While I think that Britannica is slow to the game, it’s probably a good idea that they’re doing this. If you can’t beat them, join them. And, I think it’s good that these user edits may end up appearing in the printed version of the encyclopedia. As I think I’ve probably said before, giving people a sense of ownership is a good thing. That’s what Nicholas Carr described in his review of a book about Wikipedia and how he got sucked in to the idea of ownership of an article. Heck, maybe people will go back to buying more copies of the print version if they feel their edits are going to be part of the encyclopedia.
Some people might criticize Britannica for “dumbing down” their encyclopedia and going the way of Wikipedia. It might be nice, for example, to know that there is an authoritative source of information out there that hasn’t been “polluted” by the general public with their own personal research or information but rather to have one with experts who write the article. Others might suggest that it’s a smart business move. I don’t know which it really is. The thing that I can’t help but think about is that unless people and/or businesses change with the times, they’re going to eventually be overtaken by some upstart company and Britannica has felt that pressure. After all, what happened to the search engines Webcrawler, Lycos, Altavista, etc. Does anyone use them anymore? I’d guess that most people use Google. Now, I know that this comparison isn’t necessarily a comparison of the same things (apples to apples, you know), but I would say that it is reflective of the idea that change is a natural part of life and that everyone needs to accept it or slowly fade away into obscurity.
What do you think? Is this a sign of the times? Is it a smart business move? What does it mean for libraries and librarians who use this encyclopedia over Wikipedia?