World History
I received this e-mail yesterday from Rodney Waldoff of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It partially reads:
Hello Miland.
You don't know me, but I wear the "community czar" hat at Encyclopaedia Britannica. My role is to develop tools and content that help experts like you reach, engage, and enlighten your audience. I've been following your World History Blog for a little while now, and wanted to reach out to you for a few reasons:
(1) At Britannica, we believe in the value of high quality content and in the importance of bloggers like you who create it. That's why I'd like to offer you a free subscription to Encyclopaedia BritannicaOnline.
2) As a service to your readers, the full text of every article you link to will be available to your readers for free, even those that normally require a subscription. Our reasoning is that it makes senseto allow bloggers and web authors to fully reference our content when it helps them express an opinion or enlighten their audience.
I would feel flattered but I also got this e-mail for another blog I keep under a different name. It appears as though the Britannica sent this e-mail out to lots of bloggers. As such, this appears to be an attempt by this encyclopedia to get links and recognition as a quality resource by the blogging community.
This makes sense. Wikipedia is currently the encyclopedia of choice for most bloggers. I frequently link there. Why shouldn't I? The content has proven to be reliable and it is free. I often edit there myself. I have consulted the print edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica many times in writing posts but I do not link to the Encyclopaedia Britannica website as my visitors can not read the content without buying a subscription. I will now link to the Britannica when appropriate.
I applaud this effort by the Britannica. However, I do not think they are moving far enough in this Web 2.0 world. Here are two suggestions:
1. Make all of the content of the Britannica available for free to search engine spiders and human visitors. If they want their content to be used, referenced, linked to, and found in search engine results they need to have it out there to read. I may link to them but my visitors will get frustrated when they leave the approved link made available by this program and hit a firewall demanding money. I predict they will then visit Wikipedia...
I realize that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is a business and needs to make money. However, there are ways to monetize a website and still make money without charging a subscription fee. Have they never heard of Google Adsense?
2. They need to make the encyclopedia more up-to-date. For example, compare the Wikipedia article on Wake Island with the Encyclopaedia Britannica version. It is easy to see which is more current. Super Typhoon Ioke hit the island a few days ago. It is the second most historical event in the island's history after the Second World War. Wikipedia has this in the article already, why doesn't Britannica? (And no, I did not make this edit at Wikipedia.)
I expect accuracy and wide coverage in an encyclopedia but I also expect currency. The old print cycle of waiting a year or two to update does not work on the web. If I have to wait, I will find another source.
Maybe the Britannica can open up it's content for editing to some users? I am not envisioning the Wikipedia model. I realize that is not the best route for the Britannica as Wikipedia has already beat them to this and it might not work for their reputation. However, is some access for some people worth considering? What would happen if the Britannica allowed bona fide academics access to articles? They could still have a verification process to assure quality but could be certain that almost all edits were worthwhile. Maybe the product would not be as responsive as Wikipedia to current events but it would not be as far behind as it is now either.
Maybe free online content coupled with a large number of active academics editing the Britannica could provide a counter to the wildly successful impact of Wikipedia?
A few days ago I was working with a doctoral student. She is finishing up her dissertation and I advised her to use a Wikipedia link. I even showed her how to cite it in APA format. I then called her dissertation advisor and urged her to allow this. Her advisor agreed. When this student graduates and begins teaching, I bet she allows her students to cite Wikipedia in papers. The times have changed. Can the Britannica keep up?
- Encyclopaedia Britannica Goes -- Gasp! -- Wiki
Here is a notice from the Chronicle of Higher Education: Long a standard reference source for scholarship, largely because of its tightly controlled editing, the Encyclopaedia Britannica announced this week it was throwing open its elegantly-bound covers...
- See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, The Cia, A Campaign
The CIA edits at Wikipedia. So do Congressional staffers and people working for companies trying to better the article about their employer or make a competitor's article worse. All of this has been suspected for years but now there is proof. John...
- Britannica Blog
Rod Waldhoff at the Encyclopedia Britannica has been kind enough to point out a new blog to me. It is the Britannica Blog. The blog is described as, "Britannica Blog is a place for smart, lively conversations about a broad range of topics. Art, science,...
- Citizendium - An Alternative To Wikipedia?
I read in a recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education that there is a move being made to create an alternative to Wikipedia. It is called Citizendium. Larry Sanger, one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, is attempting to create an academic version...
- History
History. This is a copy of this classic article from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I thought it would be worth pointing to as it is well written. I tried to find a link to this article from a complete copy of the 1911 Britannica. There are dozens...
World History
Encyclopaedia Britannica is Seeking Blogger Support
I received this e-mail yesterday from Rodney Waldoff of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It partially reads:
Hello Miland.
You don't know me, but I wear the "community czar" hat at Encyclopaedia Britannica. My role is to develop tools and content that help experts like you reach, engage, and enlighten your audience. I've been following your World History Blog for a little while now, and wanted to reach out to you for a few reasons:
(1) At Britannica, we believe in the value of high quality content and in the importance of bloggers like you who create it. That's why I'd like to offer you a free subscription to Encyclopaedia BritannicaOnline.
2) As a service to your readers, the full text of every article you link to will be available to your readers for free, even those that normally require a subscription. Our reasoning is that it makes senseto allow bloggers and web authors to fully reference our content when it helps them express an opinion or enlighten their audience.
I would feel flattered but I also got this e-mail for another blog I keep under a different name. It appears as though the Britannica sent this e-mail out to lots of bloggers. As such, this appears to be an attempt by this encyclopedia to get links and recognition as a quality resource by the blogging community.
This makes sense. Wikipedia is currently the encyclopedia of choice for most bloggers. I frequently link there. Why shouldn't I? The content has proven to be reliable and it is free. I often edit there myself. I have consulted the print edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica many times in writing posts but I do not link to the Encyclopaedia Britannica website as my visitors can not read the content without buying a subscription. I will now link to the Britannica when appropriate.
I applaud this effort by the Britannica. However, I do not think they are moving far enough in this Web 2.0 world. Here are two suggestions:
1. Make all of the content of the Britannica available for free to search engine spiders and human visitors. If they want their content to be used, referenced, linked to, and found in search engine results they need to have it out there to read. I may link to them but my visitors will get frustrated when they leave the approved link made available by this program and hit a firewall demanding money. I predict they will then visit Wikipedia...
I realize that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is a business and needs to make money. However, there are ways to monetize a website and still make money without charging a subscription fee. Have they never heard of Google Adsense?
2. They need to make the encyclopedia more up-to-date. For example, compare the Wikipedia article on Wake Island with the Encyclopaedia Britannica version. It is easy to see which is more current. Super Typhoon Ioke hit the island a few days ago. It is the second most historical event in the island's history after the Second World War. Wikipedia has this in the article already, why doesn't Britannica? (And no, I did not make this edit at Wikipedia.)
I expect accuracy and wide coverage in an encyclopedia but I also expect currency. The old print cycle of waiting a year or two to update does not work on the web. If I have to wait, I will find another source.
Maybe the Britannica can open up it's content for editing to some users? I am not envisioning the Wikipedia model. I realize that is not the best route for the Britannica as Wikipedia has already beat them to this and it might not work for their reputation. However, is some access for some people worth considering? What would happen if the Britannica allowed bona fide academics access to articles? They could still have a verification process to assure quality but could be certain that almost all edits were worthwhile. Maybe the product would not be as responsive as Wikipedia to current events but it would not be as far behind as it is now either.
Maybe free online content coupled with a large number of active academics editing the Britannica could provide a counter to the wildly successful impact of Wikipedia?
A few days ago I was working with a doctoral student. She is finishing up her dissertation and I advised her to use a Wikipedia link. I even showed her how to cite it in APA format. I then called her dissertation advisor and urged her to allow this. Her advisor agreed. When this student graduates and begins teaching, I bet she allows her students to cite Wikipedia in papers. The times have changed. Can the Britannica keep up?
- Encyclopaedia Britannica Goes -- Gasp! -- Wiki
Here is a notice from the Chronicle of Higher Education: Long a standard reference source for scholarship, largely because of its tightly controlled editing, the Encyclopaedia Britannica announced this week it was throwing open its elegantly-bound covers...
- See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, The Cia, A Campaign
The CIA edits at Wikipedia. So do Congressional staffers and people working for companies trying to better the article about their employer or make a competitor's article worse. All of this has been suspected for years but now there is proof. John...
- Britannica Blog
Rod Waldhoff at the Encyclopedia Britannica has been kind enough to point out a new blog to me. It is the Britannica Blog. The blog is described as, "Britannica Blog is a place for smart, lively conversations about a broad range of topics. Art, science,...
- Citizendium - An Alternative To Wikipedia?
I read in a recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education that there is a move being made to create an alternative to Wikipedia. It is called Citizendium. Larry Sanger, one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, is attempting to create an academic version...
- History
History. This is a copy of this classic article from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I thought it would be worth pointing to as it is well written. I tried to find a link to this article from a complete copy of the 1911 Britannica. There are dozens...