Comments on: Britannica 2.0, you’re no Wikipedia

By: Chip

Chip — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:25:00 +0000

OK, Tom. Let me hear the pitch. Why should someone use Britannica.com? Justify that $69.95 for me.

By: Chip

Chip — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:25:00 +0000

OK, Tom. Let me hear the pitch. Why should someone use Britannica.com? Justify that $69.95 for me.

By: Tom Panelas

Tom Panelas — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:57:00 +0000

"Somehow it sees to me there is no contest – in the sense that the Britannica and Wikipedia … address different target populations with different types of offerings."

@Nathan Zeldes: I think you're right. Britannica and Wikipedia are dramatically different, and if there are any similarities between the two they're at the most abstract level. The site Britannica is building isn't a wiki at all. But what can you do? People will see things as they're predisposed to. Did someone mention "bias"? :-)

By: Chip

Chip — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:46:00 +0000

My great-grandmother had a 1950 edition of Funk & Wagnalls. We kids used to snicker at the name, but we loved the full-color spreads of the flags of the world. That's the trouble with dead tree editions, though: they go out of date. Many of those flags are no more, and many have been added — even the US flag has two more stars.

By: Tom Panelas

Tom Panelas — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:57:00 +0000

“Somehow it sees to me there is no contest – in the sense that the Britannica and Wikipedia … address different target populations with different types of offerings.”

@Nathan Zeldes: I think you’re right. Britannica and Wikipedia are dramatically different, and if there are any similarities between the two they’re at the most abstract level. The site Britannica is building isn’t a wiki at all. But what can you do? People will see things as they’re predisposed to. Did someone mention “bias”? :-)

By: Chip

Chip — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:46:00 +0000

My great-grandmother had a 1950 edition of Funk & Wagnalls. We kids used to snicker at the name, but we loved the full-color spreads of the flags of the world. That’s the trouble with dead tree editions, though: they go out of date. Many of those flags are no more, and many have been added — even the US flag has two more stars.

By: Joseph A. Nagy, Jr.

Joseph A. Nagy, Jr. — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:23:00 +0000

I too hate the idea of having to shell out CC information just to do a free trial, and then get billed if I forget to cancel the free trial. Bah humbug to that. Just end the free trial.

I really have no other complaints with EB other then to say I have never owned a copy. My family does, however, have a rather dated set of Funk & Wagnell's encyclopedias.

By: Joseph A. Nagy, Jr.

Joseph A. Nagy, Jr. — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:23:00 +0000

I too hate the idea of having to shell out CC information just to do a free trial, and then get billed if I forget to cancel the free trial. Bah humbug to that. Just end the free trial.

I really have no other complaints with EB other then to say I have never owned a copy. My family does, however, have a rather dated set of Funk & Wagnell’s encyclopedias.

By: Chip

Chip — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:44:00 +0000

Not only that, but they're often very good at convincing others that their biases are pure facts. They are, after all, the experts.

By: apotheon

apotheon — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:21:00 +0000

Experts are often blind to their own biases — an even bigger problem than simply having biases.

By: Chip

Chip — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:17:00 +0000

Those are often difficult to quantify.

But yes, if Wikipedia does one thing to extreme, that would be their attempts to eliminate bias and maintain a neutral tone. The problem with relying on experts alone is that experts are often biased.

By: Chip

Chip — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:44:00 +0000

Not only that, but they’re often very good at convincing others that their biases are pure facts. They are, after all, the experts.