Their main advantage in the current market is that their content is vetted. Question is whether they can afford the staff to keep up with submissions, and whether that value added is worth the price they charge for it. The market seems to be saying no. And if they walk away from that strategy what other working model is there?
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Alvaro García <alva...@gmail.com> wrote: > What is surprising is the fact that even though it shows it'd be > succesful, given the example of Wikipedia, they refuse to accept edits > instantly and they have to pass through a review process. Come on, > morons may do vandalism on Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure only -or at > least, the big majority- people that know will send edits to the > Encyclopædia Britannica. > > > -- > Alvaro > > On 30-01-2009, at 0:07, Durova <nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Being bold here and expounding a little. If any of you have read the > > history of encyclopedias *Britannica* put out in its "Macropedia" > > from a few > > years ago, it's been clear their management has been living in a dream > > world. They go on at length about quaint little experiments from > > the 1980s, > > while neglecting to mention the existence of Wikipedia as it swam > > into their > > river and chomped on *Britannica's* market share like a swarm of > > piranhas. > > Meanwhile they portrayed themselves as a 'portal to the Internet', > > reflecting a top-down information management mentality that's > > obsolete to > > anyone who's ever heard of Google. > > > > Bottom line for that organization: they may be cream of the crop as > > encyclopedias go, but in terms of general reliability hierarchies > > that's > > kind of like being the best in cuisine at microwave dinners. If the > > competition is nearly as good and free, why should the public pay to > > get > > their service? Their business plan never accounted for that > > possibility. > > > > After the *Nature* study it looked very curious that, five months > > later, * > > Britannica* management revived interest in dead news by publishing a > > bitter > > rebuttal. That was lousy PR. And the head-to-head with Jimbo in > > the Wall > > Street Journal shortly afterward made it clear--with minimal reading > > between > > the lines--that ol' *B* must have been hurting financially. A > > venerable > > institution doesn't act that counterintuitively unless it's > > hemmorhaging > > readership and money. > > > > Privately, I've been telling people for years that I doubt their > > business > > plan could survive another decade. They may have embraced wiki-ish > > modifications, but it's too little too late. They should have > > anticipated > > the Internet's real potential twelve years ago. Headlines may say > > 'Watch > > out Wikipedia', but Alexa says differently. > > > > How many of you are shelling out hard cash to read *Britannica* > > online? > > Raise your hands. Yeah, just about none. > > > > Sayonara, > > Durova > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:20 PM, <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> <<-----Original Message----- > >> From: Ray Saintonge <sainto...@telus.net> > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > >> Sent: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:52 pm > >> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica > >> 2.0 > >> > >> wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > >>> <<In a message dated 1/29/2009 sainto...@telus.net writes > >>>> I had sent him a scathing email denigrating him for not allowing > >> direct user edits. > >>>> > >>>> For some time, they allowed you to *email* them additions and > >> corrections, > >>>> > >>>> and I pointed out how ridiculously last decade that was. And how > >> if they > >>>> don't shape up ...like now dude.... they would be history. Buried > >> by Wikipedia. > >>>> > >>>> I notice they didn't mention my name in that article however. > >> Shameless! > >>>> > >>> It's hard to see what will be accomplished by taunting them in this > >> way. > >>> Rubbing dirt in the faces of the losers is not particularly > >> dignified. > >>> If we really are the winners we need to be more gracious about > >>> it.>> > >>> > >>> Then you're not understanding what occurred. > >>> What was accomplished is that they *now* allow contributors to make > >> direct > >>> edits to the articles. > >>> They didn't before. > >>> > >> Sorry, but I hadn't realised that they had done all this just because > >> of > >> your letter. :-[ > >> > >> Ec>> > >> ------------------------- > >> > >> Of course! > >> Everything revolves around me and my needs and desires. > >> The rest of creation in fact is just part of a dream I keep having. > >> > >> W.J. "formerly the Artist" > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> WikiEN-l mailing list > >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > http://durova.blogspot.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
