Charles Matthews wrote: > Durova wrote: > >> 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? >> >> > Actually I don't know that the question is rhetorical. There is the > hidden assumption: EB is the universal encyclopedia (for > English-language readers). There must be ways of running a reference > website for money that drop the comprehensiveness and timeliness (WP's > major strengths) as the central ambitions. > >
I think in fact that the headline is misleading. This isn't really a case of Britannica taking on Wikipedia. It is more like they may have seen Veropedia in their rear view mirror, and gotten scared. A peer reviewed study that unfavorably compared Britannica with Veropedia in terms of timeliness, scope and accuracy would be quite devastating to Britannica, since Veropedia also vets its contents. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
