Home >> History, Ideology & Science >> International Business

     Email   Print 

Positioning the Encyclopedia Britannica

Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. - 1/24/2010

In the age of the Wikipedia, nearly-accurate information is ubiquitous. Granted, the data are riddled with errors and do not amount to structured knowledge. Still, Wikipedia-like online efforts are more than adequate for the needs of the vast majority of users. When in search of fault-free, in-depth, and articulate wisdom, students and academics revert to textbooks and scholarly magazines. Thus, the Encyclopedia Britannica falls between the cracks: it is too detailed, costly, and thorough to cater to the wants of the occasional peruser, yet it is not sufficiently authoritative to serve as a bibliographic source in a textbook or doctoral thesis.

To survive, the Encyclopedia Britannica must re-position itself. It must re-brand itself as an archive of the history of ideas rather than a mere work of reference. It should consider the following moves:

Team up with the Wikipedia and provide free content to complement the "crowd-sourced" variety. Thus, each Wikipedia article can link to the corresponding Britannica offering or include selected paragraphs reprinted from it. The Britannica can even create its own Website with the entire text of the Wikipedia (allowed under its Creative Commons license), replete with links to the Britannica's own articles under the relevant Wikipedia entries;

The Encyclopedia Britannica should digitize all its previous editions (since 1768!) and make them available online behind a paywall. Every article in the Britannica's Website and on its DVD should link to erstwhile versions of the same topic in all the Encyclopedia's previous editions. This will allow for comparative studies and cross-cultural research;

The Britannica should digitize and place online, behind a paywall, its entire internal archives: correspondence between editors and contributors; drafts of articles and essays, both rejected and published; memos and controversies; communications with the media and all other written information from its inception in the 1760s to this very day. This would constitute an invaluable contribution to the history of ideas. The Britannica may wish to team up with Google to do the digitizing and online placement of this treasure;

The Britannica should enter the education market where its brand carries incomparable weight. Its content can be leveraged to produce tutorials, structured and guided homework assignments, and numerous other derivative educational products. The Encyclopedia's DVD can then be packaged with these products and presented as a "bonus";

Finally and perhaps most importantly, the Encyclopedia Britannica should establish mechanisms to benefit from contributions, comments, and amendments submitted by members of the public. There is nothing new about this collaborative model. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), first published in 1928, was the outcome of seventy years of combined efforts of 2,000 zealous and industrious volunteers. The difference between the Wikipedia and the OED, though, is that the latter appointed editors to oversee and tutor these teeming hordes of wannabe scholars. The concept of "mob wisdom" or "crowd sourcing" is equally dated. Every scholarly article and book submitted for publication first goes through peer review: scrutiny by qualified experts who suggest additions and amendments to the material. Once published, authors frequently act on input by academics and the wider public and issue revisions and new editions to reflect this newly-gained knowledge. Again the Wikipedia differs from traditional "out-sourcing" in that it is indiscriminate: the qualifications, education, experience, and credentials (expertise) of its contributors are frequently ignored, or even derided. The Britannica should not recoil from co-opting its loyal readership to better itself, to increase its online footprint, and to foster brand loyalty. One model it may wish to study and emulate is Citizendium.