tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18042907.post781032597871952492..comments2023-10-30T09:14:10.289-05:00Comments on The Eighth Floor: Wikipedia vs. Britannica?Eighth Floor Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04825960907543295020noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18042907.post-21883553424141050962007-12-12T13:26:00.000-06:002007-12-12T13:26:00.000-06:00Folks, Let me clear one thing up to begin with: B...Folks, <BR/><BR/>Let me clear one thing up to begin with: Britannica editors are not so well paid as you may think. For that matter, I don’t know any editors who are. This is publishing, not investment banking. This idea that people who create encyclopedias for a living are greedy corporate profiteers is simply an invention of people who need an enemy to hate in the Internet revolution. <BR/><BR/>Editors are just scholarly liberal arts majors (some with advanced degrees) who have some sense of calling, have mastered a craft, and ply it as well as they can to pay the bills. Kind of like teachers. They make a fraction of what they'd get in corporate law or betting on hog-belly futures, but they do it anyway because it's the kind of work they'd prefer to do. It doesn't make them rich. <BR/><BR/>For another thing, the Nature study was completely baked. We at Britannica (yes, I work there) took it apart point by point <A HREF="http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf" REL="nofollow">here</A>. <BR/> <BR/>If you don't want to believe us, or you don't have time to read 7,000 words (sorry, but that's what it took simply to scratch the surface of their--ahem--study) you can read these to put the Nature thing in perspective: <A HREF="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-03-30-nature-britannica_x.htm" REL="nofollow">USA Today</A>, <A HREF="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/" REL="nofollow">The Register</A>, and <A HREF="http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/03/britannicas_ind.php" REL="nofollow">Nicholas Carr</A>.<BR/><BR/>As for that page on Wikipedia that purports to list Britannica errors: Just because they say something, it doesn’t make it true. <BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>TomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18042907.post-64519404453156229142007-11-28T12:50:00.000-06:002007-11-28T12:50:00.000-06:00Fantastic share, Christy! Love it. When do you t...Fantastic share, Christy! Love it. When do you think Encyclopeda Britannica will publish the errors in Wikipedia? :-DLee Annehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07610708073779555245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18042907.post-58838638666735184562007-11-28T12:19:00.000-06:002007-11-28T12:19:00.000-06:00Wikipedia actually has a special page highlighting...Wikipedia actually has a special page highlighting <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_in_the_encyclopedia_brittanica" REL="nofollow">errors in Encyclopedia Britannica</A> that have been corrected in Wikipedia. It's a fun list to go through.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com