Skip to main content
To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.
Encyclopaedia Britannica To Follow Modified Wikipedia Model
●Security
●Politics
●Gear
●Backchannel
●Business
●Science
●Culture
●Ideas
●Merch
Search
●Security
●Politics
●Gear
●Backchannel
●Business
●Science
●Culture
●Ideas
●Merch
●Podcasts
●Video
●Newsletters
●Magazine
●Events
●WIRED Insider
●WIRED Consulting
●Jobs
●Coupons
Eliot Van Buskirk
Business
In a bid to wed the comprehensive, grassroots information factory of Wikipedia with the authority of the traditional encyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica is opening the floodgates for online user submissions into its 240-year-old publication — a move it long resisted and sniffed was akin to intellectual pollution. What Britannica wants to do, on the other hand, […]
In a bid to wed the comprehensive, grassroots information factory of Wikipedia with the authority of the traditional encyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica is opening the floodgates for online user submissions into its 240-year-old publication -- a move it long resisted and sniffed was akin to intellectual pollution.
What Britannica wants to do, on the other hand, is create "a welcoming community for scholars, experts, and lay contributors," it said in an announcement last week.
Once a staple of many homes, the encyclopedia has become increasingly irrelevant in the internet age. A shelf of leather-bound books may look fabulous but, almost by definition, it becomes obsolete the moment it is published (you can look it up). Oh yeah -- and they are way expensive.
While it lacks the gravitas of gold leaf and feel of fine paper, the world has turned in droves to Google's simple search box. And now that Wikipedia has reached a point of relative maturity, there's even less of a reason for people to look to printed encyclopedias for information.
But scholars, journalists and researchers have been loathe to use Wikipedia for official citations. The same open-source culture that allows it to be current has also made it subject to vandalism and patently false entries.
Britannica is going halfway to where it's never gone before: it is opening up its site to the crowd, but keeping the gates up against the barbarians as far as the official version of the publication concerned.
By editing all changes to its core base of information before they are posted online, Britannica, which has been online since 1994, hopes to create a trusted source that takes into account the input of the crowd. Members of the company's community of scholars and registered users will be able to post about new topics without intervention, but the company says all articles on new topics will be fact-checked and vetted before appearing in the main edition.
Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications, explained to Wired.com that the new site will include three main categories of content: content created by the site's existing community of experts, content created by users and Encyclopaedia Britannica itself, which will incorporate aspects of the first two once they have achieved a "Checked by Britannica" designation.
The newly redesigned site will differ from Wikipedia in other key ways, according to Britannica's blog. Anyone will be able to publish articles under their own name, including the scholars and experts who have traditionally provided new content to the publication. Imagine Wikipedia mashed with Linked In
(see image above).
To incent experts to contribute, Encyclopaedia Britannica will offers some sort of rewards system in addition to giving them a place to "showcase and publish their various works-in-progress,"
although Panelas would not disclose details about the incentive program.
"Encyclopaedia Britannica has long been written by a community of scholars from all over the world, and this distinguished group of people has always been one of our greatest assets," reads a note in its blog. "Today it is possible to increase the strength and size of this community online and to provide its members with incentives to become involved with Britannica on a more sustained and consistent basis."
The new, interactive version of Encyclopaedia Britannica is already online in beta form. Its features are scheduled to appear on the main site in the coming weeks and months, according to the company.
As much as the world might need something like this, one can see ardent Wikipedia supporters decrying Encyclopaedia Britannica's move, since it attempts to make private what Wikipedia makes public (information ownership). If that's the case, Britannica editors may have their hands full wading through bogus submissions.
Here, we see the new edit mode:
And here's what the edit history looks like:
There is no word of the Britannica news in its extensive Wikipedia entry. But there is an expression of great respect:
The articles in the Britannica are aimed at educated adult readers, and written by a staff of
19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors. It is widely perceived as the most scholarly of encyclopaedias.
Wikipedia doesn't have its facts straight in this instance, according to Panelas. "That's wrong," he told Wired.com. "The (correct) figure (for full time editors) is about 100."
Screenshots courtesy of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Most Popular
Security
The Snowflake Attack May Be Turning Into One of the Largest Data Breaches Ever
ByMatt Burgess
Science
The Science of Having a Great Conversation
ByDavid Robson
Backchannel
Inside the Biggest FBI Sting Operation in History
ByJoseph Cox
Gear
Everything Apple Announced at WWDC
ByBoone Ashworth
Current Affairswikipedia
The EU Is Taking on Big Tech. It May Be Outmatched
From the Digital Services Act to the AI Act, in five years Europe has created a lot of rules for the digital world. Implementing them, however, isn’t always easy.
Luca Zorloni
Google’s AI Overview Search Results Copied My Original Work
Google’s AI feature bumped my article down on the results page, but the new AI Overview at the top still referenced it. What gives?
Reece Rogers
Deadspin’s New Owners Are Embracing Betting Content—but Not AI
The future of once-beloved sports blog Deadspin has been murky since it was acquired by an unknown company called Lineup Publishing in March. The new ownership told WIRED they “don't want to ruin it.”
Kate Knibbs
Chatbots Are Entering Their Stone Age
Anthropic and other big AI startups are teaching chatbots “tool use,” to make them more useful in the workplace.
Will Knight
Apple’s Biggest AI Challenge? Making It Behave
Apple Intelligence will make apps and services smarter. But Apple’s most notable innovations focus on ensuring the technology doesn’t disappoint, annoy, or offend.
Will Knight
With Gemini on Android, Google Points to Mobile Computing’s Future—and Past
Google’s new upgrades to Gemini and Circle to Search offer a look at how the operating system might change and revolve around artificial intelligence.
Julian Chokkattu
Generative AI Doesn’t Make Hardware Less Hard
Wearable AI gadgets from Rabbit and Humane were panned by reviewers, including at WIRED. Their face-plants show that it’s still tough to compete with Big Tech in the age of ChatGPT.
Lauren Goode
Google's AI Overviews Will Always Be Broken. That's How AI Works
Google rushed out fixes after its AI search feature made errors that went viral. Fundamental limitations of generative AI mean that it will still screw up sometimes.
Will Knight
WIRED is where tomorrow is realized. It is the essential source of information and ideas that make sense of a world in constant transformation. The WIRED conversation illuminates how technology is changing every aspect of our lives—from culture to business, science to design. The breakthroughs and innovations that we uncover lead to new ways of thinking, new connections, and new industries.
●Subscribe
●Newsletters
●FAQ
●WIRED Staff
●Editorial Standards
●Archive
●RSS
●Accessibility Help
●Reviews
●Buying Guides
●Mattresses
●Electric Bikes
●Fitness Trackers
●Streaming Guides
●Coupons
●Submit an Offer
●Become a Partner
●Coupons Contact
●Code Guarantee
●Advertise
●Contact Us
●Customer Care
●Jobs
●Press Center
●Condé Nast Store
●User Agreement
●Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement
●Your California Privacy Rights
© 2024 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad Choices
●Italia
●Japón
●Czech Republic & Slovakia
In a bid to wed the comprehensive, grassroots information factory of Wikipedia with the authority of the traditional encyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica is opening the floodgates for online user submissions into its 240-year-old publication -- a move it long resisted and sniffed was akin to intellectual pollution.
What Britannica wants to do, on the other hand, is create "a welcoming community for scholars, experts, and lay contributors," it said in an announcement last week.
Once a staple of many homes, the encyclopedia has become increasingly irrelevant in the internet age. A shelf of leather-bound books may look fabulous but, almost by definition, it becomes obsolete the moment it is published (you can look it up). Oh yeah -- and they are way expensive.
While it lacks the gravitas of gold leaf and feel of fine paper, the world has turned in droves to Google's simple search box. And now that Wikipedia has reached a point of relative maturity, there's even less of a reason for people to look to printed encyclopedias for information.
But scholars, journalists and researchers have been loathe to use Wikipedia for official citations. The same open-source culture that allows it to be current has also made it subject to vandalism and patently false entries.
Britannica is going halfway to where it's never gone before: it is opening up its site to the crowd, but keeping the gates up against the barbarians as far as the official version of the publication concerned.
By editing all changes to its core base of information before they are posted online, Britannica, which has been online since 1994, hopes to create a trusted source that takes into account the input of the crowd. Members of the company's community of scholars and registered users will be able to post about new topics without intervention, but the company says all articles on new topics will be fact-checked and vetted before appearing in the main edition.
Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications, explained to Wired.com that the new site will include three main categories of content: content created by the site's existing community of experts, content created by users and Encyclopaedia Britannica itself, which will incorporate aspects of the first two once they have achieved a "Checked by Britannica" designation.
The newly redesigned site will differ from Wikipedia in other key ways, according to Britannica's blog. Anyone will be able to publish articles under their own name, including the scholars and experts who have traditionally provided new content to the publication. Imagine Wikipedia mashed with Linked In
(see image above).
To incent experts to contribute, Encyclopaedia Britannica will offers some sort of rewards system in addition to giving them a place to "showcase and publish their various works-in-progress,"
although Panelas would not disclose details about the incentive program.
"Encyclopaedia Britannica has long been written by a community of scholars from all over the world, and this distinguished group of people has always been one of our greatest assets," reads a note in its blog. "Today it is possible to increase the strength and size of this community online and to provide its members with incentives to become involved with Britannica on a more sustained and consistent basis."
The new, interactive version of Encyclopaedia Britannica is already online in beta form. Its features are scheduled to appear on the main site in the coming weeks and months, according to the company.
As much as the world might need something like this, one can see ardent Wikipedia supporters decrying Encyclopaedia Britannica's move, since it attempts to make private what Wikipedia makes public (information ownership). If that's the case, Britannica editors may have their hands full wading through bogus submissions.
Here, we see the new edit mode:
And here's what the edit history looks like:
There is no word of the Britannica news in its extensive Wikipedia entry. But there is an expression of great respect:
The articles in the Britannica are aimed at educated adult readers, and written by a staff of
19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors. It is widely perceived as the most scholarly of encyclopaedias.
Wikipedia doesn't have its facts straight in this instance, according to Panelas. "That's wrong," he told Wired.com. "The (correct) figure (for full time editors) is about 100."
Screenshots courtesy of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Most Popular