Mathias Schindler wrote:
As you can see at
http://info.eb.com/PDFs/EB_PrePub.pdf, Britannica
will be selling a 2010-version of their 15th edition. The "fun fact"
is to advertise with a biographical entry on the Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert. You can't make up stuff like that. According to
http://www.caminfo.co.uk/pdfs/BRIT2010_001.pdf, they will tell you
*how* to start a blog. Extrapolating from this, they will explain in
their 2013/2014 edition to start a twitter account. It must be sad for
encyclopedia authors to see how PR is forced to focus on "brand new
facts", an area where the failing promises of an (printed)
encyclopedia are most visible.
The fundamental underlying question is how are these changes documented.
Ehud Olmert absolutely belongs in the new edition. If, however, that
new edition requires 2 pages then maintaining the overall manageable
size of the encyclopaedia requires that those two pages be offset by
removing a comparable amount of data elsewhere, perhaps from totally
unrelated material. In the more distant future the Olmert article may
itself become the victim of editorial condensation for reasons that have
nothing to do with Olmert.
If a 19th century poet had to be completely sacrificed for the sake of
the Olmert article, how are we to know that that poet ever existed.
There are some very important editorial decisions involved, and as long
as the end user remained oblivious to the changes they could go
unnoticed. Now, however, more are likely to argue for the notability of
the obscure poet, and they must confront the recentist hordes who defend
a contemporary politician. Such debates generate considerable mistrust.
An online Britannica can justifiably argue something similar to "Wiki is
not paper", but at some as yet undefined future point it must still
confront limitations to growth.
Size, price, features and most of the content seem to
be unchanged
from former versions.
"Most of the content" suggests that, still, some has changed. How do we
know which? ... and why? The old material is still protected for the
full usual copyright period, but no longer continues to be available
from the publisher.
Given EBIs still-strong position in libraries, they
might have a
financial basis that will allow them to continue that path for a
while.
Not a very long while. A small village library in one room of less than
20 square metres can now afford a computer, with internet access, for
less than the price of a traditional encyclopaedia set.
Ec