Timothy Shell <tshell(a)bomis.com> writes:
One could plausibly argue that Britannica will always
have an advantage in
quality and reliability, but I don't think this is the case. For one
thing, the Wikipedia process results in a high level of quality.
With quality I agree. Reliability is another thing: sometimes I'd want
to link with a resource that explains a concept, which *won't*
suddenly change from under my hands. Even if we believe that changes to
Wikipedia generally go to the better, more detailed, more balanced,
etc. that can be detrimental sometimes.
Suppose I write a paper about something that references an Wikipedia
article. Now someone broadens the article with much information that
is also in my paper, i.e. the papers is rendered a bit useless. Or
worse, someone puts information that refute my theory on the page.
Oops.
On the other hand, as we can all see now, up-to-dateness is a virtue
in which Wikipedia can beat all printed encylopedias hands down.
britannica.com also has something by now; I can't judge details from
here, though.
--
Robbe