Encyclopedia Britannica announced yesterday a new version to its online presence which follows a Wiki like model. In a move that marks the end of the rigidity of the pre-web 2.0 era for the encyclopedia maker it is asking the masses to edit, enhance and contribute to its online version. New features enabling the inclusion of this user-generated content will be rolled out on the encyclopedia’s website over the next 24 hours, said Britannica’s president, Jorge Cauz.
While Wikipedia, Britannica’s prime competitor follows an unstructured manner of publishing with the community of users being the sole answer for accuracy and standards, Britannica has a more formal approach to UGC. In the sense that editing Britannica entries would have to be pre-approved by one of the company’s staff or freelance editors before the changes were reflected on the live site. Also, users and editors on the Britannica site will have to register using their real names and addresses to modify or adding entries, unlike Wikipedia.
Though one might find the above steps ‘restrictive’ and perhaps a hassle compared to the openness of Wikipedia, it can also give a projection of better information standards. And considering the history and standing of Britannica’s encyclopedia worldwide, they are in a position to pull in a lot of offline users.
The biggest hassle, which even Britannica seems to be well aware of is the mighty presence of Wikipedia when it comes to getting search traffic. Wiki almost always seems to be the top result on Google for generic information, and could most definitely be the largest source of their traffic. Taking a dig at Google with the motive to shake Wikipedia’s supremacy on the Search Engine, Cauz snipped, “If I were to be the CEO of Google or the founders of Google I would be very [displeased] that the best search engine in the world continues to provide as a first link, Wikipedia,” he said.”Is this the best they can do? Is this the best that [their] algorithm can do?”
In a way I can’t help but agree with Cauz, though my intention with that is not to see another Wikipedia like website instead of Wiki. Given the popularity of Wikipedia and the brand that it has built Wiki can actually compete with Google as a premier brand for information seekers. Given that fact Google can provide newer results than Wikipedia with the consideration that most web users also know about Wikipedia by now, it is after all amongst the 10 most popular sites online. Of course a call from an encyclopedia maker wouldn’t be the basis of Google to take any decision of course, but, if at all they do reduce the prominence of Wikipedia, then the competition would completely become brand based. On one hand the traditional base of Britannica and on the other the neo web base of Wiki and that would be one helluva virtual war to see.
What I would like to see someone trying to usurp Wikipedia would be to add some multimedia dimension along with the wordplay. If one has paid a visit to Britannica’s award winning blog, it sort of becomes easy to suggest that they are in fact best placed to do it. However, the neo web is the most democratic among opportunities and perhaps we will get to see a newer name in the list. Wikipedia meanwhile has recently upped its ante in terms of prominent donation requests and testing new mediums to reach to people.
