Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica/Archive 1

Competition Section Below Quality Standards
IMHO the competition section reads like a Wikipedia advertisement, and needs some serious rewriting. This is especially discordant with the banner which claims this article is of high quality. Anyone agree disagree? Would anyone object that this section needs a rewrite?
 * Andy 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There's been an edit storm recently: a lot of mitigating factors in Britannica's defense, in particular a description of the methodology of the review and the nature of the errors found, have been removed. The last edit I did was on April 3rd

It's kind sad to see it happen, it doesn't do Wikipedia much credit that so much has been omitted, particularly so as one presumes it was a deliberate choice given the amount of primary sources out there. -- Bryan
 * It was right to cut it down as coverage of the issue should be kept in proportion to other sections of the article. There is plenty of coverage elsewhere in Wikipedia, maybe in the Wikipedia namespace. I think it would be impossible to find an organisation more open to criticism than Wikipedia. EB of course is not open to criticism at all. 62.31.55.223 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia "not markedly less accurate" than EB, sez National Public Radio
This was just aired today on All Things Considered and as a Wikipedian I found it intriguing. Apparently the scientific articles on EB and Wikipedia were reviewed by independent experts for accuracy. The EB articles averaged 3 errors per article while the Wiki articles averaged 4. What's more, Wikipedia got some mixed, but generally favorable coverage. Take a listen! --Kasreyn

I think the Britannica Article is a bit bias (perhaps due to wording) - it says:

They found Britannica to average almost three errors per article. By comparison, Wikipedia contained close to four errors per article. [5]

But Nature says:

"The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in ***accuracy was not particularly great***: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

The current wording makes Wikipedia seems more inaccurate than it really is???

Any comments?

--Mshe 12:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My comment to that is that the EB article is the less biased of the two since EB is merely stating numbers while Nature has expressed an opinion along with the numbers.

--J-Star 13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * EB has nothing like the inaccuracies at Roswell incident, Green Fireballs, Philip J. Klass, Majestic 12, and a whole host of articles dominated by POV-pushers. Bubba73 (talk), 05:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Other discussion
I'm really interested in Britannica's history particularly the criticisms of it. Which editions were good and which weren't. Also, particularly, what is the general consensus now on whether it is accurate and impartial? Is the CD edition as complete as the print edition? Has the new owner managed to turn around the company's misfortunes? I think these are all interesting questions but google isn't helping me much, so are there any Britannica bufs (sp) who could. Maybe there could be some more in depth discussion about its merits and quite volatile history. Thanks. --komencanto 04:11, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm curious; haven't the copyright on editions after the 11th expired yet? -- Khendon


 * Perhaps people just don't think any edition after the 11th is worth quoting from. :o)
 * --Paul A

--- Just wondering about a paragraph:
 * Encyclopædia Britannica has a website which publishes a brief blurb about each of the articles, and with paid membership, one can view the entire article. This is against the philosophy of Wikipedia, which has the opinion that information should be free, both in the sense of gratis and libre. Encyclopædia Britannica also copywrites its articles, like most other encyclopædias. This is also agains the philosophy of Wikipedia.

Yeah, Britannica is against the philosphy of Wikipedia but then what? Why is it important to mention in context of Britannica article? If anyone won't answer this question, I will remove it. -- Taku 00:29 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * Good point, Taku. It's irrelvant to Britannica that it is against the philosophy of Wikipedia; just as it is irrelevant to Wikipedia that it is against the philosophy of Britannica. -- Cabalamat 00:52, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed, Taku. Go ahead. ÉÍREman 01:02 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC) -

I've ammended the claim that Britannica is the most prestigious. This is (IMO) POV, since it isn't a view everyone holds - I for one think Wikipedia is more prestigious, and I would use Wikipedia over Britannica even if Britannica was gratis, because Wikipedia is libre. -- Cabalamat 00:52, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * From Webster's Revised Unabridged edition : Prestige : Weight or influence derived from past success; expectation of future achievements founded on those already accomplished; force or charm derived from acknowledged character or reputation. You are mistaken that Britannica is not the prestigious encyclopedia. We have lofty aims here but we mustn't overstate what we have already achieved. I hope you don't mind if I revert your change. Pete 07:55, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is only proven that it is prestigious. How is it most prestigious? --Jiang 08:07, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Are there other candidates for the position? Pete 08:11, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * It's all up to opinion. I could say that Columbia is most prestigious, Or I could say that the Encyclopedia of Biosciences is most prestigous. Do we have a limited scope? There is no way any of this can be proved. --Jiang
 * Yes, you could say that. Who in the world does? Pete 08:26, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Google search for "most prestigious encyclopedia" is quite amusing... Pete 08:14, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Only 18 pages are making this claim, 6 of them from wikipedia, and 1 of them stating "one of the most prestigious..." There isn't much left. --Jiang
 * I wasn't intending it as evidence in favour of keeping the phrase.. in fact it supports the opposing view.. at the moment if you search Google for "most presitigous encyclopedia" you get Wikipedia recommending EB! Of course we have our principles and if we agree the phrase is true then we should keep it. Pete 08:26, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could call Britannica "a prestigious encyclopedia" or "a very prestigious encyclopedia". -- Cabalamat 13:58, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to write a "comparing Britannica and Wikipedia" page, and linking the Britannica page to it. -- Cabalamat 14:02, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Making fun of Britannica -- Tim Starling 14:14, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * lol. Trekphiler 04:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems that the number one item on that search is now this very talk page! [[User:Nricardo|Nelson Ricardo >> SpeakToMe <<]] 05:31, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * How about "the benchmark"? Or "the standard against which others are measured"? It is IMHO. When I edit, I ask, would it be appropriate in Britannica? That tone is one to be aspired to. So, too, completeness. Trekphiler 04:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Publication dates
Are these publication dates correct? We have the 15th edition (32 volumes: Propædia + 12 * Micropædia + 17 * Macropædia + 2 index volumes), and it is dated 1988. -- Oliver P. 04:23, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is "prestigious" a useful thing to say
The change you made has been discussed on the talk page without real resolution. To make a change to support your POV and then leave the summary blank is pretty poor. Please be more open. Thanks. Pete 06:32, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't see your point. To put in a unrelated summary or mark it minor would be misleading. Leaving it blank just asks you to check for yourself. We are not required to fill out the summary. I made the change based on your statement "I wasn't intending it as evidence in favour of keeping the phrase.. in fact it supports the opposing view".


 * Calling people "sneaky" is bad Wikiquette. Please try to avoid labelling in the future. --Jiang 06:38, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Wow! I didn't accuse you of being misleading, please don't put words in my mouth. Yes we don't have to put summaries, but it is pretty poor to leave it blank when you know the issue is contentious. I don't why the word sneaky is bad - but if you want let me know which word would accurate describe your actions but doesn't upset you, and I'll change it. Pete 06:54, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Just to clear the truth, I wasn't trying to hide it. I'm glad you found it. (I was hoping that if this were still disputed, it would revive the debate.) I was just being lazy. --Jiang


 * Ok, in that case I apologise to you for jumping to the wrong conclusion. Pete 10:37, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I've suggested a compromise.... an external source (New York Times, itself pretty prestigious :-) ) that called it the the most prestigious.

It doesnt seem right to cite the NYT in the second sentence (ie so early in the article). Let's add some buffer material in between... --Jiang 07:46, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I can see your point there. However if we move it down too much then we are left in the situation where we'll want to put something in the first paragraph to acknowledge the preminence of EB in the encyclopedia world... and then we are back to square one because we aren't agreed on how bold to be stating the degree of its preeminence (or otherwise!). Pete 10:40, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Avoid peacock terms - let's provide some hard evidence here. what's its readership? sales? how has it been used as a credible source in the past? --Jiang 10:18, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anybody can honestly and with a straight face deny that EB is the most prestigious English-language encyclopedia. Columbia, Encarta, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Wikipedia, Encyclopedia.com: which one is the most prestigious? Now one could play it safe and write "most people consider EB the most prestigious English-language encyclopedia", but that is redundant: something considered by most to be prestigious has certainly a lot of prestige. The fact that EB has this status is important information that is useful to our readers. AxelBoldt 23:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If it's prestigious, then saw why or how. Avoid peacock terms. --Jiang 20:37, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No answer? The phrases "oldest English-language general encyclopedia" and "accurate, reliable and well-written" already imply prestige. It's not necessary to say it again. Even if it were presitigous and i wasnt aware, i wouldnt be convinced just because the NYT said so. What is the NYT to judge? --Jiang 06:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * They are as good a judge as any. If you are able to find any sources that say EB is not, then you can quote them too. Better the NYT than your own personal POV, which seems to be to downplay the status of EB. Pcb21| Pete 08:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We dont need a judge here. The reader is the judge. Once again, avoid peacock terms applies. The NYT or anyone else saying EB is prestigious or not prestigious isnt really relevant. Prestige is something that is obvious and a widely held belief, not dictated by a single authority. I fail to see how what is already there fails to imply EB is "prestigious" --Jiang 08:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "Prestigious" in this context is not actually a peacock term, it is the means by which encyclopedias are compared to each other - sort of an umbrella word that combines authority, reputation, etc. There should be no problem using the word, then mentioning 2-3 examples of publications or other people saying so, as examples of its high repute. If its prestige is in any doubt, then there should be no problem finding somebody saying so in print, but I bet you'll have a hard time coming up with an example. Stan 14:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that with Stan here that "most prestigious" isn't a problem from a "peacock" perspective. That policy is fundamentally about having a neutral POV. Saying what people think about a topic is exactly the heart of NPOV. I simply disagree with you that what we have already implies prestige (its just a bit of weasaly stuff), much better to be explicit. Pcb21| Pete 18:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not just an issue of NPOV. The peacock terms page doesnt give any mention of NPOV as a reason. It's more about the value of adding such references. Calling encyclopedias "prestigious" reminds me of the Avoid academic boosterism guideline.

If something is prestigious, then it should be self evident as a widely held belief. We don't need the NYT to tell us that. To rely exclusively on the NYT is inappropriate, especially in the second sentence of the article. Something like this doesnt need a reference. --Jiang 11:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This is quite exasperating. You say prestige should be evident a widely-held belief. It is a widely-belief in this case (again, I repeat Stan's challenge to find someone who says different). I tried writing an unreferenced sentence along those lines, repeating the evident widely-held belief, and you didn't like it. So I try again with a referenced version, and you don't like that either. On the other hand, you have never backed up anything you've said with external evidence.


 * Perhaps something like many people hold the EB in very high regard, indeed for example the NYT called it the "world's most prestigious encyclopedia" in 1994, is better? However I can't get rid of the suspicion that you wouldn't accept any mention of the high regard in which it is held, because you are personally unwilling to accept that fact. Pcb21| Pete 15:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Better on the talk page than the article page?


 * Making fun of Britannica, a list of mistakes in the Britannica and how they have been corrected in Wikipedia


 * Nope. It is clearly marked as an external link, something that isn't part of the article itself. And it is relevant to the article and interesting to see the mistakes made in the Britannica, I'll add it back to the page. - snoyes 23:36, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Edition Numbers
According to my 1998 EB (the penultimate one to date) it is the last in a long line of revisions the 15th edition so how can the 16th edition have appeared in the eighties?

Number of Articles in Britanica
Hi, I am new to wikipedia. I found on page http://www.britannica.com/premium/ that britanica has over 120,000 articles.

I did noticed that on their DVD version on page http://store.britannica.com/escalate/store/DetailPage?pls=britannica&bc=britannica&clist=03258f0014009f&pc=B_2004URS&cc=encyclopedias it is mentioned that it has over 100,000 artices and below it in section updated it is mentioned that it has over 75,000 Articles I believe 120,000 artices are available online so 120,000 should be mentioned. I am editing th page If I am doing any thing wrong plz mail me. thanks. Zain 21:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems sensible to mention the highest figure as you suggest. Pcb21| Pete 22:35, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The prices
I find the prices that are associated with the various editions of the Encyclopedia to be rather crass. Could these be removed, or a link inserted to some page where people could subscribe to the services if they were interested? --Reagle 16:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, while I certainly find the prices associated with Britannica to be unfortunate, I think their inclusion in this article is quite relevant. &mdash; Matt 17:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Prices are the thing I found most interesting actually. I think that even someone can include the current price. The price of DVD 2005 and the paper ones. You guys are doing the greatest job ever!--212.124.92.21 18:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
Does anyone mind if I create a separate article on the company that publishes the Britannica encyclopedia? I think this would make things a bit clearer, given that they have published more than just the encyclopedia. Mjklin 13:38, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Excellent idea. They publish the Great Books of the Western World in addition to Encyclopaedia Britannica. soverman 17 Jun 2005 0325 (UTC)

Critic bashing
I altered this sentence:
 * "One former Editor in Chief was Robert McHenry, thought to be among the corps of administrators responsible for the publication's decline in the 1990s."

McHenry criticised Wikipedia in an article, and this sentence seemed to be "revenge" of some sort. This kind of thing only hurts Wikipedia's credibility. &mdash; Matt 16:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

12-year-old expert brings top encyclopaedia to book


What does "bring to book" mean? Besides being a pun? RickK 07:16, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i agreed its kind of a little bit of a pun, but i think one can get the meaning by reading only the first paragraph. One thing i have noticed is a couple of media sources have used the same title, so it could have been picked else where.


 * Gee, I must especially dense, or wouldn't have needed to have it explained to me. So, I'm going to ask again, what does "bring to book" mean?  RickK 05:41, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * It means to correct, normally in an officious or valiant manner. No idea on the source of the phrase.
 * James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A link to "errors in Britannica fixed in WP" page?
Should a link or reference be added to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%E6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia For some reason, you can't easily find this article from within wikipedia itself. I tried searching for "Encyclopedia Britannica errors" and it doesn't come up. And typing in just "Encyclopedia Britiannica" brings up the main article. -- 21 Feb 2005
 * Maybe. I had trouble finding it myself just now. &mdash; Matt Crypto 00:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As long as the Wikipedia article has a "Errors in Wikipedia corrected by Britannica" link, for NPOV. Pcb21| Pete 08:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Alrighty: Errors_in_Wikipedia_that_have_been_corrected_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica . ;-) &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh, knowing how some wikipedians choose to work, that will get populated soon enough :). Pcb21| Pete 09:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The page Errors_in_Wikipedia_that_have_been_corrected_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica, has been started so iMHO it is NPOV to have both this and Errors_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia, even if formally speaking they are in Wikipedia: space rather than article space. Boud 11:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * NPOV has nothing to do with it. We don't have self-references because re-users of our content do not take Wikipedia: namespace content. If you really want to link to those pages, you must format the links as an external link. However in the context of an encyclopedia article about EB, they are not particularly relevant. Pcb21| Pete 11:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly the Errors_in_Wikipedia_that_have_been_corrected_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica is not worth including in the article, because it's primarily a "parody/half-serious point page". You could argue that Errors_in_Wikipedia_that_have_been_corrected_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica is a useful resource as a comparison between Wikipedia and Britannica, but I'm not convinced it's that great, personally. And, as Pcb21 points out, they'd need to be added as web links, not internal links. &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * i think you (matt crypto) got your second internal link the wrong way around :P. (Hopefully, Britannica editors will correct this if they publish a talk page on this topic. ;) But i disagree with the "parody/half-serious point page". There are intelligent people who, implicitly, claim that because of its expert editors, Britannica is more correct and reliable than wikipedia. i would say the page is something more like an "empirical proof" page. Anyway, the argument in favour of an external link, at least for "errors in Britannica..." makes sense IMHO. Boud 14:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to say that argument borders on nonsense. The emptiness of that page proves absolutely nothing about the number of mistakes in WP corrected in EB, for obvious reasons. People may want to keep it in the WP: for their amusement, but we mustn't link to it from the encyclopedia proper. Pcb21| Pete 15:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Number of Words
Largest encyclopedia contains a December 2004 estimate of 120,000 articles and 77 million words for Encyclopædia Britannica online. This article, on the other hand, mentions that as of 2004, the most complete version of Encyclopædia Britannica contains about 120,000 articles, with 44 million words and adds that the online version contains 120,000 articles. Looks like either 44 or 77 is wrong, but where's the source for either? Rl 12:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the 100,000 figure (54,592,999 words) for EB2005 given here contains a lot of duplicates, as it breaks down into the following:
 * 73,570 - From Encyclopædia Britannica
 * 15,716 - From Britannica Student Encyclopedia
 * 1,851 - From Britannica Elementary Encyclopedia
 * 61 Britannica Classics
 * 9,090 from the Britannica Book of the Year (1993-2003)
 * The Student and Elementary Encyclopedias contain slimmed down versions of articles in the Encyclopædia Brittanica (termed Encyclopædia Britannica Library in the DVD 2005 version), so it's a little misleading at best to add them to the total. The best estimate would be 82660: all full articles plus the 'Book of the Year' articles. This is about the DVD 2005 version, which includes all articles in the Britannica print set; I don't know if they have any additional articles online that aren't part of this DVD. &mdash; mark &#9998; 13:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

''The statement: "The Student and Elementary Encyclopedias contain slimmed down versions of articles in the Encyclopædia Brittanica" is false, unless you consider all articles on a given topic to be "slimmed down versions" of some longer article on the same topic. The online version contains content not found in the DVD. Also "Britannica" is spelled is with one 't' and two 'n's.''

Other thinks
They also made a spectrum of educational films. 68.39.174.150 01:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

EB vandalism on Wikipedia
Doesn't this violate NPOV or assume good faith policy? I mean, it was just a couple of edits (possibly from random employee), does it really warrant a section in this article? At least, I would wait with this until wee see Britannica's article about Wikipedia... ;-) Samohyl Jan 15:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism on Wikipedia
I've moved the following here from the article:


 * Possibly because Wikipedia and Britannica are competitors, it appears that over the years, the EB staff has performed some minor vandalism on various Wikipedia articles. It is not known at this time if it was under official EB policies, or if it is the doing of random employees. The history of edits can be seen here, which is the list of contributions for the IP 216.146.93.139 which resolves to corp.eb.com.

I don't think the above is approproate for this article, for a number of reasons. In my opinion it is POV, based upon speculation and makes us seem petty to boot. I will go into more detail if others disagree. Paul August &#9742; 16:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, a little too much like gossip. Perhaps a project or even meta page would be appropriate, let others research the whole thing further. It would be amusing to have some accumulated evidence to trot out if EB decides to hassle us... Stan 23:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree, I don't think this is appropriate in this article. &mdash; Matt Crypto 08:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well its actually not rumor or gossip, its fact, that vandalism has been done on Wikipedia by corp.eb.com users. I still think this should go in the article, but since many seem to disagree I don't mind. Elfguy 00:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was stopping by to edit out that info myself, since I just remembered it. Yes, the evidence of vandalism is really incredibly minor, and there is no evidence for any of the prejudicial speculation that it was "under official EB policies." I mean, come on! Sdedeo 22:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The person has since done more vandalism, adding links to an EB site, etc. It did also do some real edits, but its undeniable that they did some malicious edits on multiple occasions. Also the person admited to being an EB employee on the IP talk page. The section stands. Elfguy 20:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted it back. Sorry, but 4 (or more) people agreed it shouldn't be here, so it shouldn't. Also consider the following example: If a random employee from Microsoft would have vandalized Wikipedia, would he deserve a mention in Microsoft article? Samohyl Jan 07:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If Microsoft was a direct competitor? And they did it thru Microsoft corporate addresses? And they did it multiple times? Yes. Elfguy 13:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In the context of the entirity of EB and its history, i.e. the subject we are trying to cover here, the incident is so totally trivial there is no way it deserves a mention. If you can't see that, then you need to take a step back and re-evaluate the importance of a Wikipedia edit! Pcb21| Pete 18:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If Microsoft is direct competitor doesn't matter (but it is, see Encarta), since articles are written from NPOV. Why would a reader of this article be interested in such incident? It's absolutely uncyclopedic. And also, if some MS (or Mathworld) employee will become angry, he vandalizes three articles here and gets a free promotion in MS article? Anyway, 5 people (me included) were against this mention in the article, so you should at least abstain from reverting it back unless you come with some real convincing arguments why it should be here. Samohyl Jan 00:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Elfguy, given that you're aware of a number of people who disagree, please wait for a consensus in favour of your change before going ahead with it. &mdash; Matt Crypto 16:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And where else should it go? A company that deliberately defaces articles from its corporate address and doesn't care to apologize for it should get a mention in the company's article. There's tons of examples of company articles with criticism about them. NPOV also means showing both sides. Elfguy 16:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not that it's criticism (believe me, I'm as happy as the next WP-dian to see EB criticised), but that this criticism is non-notable and original research. i.e. it doesn't need to go anywhere at present. We might be able to include it if, say, a major news outlet took up the story. &mdash; Matt Crypto 16:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And a minimal criteria for that news outlet to take up the story, I imagine, would a shread of evidence that these couple of edits were sanctioned by EB in some official capacity. The more likely case is that some bored officer worker heard about Wikipedia and decided to give it a quick whirl to see if what people said about it was true. In other words, a true yawnfest of an incident. Pcb21| Pete 16:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, that it's a Britannica (please, N EB! That's Electric Boat in my house, & they're good people!) employee. So? It's news. Wikipedia isn't a news site, it's an encyclopedia. Unless it was a massive campaign orchestrated from the corporate offices, it shouldn't get in--& shouldn't for a year or more anyway, til it stops being news & becomes history, which is a legit subject. Trekphiler 04:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

loyalties have moved towards?
"However, even though loyalties have moved towards products like Encarta and Wikipedia, [...]"

What does that even mean?

"Best encyclopedia"

 * However as of 2005, Britannica still commands the authority and respect ascribed to the "best encyclopedia."

This is a problematic sentence. For example, for me, and a few others I imagine, Wikipedia commands more authority and respect than Britannica. So what does "best encyclopedia" mean? Is it a quote? Does it mean "so-called best encyclopedia", or what? &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * People have repeatedly deleted my (attributed ; to the New York Times) comment that Britannica is the "most prestigous" encyclopedia. It has been replaced with a long piece about the so-called decline and fall of EB. It is embarassing that Wikipedians show their bias so brazenly in this of all articles! I agree that that sentence is inadequate - it is currently is it is because I cut the nonsense about "loyalties", but couldn't delete the whole sentence as the section would then seem to end mid-flow. Pcb21| Pete 13:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We do have "judged by many as the foremost authority in the field, its articles are commonly considered accurate, reliable, and well-written." in the lead section. I've made some edits to that section to try and make it more NPOV, but I've removed the sentence above. &mdash; Matt Crypto 13:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd hope we can shift this discussion. See the current revision. There's no question that EB today is well recognized and widely used. But the EB, and the world, have changed a lot. No encyclopedia fills the role today that the EB once did. It's not the definitive authority on anything, and hasn't been for a long time. (and neither is wikipedia, except perhaps on an obscure topic. and wikipedianism, of course.)  But that's not what encyclopedias are used for these days, or meant for IMO. Flux.books 11:53 Oct 15 2005

Special symbol
Is the symbol in the article inappropriate considering Wikipedia does not suggest using special symbols? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It may not suggest it, but in this case the æ is part of the correct spelling. --Speakslowly 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Page title / redirect
I object to this redirect. This is impossible to search for. -- Zoe

The use of the ligature is ludicrous, and the fact that there's an ad from EB that doesn't use it right next to the title just highlights the ludicrosity (!) of it. (Well, that and the way it takes up a good chunk of the first line of the article. Oy.)  I can only assume it was done by someone from the EB trying hide this article from the public!! ;) Flux.books 11:53 Oct 15 2005

Propose we move this to Encyclopaedia Britannica. It should read ae, or just e, but the ligature is silly, and introduces all kinds of problems. Internally, you can use a redirect, but the use of the ligature gurantees that many if not most users will get to the article via a redirect - and that's slow for the user, and demanding on the already-strained resources of wikipedia. Online library catalogs deal with it by adding extra search terms, but that doesn't really make sense here and the system is not well adapted to it. In short, it's pointlessly fussy, archaic, a waste of resources and most importantly user-unfriendly.flux.books 19:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence that the ligatured name of this article makes any non-trivial difference to the Wikipedia servers' resources? And if you're concerned about redirects, why not update the linking pages so that they point here directly? I don't think you've yet presented a compelling case to move away from the correct rendering of the name. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't lose track of the bigger issue, which is usability - people being able to search for the title, type the title, etc. As far as redirects, having spent many hours revising the EB and encyclopedia articles, and been through many redirects, I am well convinced that it adds a substantial amount of time to the page loading process; and wikipedia frequently gives server errors, far more than any other site I've used (in fact, I've had several just trying to edit this message). As far as the "correctness" of it - I don't agree in the least that has been established as the correct form. flux.books 19:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I doubt that the ligature marks on the title caused your server performance issues. Wikipedia can sometimes be quite flaky regardless. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not causing all the delays, but it is adding pointless delays; and that's not the point, which wasit's not in modern usage - no one is going to use or search on the ligature version, and it's a nuisance to type it in other articles. That's the main point.  In addition, they'll always get redirected, which clearly adds a delay, too, a secondary issue.flux.books 15:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with a move to a title without the ligature. Bubba73 (talk), 05:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To move it to a title without the ligature would be incorrect. The correct title is Encyclopædia Britannica, we shouldn't remove the ligature for the sake of making things easier, that would be accepting lazyness and false information. --Speakslowly 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
Any Sherlock Holmes fanatic will recall the appearance in the story "The Red-headed League" of the Encyclopædia Britannica. The text of this story indicates that the action takes place in 1890. The publication of the Britannica's 9th edition was completed in 1889. The story itself was first published in August 1891. Therefore, the story surely refers to the ninth edition. Just in case anyone else wanted to know. -- 67.174.231.120 18:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Not bad. Did you know it's illegal to own a complete Britannica in TX? (& U wondered why W was an idiot...). Trekphiler 04:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Question on a sentence in the lead
"Furthermore, recent encyclopedias are far more widely available, and are designed to reflect wider use, in contrast to earlier scholarly versions." - I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? Can someone explain it to me? Would anyone mind if I remove it? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Go for it; it seems like deadwood in the lead section. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yoink! :) I rewrote that paragraph and shortened it a bit. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's what that's about. First the background. This article has traditionally had all kinds of sniping and ax-grinding about the Britannica. What people need to realize is, in a nutshell:
 * In its day, the Britannica was uniquely prominent, and had a big impact on culture.
 * Its day was over a long time ago. Today it's just one of many.  Arguably one of the best, and clearly the best in some ways (and not the best in others), but not the unique role it once had.

Before the lead paragraph was just a battleground for edits and it never seemed to get resolved or go anywhere. But it can and should be resolved, as there IS a good story that can be told, and an accurate one too. So the point was, to get the story right, have it accurate and factual, acknowledging the points above. And to try to give an overview and help orient people to what the article is saying. (that's not deadwood.)

I'm not saying what was there was perfect, obviously it wasn't. But just whacking it out is on the short list of What's Wrong With Wiki, and why I stopped bothering with wiki since I rewrote much of this article. Wiki needs to encourage people to try to understand and build on and improve the work in place, not just whack it out. flux.books 23:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Top image
The image currently at the top, the 1913 advertisement, in my view depicts Britannica in a rather POV way. It implies that the encyclopedia is an historical publication and not something used nowadays. However true this may be, it's still being developed today, and the advert doesn't really represent what it is. This image should move to the History section and it place be taken by something else, perhaps a photo of the volumes of a recent edition, or similar. --BigBlueFish 17:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is particularly POV, but it would be nice to have some images of a modern set of volumes. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting my edits
Kolokol: I wonder why you have such a problem with my improvements to this article; the Manual of Style says:

"3.3 Numbers in words

Numbers may be written as words or numerals, although note that many users prefer that numbers less than ten be spelt out. '''It is considered awkward for a numeral to be the first word of a sentence: either recast the sentence or spell the number out. A consistent approach is required within each article'''."

So regarding the sentence that begins "19th century editions of the Britannica regularly included notable new or major works from its authors", both the MOS and the Chicago Manual of Style agree that this is not correct. Please cite your sources as to why you believe the numbers are better. Also, I believe the following sentence: "The 11th edition was the first edition to be published substantially at one time, in instead of volume by volume", makes no sense if you leave the extra word "in" before instead in there. Thank you.--FeanorStar7 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The "in" thing was an oversight, now corrected. As to the numbers, you even changed sentences like "Not only broader in scope, with 18 volumes plus a two volume supplement..." - the "18" there is neither "less than ten" nor the first word of a sentence. Kolokol 15:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica rewrites the past
I have the 2002 DVD edition, but I also inherited a copy of the 1966 printed edition. Some of the articles show a re-writing of history that makes it seem more agreeable to the modern view.

Sir Winston Churchill was not an anti-Fascist before Hitler came to power. He rather approved of Mussolini, saying in the 1920s that the Italian Fascist movement had “rendered a service to the whole world”. (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1966 edition) In the Encyclopaedia Britannica DVD edition of 2002, the whole topic of Churchill and Mussolini is absent from the rewritten text.

What he did at Tonypandy in 1910 broke a rule that had been established in 1688 and still holds today: that troops are never ever used in internal disputes on the British mainland. The 1966 edition speaks of him “calling in the military to aid the police in the Welsh miners strike in Tonypandy”. The current edition says that “he had to devote himself principally to coping with a sweeping wave of industrial unrest and violent strikes. Upon occasion his relish for dramatic action led him beyond the limits of his proper role as the guarantor of public order.” Clarity has been replaced by vagueness; troops and Tonypandy are no longer mentioned as such.

The Microsoft Encarta also dodges both topics, while citing an obituary from the Times which omits Churchill’s role as a strike-breaker.

Quintin Hogg (1907-2001) is not to be found in any edition of the Britannica. That's a major Tory policitian who came close to being Prime Minister in the 1960s. Who was also the pro-Appeasment candidate in an Oxford Bi-Election in 1938, which may be why they want him forgotten.

--GwydionM 18:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica Yearbooks
These were published from the 1930s, describing one year from the perspective of the next year. Consider the following:

“[Hitler] continued with great success his policy of national expansion, though this was directed, not to the re-acquisition of colonies, but to the absorption of expatriated Germans, those on Italian soil excepted, and by the expatriation, in so far as this was possible, of non-Aryan nationals... “Herr Hitler delivered two further speeches of importance... memorable, from the British point of view, for its attack on Mr Eden, Mr Winston Churchill, and Mr Duff Cooper, and the second... drew a comparison between the authoritarian states and the democracies, to the great disadvantage of the latter. “Early in the year Herr Hitler had made some efforts to stem the wave of anti-Semitism that threatened the country, but its effect was slight, and was entirely obliterated after the murder of the German diplomatist, vom Rath, in Paris by a crazed young Polish Jew in November.” (Entry for Hitler, Encyclopaedia Britannica Book Of The Year 1939.)

Churchill comes second to Eden, and Hitler is still viewed quite politely, in a way that would soon become unthinkable. Likewise no one now would now insult Herschel Grynszpan, who was foolish but who had suffered much provocation.

“The invasion of Poland seems to have been made against the advice of Italy. It marked the weakening, or perhaps even the breaking, of the Berlin-Rome Axis. The German-Soviet pact also proved a bitter disillusionment to Hitler. It destroyed further any faith in his sincerity, because it was a complete reversal of his whole previous policy; for years he had been denouncing the Russian Communists as the worst enemies of mankind... Hitler appears to have been duped by Stalin... The Russian dictator took advantage of Hitler's war with Poland, France and Germany to secure imperialist advantages for Russia.” (Entry for Germany, Encyclopaedia Britannica Book Of The Year 1940.)

It's now mostly taken for granted that Hitler was clever and Stalin was foolish.

--GwydionM 18:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Conflicting histories
The history of Britannica's ownership during the 20th century seems to be the subject of conflicting accounts. Compare The People's Almanac with the Chicago Tribune. There would appear to be a New York period that's not discussed, the Sears acquisition dates conflict, and the narratives about chain of ownership are difficult to reconcile, whether with the content here or with each other. Can somebody sort this out? --Michael Snow 00:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

--70.129.141.246 02:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oldest
Is EB really the very oldest (and implied, first) encyclopedia in the English language? I had been pretty sure that the first was back in the 1600s, not the 1700s. Perhaps what was meant was oldest English encyclopedia still being published and updated? --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it wasn't the first. (See the article on encyclopedia, that would shed some light on those dates for you.) EB is more like the oldest one still being printed in some form; which would actually apply in any language, not just English.  But given the gaps in publication, changes of ownership, move to the U.S. - it's not as if you can say it's been in continuous existence.  I'm not all that happy with the first couple sentences, but have run out of time so perhaps someone can refine what's there.  flux.books 22:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

pricing for educational and non-commercial use
It seems a basic flaw in mentioning the price of online Britanica (or prices in general), as we're merely showing the highest price they charge. I get free (or more precisely "no extra fee") online access to the full length articles through my library's web site (with a non-commercial restriction). I assume the same goes for the typical library (I never checked). I'm not sure how much they pay Britanica on my behalf (e.g. per user license fee), but I'm sure its a lot lot less then $69.95/year, as I pay the library only $10 a year, and I know that while the library is subsidized, its not subsidized to the extent its paying Britanica close to that much on a per-user basis. Then, of course, a huge portion of Britiancia readers are in educational institutions, who presumable get print or online access for a substantial discount. If we talk about price at all, we have to talk about all major pricing options, and give an idea what the typical user pays (directly or on their behalf with an institution paying a licensing fee for them). Now, I don't know all the pricing information. But I feel we must either show pricing in a truly NPOV fashion, or we should not mention pricing at all. --Rob 00:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

POV
This article is incredibly biased, no where is a scquelch of criticism allowed. 165.247.85.153 20:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of Britannica, but your edit was not only devoid of NPOV, it also cut lots of useful information. Removing useful information is what vandals do, so I suggest you refrain from using that word when referring to editors who restore useful information. I suggest you discuss it here. What criticism would you have included? Please also provide sources for these criticisms. &mdash; Matt Crypto 20:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't look at your edit closely. You were trolling. Best ignored. &mdash; Matt Crypto 20:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to be getting any authoritative criticism, or any kind of fair discussion of various points of view. So far it's been unsupported comments, random potshots, or axe grinding. What would be your criticism, and what would you base it on? flux.books 22:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonspecific information
"Encyclopedias have become a general reference used by a wide audience, with shorter, more readable articles. They no longer serve as the authoritative reference on a topic; in the modern era, a wide range of academic journals, textbooks, specialized publications and electronic resources have displaced the encyclopedia."

Shouldn't this be in the general 'encyclopedia' entry? It's not specific to Britannica alone


 * See the discussion above under 'Question on a sentence in the lead'. The point is to convey the significance the EB once had, and why; and the current important but much reduced role.  You can't understand that without some context.


 * And behind that, the point was to help resolve the endless unfruitful debates / edit wars about the EB ("it's the greatest ever!" "it doesn't live up to its reputation!" or "it's lame"). The article has had quite a bit of axe grinding and POV in it over time.  Hopefully we can avoid that by putting in more precise discussion.  The net of it being, the EB was once towering, a landmark in Western culture.  Today it's a pretty good encyclopedia for some things and some people.  No more, no less.


 * That doesn't of course mean it couldn't be improved, just that before editing this article it helps to consider & discuss.flux.books 20:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of Brittanica articles?
According to this page, Brittanica has about 120,000 articles. However, I couldn't find a list of how many articles it had on their website - could someone source this for me (since if it's true, I plan to use it in a newspaper article I'm writing)? Aerothorn 19:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actaully, I seem to have the opposite problem: I couldn't find any number of articles in the latest printed version. It says the DVD version has about 100.000. Was the last printed version the one from 1974? And even so, how many articles did it have? --SidiLemine 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia versus Britannica passage
This passage discusses the Nature study of the reliability of articles from both publications. However, the description of the study here doesn't mention that Nature concluded that Wikipedia is harder to read and poorly organized. So, in order to balance it, I added a note about that. I also added a note about how, even though Wikipedia is almost 9 times larger than Britannica, it still doesn't even mention topics contained within the latter publication. Finally, I added a note about how, although Wikipedia has close to the same number of major errors, it has many more minor ones. Before I added a note, the passage only gave positive information about Wikipedia, and that made it very biased. Now, it gives both drawbacks and advantages.--Primetime 10:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. And you introduced a lot of bias along the way. As a general note, when your edits are reverted by a number of other editors, that means you failed to reach consensus, and should discuss the changes you are attempting to make. Editing against consensus is folly. Also, please note WP:3RR, which clearly states no editor should revert more than three times. You have effectively broken that rule.


 * As for the actual text: yes, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on every topic. Neither does Brittanica. There are bound to be some areas in which one encyclopedia is better than another. What's your point though? You seem to be suggesting that it's odd that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this topic.
 * It's odd that Britannica spent so much time and money to publish the article, yet Wikipedia doesn't deal with it, even though it's almost nine times larger.
 * As for your example on an article Wikipedia doesn't have, firstly, as I've noted above, it's largely irrelevant and misleadingly formulated. Secondly, you have no control over the existance of such an article, and one might be created at any time. The comparison is flawed on several grounds, and should be removed or completely rewritten.
 * Finally, you are still stating this as a fact: "Other edges Britannica has over Wikipedia stem as result of the former being a professionally-edited publication: it is less difficult to read and is more reliable." Surely you can see that this is opinion, not fact. You have been given several oportunities to reword your text.
 * -- Ec5618 10:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You have violated the 3RR as well. In any case, the first revision was for a different statement. I have re-worded it and added several other passages since then.
 * It's a proven fact. The opinion of 42 professionals says so.--Primetime 10:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How is opinion fact? It may be fact that 42 professionals are of this opinion, but 'less difficult to read and more reliable' is not fact. I'm sorry, but are you somehow confused about the meaning of the word 'fact'? "A belief that cannot be proved or disproved is an opinion." -- Ec5618 11:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "fact." in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 2002.  defines the word as "something that has actual existence".--Primetime 11:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please let's not revert war (Primetime, you've overstepped the 3RR on this; you'll likely be blocked if you continue). There are problems with the new wording, in particular, 1) "[Britannica] is less difficult to read and is more reliable." This is, in my view, going beyond what the Nature source says; we must not put our own interpretation onto the source. It is much safer to say something like, "Nature reviewers, after sampling a selection of science articles from both Wikipedia and Britannica, found that Wikipedia articles averaged four errors per article, as opposed to 3 per article for Britannica. Several Nature reviewers also commented that they found Wikipedia articles to be more difficult to read" (or something like that). 2) "However, despite its large size, Wikipedia does not deal with many of the topics contained within Britannica" &mdash; this is true, but the reverse is also true. To be NPOV, you'd need to reword it as "both Britannica and Wikipedia have articles on topics that the other does not", but then that would hardly seem to be a point worth making. &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to edit my additions. However, as you have pointed out, there was no justification for the deletion of all of them, which is what Ec5618 did.


 * In any case, the statement, "found that Wikipedia articles averaged four errors per article, as opposed to 3 per article for Britannica." should be reworded to include the word serious after four. Also, the passage should mention that the study also found a greater disparity between minor errors. Finally, in the sentence about what is included, we should give examples for both (e.g., "trogdor" versus "Waagenoceras").--Primetime 11:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Deletion of all of them"? Please. If you can't be bothered to try to write fairly, and if you won't even ackowledge that other editors disagree with your additions, then why should other editors fix your wording? "Feel free to edit my additions." I was rather hoping you would be able to do that yourself.
 * And again, when you noticed your addition was opposed, you should have turned to discussing the issue. You are effectively trying to rewrite an entire section, which is admirable. But you can't expect other editors to clean up after you. The Talk page is always a good idea in these cases.
 * As for violating 3RR. Please read WP:3RR. -- Ec5618 11:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Let me know if you have any more problems.--Primetime 12:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The passage as it stands now says that the ratio of "serious" errors in WP vs. EB is 4:3 per article, while the ratio of "less-important" errors is 162:123 -- as if these were two separate statistics. This seriously misrepresents the Nature article. In fact, you get the statistic of 4:3 errors per article by dividing the total number of errors, ie. 162:123 by the number of articles examined (42). The two statistics thus represent exactly the same thing, and that is the total number of errors (the "serious" and "less-important" errors combined).

Nature found a grand total of four "serious" errors in WP, and exactly the same number of errors in EB (or, if you like, a little under 0.1 serious errors per article in each encyclopedia).


 * Fixed -- at least for now -- by cribbing from Wikipedia, which seems, at least, to have gotten the facts right. Go GPL!
 * I'd also recommend deleting this sentence: "However, despite its large size, Wikipedia does not deal with many of the topics contained within Britannica, and vice-versa." It's obvious (by subtraction!) that WP has articles EB doesn't; while it's largely irrelevant (and unsourced, and hard to verify without examples) that EB has articles that WP doesn't. At least, I've never heard of anyone deciding that they'd purchase EB because they happened to really, really need the articles that weren't in WP!
 * And on a side note, does anyone know whether or not the word "Britannica" ought to be in italics? Because this article is far from consistent....
 * A quick tentative suggestion:
 * If you mean "Britannica, the encyclopedia", you should write "the Britannica", with the definite article and "Britannica" in italics.
 * If you mean "Britannica, the company", you should write "Britannica Inc.", with no italics.
 * -199.126.245.42 06:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That sentence is verified from the example I gave above. As for reading Britannica because of not finding information in Wikipedia, that is the case with me. Wikipedia does not contain as much biographical information or information about the cultures of other lands, etc. See "Culture of Cameroon," a stub article dealing with the culture of a country of over 13 million people as an example. Many of the articles I created (e.g., Ebira, Tehuelche, Sahaptin people, among many others) are dealt with very extensively in Britannica, but had no articles at all here before I intervened.--Primetime 06:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay; I'll see if I can edit the paragraph to flow better without losing that particular factoid. 199.126.245.42 07:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're comment that Wikipedia is "in general the more comprehensive source" is unsourced, however. (It's my opinion that it's less comprehensive in scope and focused on trivia.) I'm going to start fiddling with it myself to correct this.--Primetime 07:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed; it was late at night when I wrote that and I wasn't thinking clearly. Sorry. Also, Matt Crypto is correct about the "poorly written" quote, sorry about that too. However, you say that the "eight serious mistakes" statistic is incorrect. From TFA: "Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia." It's arguable that we should leave the statistic out anyway, because it doesn't contribute much to the overall point that this paragraph is making. (But I dare you to try removing the same statistic from Wikipedia, which is where I copied that sentence from in the first place!) 199.126.245.42 15:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is much more than a traditional general encyclopedia
Wikipedia is improving fast and has many, many articles on mainstream encyclopedia topics which are far superior to Britannica's. On the other hand there are still many which are weaker than the equivalent Britannica articles. However there is no reasonable doubt that the number is falling and Wikipedia is improving fast.

Comparing Wikipedia with Britannica on an article by article basis underrates Wikipedia in at least two ways. Firstly Wikipedia is far easier to navigate (hence Britannica has a much lower, indeed truly dreadful, page views per user score at Alexa.com) which faclities accidental learning. Secondly Wikipedia is far more than a general encyclopedia. It is a complete set of reference books on everything that you can write about in continuous prose. That is to say it is a reference library with a few gaps: dictionaries; thesaurus; book of quotations; atlas and not a lot else. These inclusive reference books on birds, cinema, cricket, cars, jazz, linguistics, wine, trees etc etc etc, may not have the same academic value as a general encyclopedia, but they no less impressive and useful for that (though of course they all need improvement).

People seem to have lost sight of the fact that a Wikipedia v Britannica comparison is not like-with-like. Britannica is really only aimed at the student market, and relatively very few members of the general public use it. Britannica's Alexa rank is 2,984 compared to Wikipedia's 18, and I doubt that many people are using the paper version - after all many of those who bought a paper copy hardly ever used it before computers came along. Wikipedia gets well over a hundred times as many pages views as Britannica. People are still describing Wikipedia as an upstart but it would be more appropriate to descibe Britannica as an angry flea on the Wikipedia-elephant's back. People don't use Britannica much, but Wikipedia is important because huge numbers of people use it. Therefore it is both unrealistic and irresponsible to try to disparage it to the margins. All responsible librarians and academics should accept reality and contribute to the creation of a better Wikipedia. 62.31.55.223 22:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * First, your page-view statistic does not take into account (1) usage of the Britannica CD-ROM, (2) home print readership, and (3) usage of Britannica at libraries. Second, Encyclopedia Britannica Online does have a built-in atlas and dictionary. You claim it is more prose-like, but I disagree. My experience has been that it has more illustrations than Wikipedia (even though Britannica has fewer illustrations per page than World Book Encyclopedia). Encyclopedia Britannica also is easier to read and deals with more-important subjects (as I have discussed below). The edge Wikipedia has over Britannica is that it's so large. It contains information not found anywhere else on the internet (although much more can be found by taking a trip to a library). This is why I am an inclusionist Wikipedian. It's clear to me that Wikipedia's strength is its size, so we should do everything in our power to foster an atmosphere of acceptance. Contributors should never be afraid of having their writing deleted.--Primetime 00:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have stats of course, but CD-Rom is old fashioned and usage is unlikely to be that great. Ditto with home print readership. Remember print sales collapsed a decade ago when Encarta came out. I would be very surprised if there aren't more people using Wikipedia than Britannica in libraries - people don't always do what librarians tell them! When I edited Wikipedia at a library it was clear from the edit history of the IP address that several people had done so at the same library before me. None of these things are going to make big in roads into the usage gap - Wikipedia's lead is a multiple of more than a hundred, not a hundred per cent.
 * My experience on illustatrations is the exact opposite, but in any case Wikipedia's range of illustrations is increasing faster than Britannica's. 62.31.55.223 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If I were to make a wild guess about usage like you just did, I would estimate a very different number. As for important topics covered in Britannica and not Wikipedia, please see the posts I made directly above and below this thread ( and among others). The articles have been tended to now by either me or other people reading this page, but that was just a random sample, and don't even ask me about articles from technical fields, as I tend to read more about social science and the humanities.--Primetime 23:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Print sales of Britannica were 100,000 a year before they collapsed. Wikipedia is used by tens of millions of people. There is just no chance that you are right on usage. Wikipedia is generally considered to be stronger in technical fields, but unlike Britannica no claim of brilliance has been made on its behalf. I just think you are contributing to an inappropriate negative balance in perceptions of Wikipedia. It is incredible that so much has been achieved in just over 5 years (and much of that in the last year). 62.31.55.223 23:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles in Britannica not in Wikipedia?
Is this statement in the "Competition" section still true:


 * "Both Wikipedia and the Britannica contain articles on subjects that the other does not."

If so, I for one would like to see a list of articles in Britannica but not in Wikipedia so that can be rectified. Jokestress 22:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We used to have one, but it was removed for copyright reasons. Instead, we now have WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot, which performs a similar purpose but is an amalgamated list of topics from several encyclopedias. I've access to an old Britannica list, and there's plenty of topics we don't have. &mdash; Matt Crypto 23:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I estimate that there are thousands, possibly tens of thousands of articles found in Britannica but not Wikipedia. Much of what I do on Wikipedia is write articles found in Britannica but not Wikipedia. I am a biography / humanities guy, so don't even ask me about other fields. Some examples of articles found in Britannica but not in Wikipedia include the following: (1) Théophraste Renaudot--the father of French journalism, (2) branle--a dance popular in England and France from the 1200s to around 1650, (3) José Gómez Ortega--the greatest matador who ever lived, (4) John Astbury--a pioneer in potting technology, and (5) Sir John Hare--considered the greatest actor of his day. The articles I created that were found in Britannica and not Wikipedia were essential (e.g., Sahaptin people, a group of tribes [including the Nez Percé] in in the Pacific Northwest). Another example would be the three paragraphs I added about the culture of Cameroon in the "Cameroon" article because it was blank except for holidays (16 million people live in Cameroon). The articles dealt with as stubs in Wikipedia but full articles in Britannica I estimate to be several tens of thousands more.--Primetime 23:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool, I started the ones above, and I'll start working on that hotlist. Jokestress 01:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The first edition of Britannica was in 3 volumes and it took 11 years for them to expand it to 10 volumes. Wikipedia is improving rather faster than that. The implication that there was no coverage of Cameroonian culture before your additions is incorrect. There was a substantial article about the Music of Cameroon and several other bits and pieces. Anyway it is good to see progress. It is desirable to that media coverage of Wikipedia should be balanced so that knowledgeable people will be encouraged to contribute. People are far more likely to find out about Cameroonian culture here than from Britannica because they are far more likely to visit the site in the first place. 62.31.55.223 23:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are being negative for the sake of it. It's nice to have articles about those six topics, but are they really that essential? Not one of them has an article in Encarta. I've just written an article about John Ellerman who I would say is as significant was most of them, and not only does he not have an article in Britannica, but there isn't even a passing mention of him. Your comments are unconvincing because you see only Britannica's strengths and only Wikipedia's weaknesses. Criticising Wikipedia for being incomplete is like criticising a toddler for being short. Everyone knows it's true, but condemning it as a terrible shortcoming is absurd. Wikipedia's popularity is well established and the negative publicity has been great for traffic. The main question hanging over its future development is whether it can, across the board, make the final step up in quality which requires expert synthesis. If this happens it will be wonderful; if it doesn't because the establishment generates sufficient negative vibes to stop a suffieciency of experts editing, people will carry on using Wikipedia but it will be a Wikipedia which has fallen short of its potential. That is all the skewed criticism can really achieve: to undermine the quality of the wikipedia people use, not to stop them using it. Hawkestone 02:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, Théophraste Renaudot does have an article in Encarta. Also, I haven't heard you (or that other user) admit any weaknesses of Wikipedia relative to Britannica. So, why are you lecturing me about being biased? I also think it's strange when you don't admit that the fact that even though Wikipedia is almost ten times as large as Britannica, no one had the time (until I intervened) to deal with the Igbira, a group numbering over 200,000 in Nigeria (less than a sentence before I edited it). I think it's somewhat offensive that you don't think they deserve an article. Of course, it's all relative whether you consider them essential or not depending on your point of view. But the Sahaptin and Igbira each have an article in Encyclopedia Americana and Britannica and Cameroon had much more cultural information in World Book, Britannica, and Americana than here. Salvatore Quasimodo--a nobel laureate--had two sentences written about him before I intervened, whereas he has five paragraphs in Britannica, and two in World Book and Americana. I think we should be realistic that even though Wikipedia is much larger than those sources, it hasn't made them unnecessary. I prefer them to Wikipedia. I only edit here. I never read anything on this site without double checking it somewhere else, and even if everything on this site were true, I'd still avoid it because editors here always seem to make the simplest articles too complicated or confusing. I always thought Britannica and Americana were hard to read--until I came here. As for being negative, the fact that you two are trying as hard as you can to make a wonderful work like Britannica look like trash is disrespectful to the hard work put into those volumes. Reading it (and other encyclopedias like World Book and Americana is fun--and sometimes a rush). I always seem to go off on tangents, going from article to article being referred there from the previous one. However, I have never gotten a rush from reading Wikipedia.--Primetime 03:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My copy of Encarta doesn't have a Théophraste Renaudot article so maybe it is a recent edition. Encyclopedia's expand and improve over time, even Wikipedia. As for the ethic group I didn't say that it doesn't deserve an article, just that its pretty low down on the list of essentials. A little humility on your part would be more impressive. I expect your contributions are useful, but people who behave as you do shouldn't expect praise from others. No one has an obligation to write any article for Wikipedia, so it is out of order to criticise other users for not having written on a particular topic when many of them are doing very valuable work on other topics. There is every liklihood that someone else would have expanded Salvatore Quasimodo in due course; that is how wikipedia is. You don't know when things will get done, but chances are they will at some point. Everyone knows that Wikipedia is a work in progress; it is only critics who infer that this has ever been denied. My views on Britannica fluctuate; right now they are harsh because its editors have shown a total lack of grace and class. Hawkestone 03:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you have changed the subject from the lack of content I just pointed out to the thing you know the least about--me. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you have inferred that I am narcissistic--even though you just met me and even though I was using the articles I wrote as an illustration of what is in other encyclopedias but not here. However, thanks for proving another point: the people who get praised the most on Wikipedia are the most popular. At a real encyclopedia, those who work the hardest get promoted, but here the administrator list is littered with high-school and junior-high school students, because they know all about popularity contests. Writers are the least popular, because they get involved in the most content disputes. I can also see that pointing out the blatantly obvious is unpopular as well. This shows that our culture has a long way to go.--Primetime 04:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britanncia Sometimes Free
I added the following yesterday: "In addition, the Britannica DVD can be obtained for free through file-sharing services like BitTorrent, and both the print and electronic versions of Britannica can be checked out of some libraries (directly or through interlibrary loan) and accessed from home using some library web sites." I was reverted, but my addition is certainly verifiable (which is the reason for the WP:NOR policy). I understand that copying it is illegal, but I was not giving a how-to (even though I know of no policy that would prohibit me from doing so). I think it's obvious that using Britannica is not always expensive for the reader, and that the phenomena described above are a boost for Britannica readership levels.--Primetime 15:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Competition" paragraph now reads very strangely. A point we wish to make is how Wikipedia is thought to have an advantage over Britannica in that it is free (as in beer, no cost). Instead of making that point, however, we end up emphasising how easy it is to get hold of Britannica without cost; you've added a rebuttal to a point that hasn't even been made yet! My comment about original research was because this argument about the "ease" of getting hold of EB without paying for it seems to be your personal argument, rather than an argument made by others. &mdash; Matt Crypto  15:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's clear that Wikipedia is still less expensive for most people, because most are unaware of how to obtain it for free. So, the fact that Wikipedia is always free still makes it preferable for some people to Britannica, meaning the paragraph is almost neutral, but still shows challenges to Britannica clearly, when it says that Wikipedia is a "free-content encyclopedia" and when it mentions that it's larger than Britannica. So, it's titled Competition and it shows that there is competition for Britannica.--Primetime 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that your argument about BitTorrent or libraries etc is just your own original thinking. It is not relevant unless at least someone &mdash; and preferably a group of notable people &mdash; other than yourself has made the argument. &mdash; Matt Crypto 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then we should remove all implications that Wikipedia challenges Britannica. That appears to me to be an original commentary, as I think that the consumers for each product are very different.--Primetime 16:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's not necessary. We can find sources to assert that Wikipedia is thought to be a challenge to Britannic, e.g. this news article: "Are traditional encyclopedia publishers aware of Wikipedia's threat? Here's a clue: Try looking for the "Wikipedia" article in the online version of Britannica. You won't find it. Nor will you find it in any of the half a dozen or so mainstream encyclopedias currently on the market. These folks should be busy brainstorming a survival strategy. Instead the range of reaction has run in a comically limited range from denial to derision. Even Britannica with its prestigious reputation needs to figure out how it will thrive in what will increasingly be a Wikipedia world. In the final analysis, Wikipedia is more than just the raising of a new barn. It's the tearing down of the old ones." . We can show that at least some other people view Wikipedia in terms of a challenge to Britannica. &mdash; Matt Crypto 16:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Matt that this paragraph should be removed. My reason is that it is misleading, because it is in fact illegal to get britannica via bittorrent, so it's not free in the common sense of the word. And if you write that it is illegal to do so (I wouldn't like that anyway, because it certainly won't help whole britannica vs. wikipedia debate), you should, by the same logic, add the same phrase to 100 000+ copyrighted and sold works we have an article for. Ditto for libraries. It's just not encyclopedic to have sentence like "if you're poor, perhaps you can get this book from the library" in all articles about books. Samohyl Jan 17:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And we would also need to mention that it's free if you can make it out of the store without getting arrested, too ... flux.books 20:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

-- On another note, that article above is inaccurate. Here's what Encarta says about Wikipedia in its "encyclopedia" article:"In the early 21st century a new type of online encyclopedia, known as Wikipedia, enabled readers to create and edit encyclopedia articles. A wiki is a type of server software that enables users to create or alter content on a Web page. Wikipedia was closely associated with the open source software movement and rapidly expanded to include hundreds of thousands of articles, many on popular culture topics, in a number of languages. The philosophy behind Wikipedia was that a community of volunteers could pool their knowledge and crosscheck their work to create a free encyclopedia. Due to Wikipedia’s openness, it is often the target of vandalism."Here's what World Book Encyclopedia says about Wikipedia in its article "encyclopedia":". . . In 2001, a free online encyclopedia called Wikipedia appeared. Wikipedia is a collection of interlinked Web pages that permits anyone to read, create, or edit articles." Finally, here's what Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia says about it:"A new form of Web-based encyclopedia, the collaborative Wikipedia, was introduced in 2001 by the Wikimedia Foundation. Based on principles similar to those behind open source software, Wikipedia is completely democratic; anyone can contribute or revise an article by accessing editing tools on the Web site. Within a few years of its introduction, Wikipedia had accumulated hundreds of thousands of articles in numerous languages and had become a popular Web site. But as with many Web sites, the quality of its information is not assured. For example, one contributor changed all mentions of abortion to read murder. (Wikipedia includes a revision history to facilitate elimination of objectionable changes, and a discussion area where contributors can document and debate revisions.)" --Primetime 04:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Systemic bias
I found a certain -- very small -- amount of bias in some portions of the article. For example, in articles about encyclopedias that Wikipedia covers, such as Funk and Wagnalls and Encarta, critical links at the bottom are rare. Thus I removed the link about "One user's compilation of errors" -- although if someone wants to put that back, that's fine with me. There were also several instances of Wikipedia being mentioned, which I removed. The user isn't interested that the text of many historical articles is sourced from the 1911 EB (and in any case the relevant articles have a template that provides this information). I also don't see how the EB-Wikipedia spat should be mentioned, as one is supposed to not mention Wikipedia. If you disagree, could you please discuss it here before reverting my changes? Thank you. laddiebuck 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the stuff on Wikipedia was perhaps excessive (and the 1911 EB mention irrelevant to this article), I'm not aware of a standing policy that Wikipedia should not be mentioned. I think a brief, NPOV discussion of the EB-Wikipedia spat belongs in the article. -- Mwanner | Talk 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a moment, looking for link on policy. laddiebuck 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here: WP:SELF. The second example mentioned is specifically the sort of thing that I removed from the article. laddiebuck 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also -- I agree now that a brief mention of the spat is in order. However, the version I removed was rather POV, and came across as someone trying to sell Wikipedia rather than an objective listing of the dispute without going into arguments and opinions. laddiebuck 02:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the links listed on the bottom are selectively chosen to shed a negative light on Britannica--and they're the opinions of some users who could be right or not. I'm removing the two that Laddiebuck removed and I'm clarifying another link summary from "snaps at Britannica study" to "disagrees with Britannica study". I'm also not sure what those editors think they're accomplishing by making the article more biased, as that actually hurts the quality of Wikipedia. I also don't see how Wikipedia is a alternative to Britannica. The open-content internet is an alternative (a less reliable, but less expensive one) not just Wikipedia.--Primetime 18:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Laddiebuck. The spat is not very relevant to Britannica, and the study has been shown to be unprofessionally conducted. It might as well go, unless we can clean it up. It certainly doesn't add very much to the article.--Primetime 16:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * First, thanks to Laddibuck for the link on self-references. But I think Primetime is misreading Laddibuck's comment above with regard to mentioning the spat (and I, for one, don't agree that the Nature study was shown to be unprofessionally conducted).  I think it is fair to say that the extensive news coverage of the spat has made a mention of Wikipedia in the Britannica article acceptable, just as our Encarta article mentions both Wikipedia and the EB. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have restored a shortened version of the EB/Wikipedia spat. It could probably be somewhat further reduced without doing too much violence to it. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Laddiebuck, you are mis-understanding the point of WP:SELF. The best way to understand that policy is say "would this sentence still make sense, and be correct, if I was reading it on a mirror or fork?" If it wouldn't, then alter the sentence. If it would, then its fine. Notice the difference between "Nature tested EB and WP in Dec 2005" (correct whether on mirror or not)" and "Nature tested this website and EB in Dec 2005" (correct only if read on Wikipedia), so we would use the former form. That is key point of the WP:SELF policy. Thus it is ok to mention WP, but you have to do with mirrors in mind. A secondary point (which makes that page so messy and easy to misinterpret actually) is that we are trying to be neutral and accurate. It is especially hard to be neutral when writing about WP because we are all WPians. Thus the policy page stresses that each editor should be really careful about whether to mention WP or not on any given note, because we might over-state the importance of WP. This particular example is a particular difficult one - at this point in time it is hard to judge whether WP is affecting Britannica in any significant sense. However that is something we must debate, not just blindly mis-apply WP:SELF. THanks for listening, Pcb21 Pete 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC).
 * On the WP:SELF page you will also find an argument that indicates that self-references are unprofessional, so there is an other angle to it. Since Britannica itself does attach some importance to this dispute (although not undue importance), I do agree that a (very) short summary of it is in order. (However, the other reference about the 1911 EB was out of place). By the way, to air my own personal opinion, the Nature study was not rigorously conducted, as the researchers used extracts of articles arbitrarily selected and linked together by them. So Wiki may indeed be more accurate, but the study does not rigorously support that conclusion. laddiebuck 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

-
 * Yes, I should have mentioned that I restored the negative links without really looking at them-- thanks for deleting them. I'm puzzled, though by your last comment-- surely Wikipedia is (generally) an improvement on the "open-content internet", especially if one tires of wading through the kind of garbage that shows up in even a carefully constructed search; if you feel that Wikipedia isn't and improvement, why bother working on it?  As for it being an alternative to the EB, I don't think it replaces the EB (except in those content areas which the EB doesn't cover), but surely it's good to have both, no? -- Mwanner | Talk 18:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As a user of Britannica (and several other published encyclopedias) the first place I look for information is the encyclopedias, then library databases (e.g., ebooks, etc.), then Wikipedia. The advantage of Wikipedia is that it collects information in one place. This is why I am an inclusionist Wikipedian. Wikipedia is an improvement in the sense that it makes information found elsewhere more convenient to find. Doing a Google search is looking for both where something is and what it is, whereas doing a search on Wikipedia is only doing a search about what something is. This is why I'm working on it. I don't think Wikipedia will ever replace EB (or World Book, or Americana) as reading Wikipedia is not as fun, easy, or assuring; but someday Wikipedia will replace the rest of the freely-accessible internet as the place to find free information.--Primetime 19:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * On another note, I'd like to mention that it feels like a personal insult and an insult against society when others try to make Britannica look bad. EB has helped me write many reports and provided me with many hours of enjoyment. It's a part of what makes me who I am and its contribution to society as--until recently--the most complete English-language encyclopedia available should not be underestimated. Those who insert phrases like this I suspect have not used EB very much, and thus do not realize how much respect it deserves.--Primetime 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Shortening of the EB-Wikipedia dispute
I shortened down the dispute, as it's really not the goal of the article (see above) to summarize every dispute the EB has had. It's still a relevant issue, but does not deserve several paragraphs with a blow-by-blow description of each side's salvos. laddiebuck 21:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that we ought to either (1) cover the dispute in such a way that people know everything they would need to in order to draw a reasonable conclusion, or (2) not mention it at all. As it is, it covers the findings of the study, but not the fact that the study may be inaccurate. If the study is notable enough to be mentioned, then concerns raised about it are, as well.--Primetime 21:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the best solution is to make it clear in the article that the findings of the study are controversial. It is too early to say whether the study is accurate or not, as opinions are very heated on the subject, and it would certainly be hard to objectively support any conclusion. Thus I think the information is best presented as controversial, or as you say, removed entirely. I personally am in favor of leaving it in but indicating that it is controversial. laddiebuck 21:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks a lot better at the moment, good work! &mdash; Matt Crypto 23:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm the author of the Nature article that compared Wikipedia and Britannica. It would be inappropriate for me to change the Britannica page, but I think the section on the Nature study misrepresents our findings. We did not present "the results in such a way as to imply Wikipedia the better reference". I'd urge you to take another look at our story and think again about this statement. We tried to make it clear in the story that (a) we found more inaccuracies in Wikipedia than EB and (b) there are several other issues that we did not set out to measure, such as readability and scope, which would contribute to any decision about which encyclopaedia is the "better reference". Jgiles 14:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the line that describes the Nature study. I feel though that the additions about the Britannica criticisms are unabalanced. The additions accurately describe what Britannica said but do not take account of the fact that Nature has published a point-by-point rebuttal of Briatnnica's points here. As I said in my last post, it would be inappropriate for me to make the changes I suggest. But I hope other users will take a look at the Nature comments and consider amending the entry. Jgiles 10:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Being precise about its corporate structure
"privately held by Encyclopaedia Britannica Holdings S.A., a Luxembourg corporation"

Where to incorporate this detail?

Lotsofissues 03:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Links
The links under Sample articles don't work anymore. Dan, the CowMan 23:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not for me. I will remove them. 62.31.55.223 04:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there really going to be a 16th edition?
Does anyone have a source for the statements about the alleged 16th edition? I can't find any proof that there is a plan to produce a completely new edition either on google or on EB's own site. I don't see why they would choose to do so rather than continue with regular(ish) updating, given that it is now a mainly electronic publication, so it seems a little improbable that it is going to happen. 62.31.55.223 20:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Other languages.
Is Britannica published in any other languages except for English? I tried to check their website, but the information was rather hard to find. If so (or not) this probably should be mentioned in the article.Moreschi 11:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

æ vs e, redux
It seems someone has changed the spelling of several instances of the word Encyclopædia. Could someone please check the article? Perhaps we should add a warning, as it seems to be happening quite often, and seems to often go unnoticed. -- Ec5618 16:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Have we even decided as to which spelling we should be using? I understand that they're all correct, but for the sake of consistency we should pick one. I nominate we only use encyclopædia with the ligature except in the case where the spelling relates to a brand name like Compton's Encyclopedia. Using the ligature would tie in the title of the page. --Speakslowly 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, I think you meant to say that the ligature should only be used where it is used in a proper name, for all the reasons previously discussed - the ligature is archaic, fussy, inaccurate and difficult to search. flux.books 12:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that is not what I meant to say, I meant exactly what I wrote. It may be an archaic spelling, but it is in no way obsolete. The ligature is not "fussy," inaccurate, or difficult to search for. Look up the spelling in the OED, not inaccurate whatsoever. But if the majority prefers the lack of a ligature then I guess that's that. --Speakslowly 02:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather Important Suggestion
Shouldn't this article have a picture of the current print edition of Britannica? It seems like the most obvious addition to the article, but it hasn't happened yet.

Number of Volumes
The page currently says: "The 2007 print version of the Britannica has 32 volumes: a 12-volume Micropædia containing short articles (typically 1-2 paragraphs), a 17-volume Macropædia containing 699 longer articles (ranging from 3 to over 400 pages in length) and a single Propædia volume that seeks to give an outline of all human knowledge"

12 + 17 + 1 = 30... not 32. I checked out Britannica's webpage (http://www.eb.com/library/print/eb.html) and they confirm that it is 32 volumes but don't break it down by micro, macro, and pro. Does anyone who has access to a printed set explain correct this and put the correct numbers of volumes of each (micro, macro, and pro). Thanks. Michael.passman 08:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Michael, sorry about that; I forgot to mention the two Index volumes at the end. I've fixed it in the main text now.  Thanks for catching that! :) Willow 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured article
Anyone want to work to make this article featured? I think it would be quite interesting to have an FA on a "compeditor" -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you know that I was thinking of the very same thing? I checked the talk page to post my idea, and here was yours! Anyway, I think it's a great idea, considering the growing tension between Britannica and Wikimedia. It would show that Wikipedia is a true neutral encyclopedia, capable of featuring it's own competitor. I'll go ahead and nominate it, if you want. Nautica Shades (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Without suggesting it's a bad idea in the slightest, just "go ahead and nominate it" is probably not the best approach to FA. Take care of the cite requests to begin with; also consider a peer review and maybe look through the history for heavy contributors who can help-out polishing it. Marskell 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say it was pretty well cited, except for the two missing citations. I'll try to get citations for them, then I'll get it peer reviewed. Nautica Shades (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any information about the idea Britannica being taken from the French Encyclopedia at all. I'm going to remove that line. Any objections? Nautica Shades (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I nominated it over at peer review. Nautica Shades (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We did everything we could at Peer Review. It's been nominated at FAC. Nautica Shad e  s  20:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, one could make the point that wanting to put up EB as a featured article in order to show that Wikipedia is "neutral" is not actually an unbiased action. Plus the antagonism is mostly from certain Wikipedians to EB, not the other way around. Wikipedia has a long way to go before it can be considered neutral or unbiased. Sad mouse 19:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well actually, some vandalism has been traced back to EB office computers. Nautica Shad e  s  20:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy ;) Seriously though, that is not a good preconceived notion for someone writing an article. Sad mouse 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. It's implausible that the official EB would want to vandalize, even manipulate, Wikipedia's EB article; it would be far too risky.  Can you imagine what the press would say: "Desperate Goliath resorts to 'dirty tricks' against virtuous David", the classic literary trope.   It seems more likely that we're beneath their contempt and concern; they don't mention Wikipedia even once in the 2007 print edition.  Willow 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Auto Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
 * The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
 * Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&amp;nbsp;mm.
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
 * Please alphabetize the.
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 13 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
 * Note: I'll strike these suggestions when I have completed them. Nautica Shades (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That Auto-peer review sure is nifty. Marskell 11:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
Does anybody object for me adding a userbox to this article? Nautica Shades (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ? What sort of userbox could be added? "This user uses both Wikipedia and Britannica"? --Gwern (contribs) 18:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean't infobox, sorry. Nautica Shades (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

section needs clarifying
Firstly, what was sold in 1901: the A & C Black, the Britannica or The (London) Times? And how did this American publisher get involved?

Second, when the Britannica becomes 'associated' with The Times, and 'associated' with the University of Cambridge, what the heck does that mean? They get bought? They get power-played? They get funding? JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Superscript for different editions?
At present this article is inconsistent re. superscript; sometimes we have the 11th edition, sometimes the 11th edition. (The same inconsistency applies to centuries as well.) Is there a Wiki policy regarding this? I personally find the superscript in this article to be both superfluous and ugly. Anyone have any opinions on this?Ericoides 18:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * not really as long as it's one way or the other. I've been making 1800's into nineteenth century and spelling out amounts ten and under and not spelling out higher ranges like say 27. superscript: i don't mind either, as long as it's consistent. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote all superscript, it looks nice. Ericoides, you want to handle this? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd happily change it all to non-superscript ... Ericoides 19:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If i have to lay sides i'd say non-superscript. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK then, instant democracy dictates non-superscript.Ericoides 07:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you are aware we are not voting. We are trying to make a decision. Why not superscript, anyway? It's neater. Nautica Shad e  s  14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't aware of that. Why not superscript? In my opinion, it is untidy and pretentious, drawing attention to itself when there is no need. There was considerable inconsistency in its use and so a decision had to be made one way or the other, the green light to which I considered I had been given. Apologies if this decision was rushed or unrepresentative, but for something so relatively trivial I just went ahead after minimal consultation.Ericoides 15:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Being bold doesn't require apologies. Anyways, my reason is it looks fugly when you're editing for a marginal difference in where the little 'th' ends up, slightly above the word line or on the word line. Simple = Better. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cluttered and unnecessary HTML syntax makes baby Jesus cry. --Gwern (contribs) 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)