Wikipedia vs. Britannica
WSJ has a little interview between Jimmy Wales (of Wikipedia and porn fame) and Dale Hoiberg (of Encyclopaedia Britannica fame).
Jimmy Wales comes of as an ignorant lout. Which he is. But he is also a modestly competent business person and, judging by appearances, this spells doom for Britannica. If Jimmy is the ignorant lout in this conversation, Hoiberg (Britannica's Editor in Chief) is the frail Luddite.
I am sad to conclude that Wikipedia will trump Britannica in the not-far-off future. How will Wikipedia trump Britannica? Simply by *becoming* Britannica, but with better I.T. and shrewder business sense.
Britannica has some 4000+ experts writing and editing articles with a rigorous process of cross-checking, review, and editorial selection. The world contains at least 10s of thousands of qualified experts and probably an order or two of magnitude more than that. That means that Wales has quite a few more would-be, quite qualified encyclopaedists to draw from than Britannica actually employs. All that Wales needs is a smooth transition to an organizational structure that offers those experts a very Britannica-like home.
Britannica may pay its experts a modest sum but, for the most part, it is an honorarium not a living. Nearly none of Britannica's experts are "in it for the money." And so those many more experts-in-waiting? All that Wikipedia needs to offer them is credibility, not money. Will "Wikipedia Certified Expert" be something they can add to their CV? Once so, Wales will find himself turning away experts at the door -- "Sorry, no more room."
But wait, I hear you feign to cry, isn't Wikipedia *all about* replacing a system of traditional, careful, and systematic content development and editing with a wild, new-age harnessing of free-for-all energy? Isn't the defining feature of Wikipedia a "light touch" when it comes to setting rules or establishing exclusions about how articles may change?
No, Wikipedia is about no such thing. Wikipedia is about attracting volunteer labor and selling the work-product of that labor for self-sustenance of the project and (for the organizers) for-profit spin-offs. There is no other invariant principle in play here, unless you want to count the domain name "wikipedia.org", as a principle. There is no other constant than selling to volunteers and selling the product created by those volunteers.
The rules of Wikipedia participation? They are as fluid as Wales' imagination subject only to the constraint of keeping the volunteerism up. And the volunteers? A few loud voices may think that they have Important Principles to protect but if the uncritical mass disagrees? Well, I guess those few loud voices will leave in a huff. Or an hour and a huff.
Wikipedia has already begun dabbling in raw authoritarianism. In the German edition experiment they are preparing the market to further embrace the idea that -- this public editing thing? yeah, that's not what this is really about.
Wikipedia will, in the next year or two, make an effort to make a list: the core articles. Sure, people can create entries about, say, every car model that has ever been mentioned in a Simpson's episode and those articles will evolve as they always have but.... there will be a core list. The Important Articles. The articles on Quantum Mechanics and World War II and G.H.W. Bush. And the rules will change for the Important Articles. And they will change to bear a very close resemblance to Britannica.
And Wales will spin off the web service and print service that reaps the profit from this.
Everything that Britannica has been saying since this debate erupted will be accepted as True and Important. And all of the praise and treasure will go to Wales with the explanation that he said it first. Even though he didn't.
Britannica has about 1 or 2 years to avoid this outcome by: (a) forking wikipedia; (b) being the ones to define the rules for expert editing. I think it is unlikely they will do so.
-t
Jimmy Wales comes of as an ignorant lout. Which he is. But he is also a modestly competent business person and, judging by appearances, this spells doom for Britannica. If Jimmy is the ignorant lout in this conversation, Hoiberg (Britannica's Editor in Chief) is the frail Luddite.
I am sad to conclude that Wikipedia will trump Britannica in the not-far-off future. How will Wikipedia trump Britannica? Simply by *becoming* Britannica, but with better I.T. and shrewder business sense.
Britannica has some 4000+ experts writing and editing articles with a rigorous process of cross-checking, review, and editorial selection. The world contains at least 10s of thousands of qualified experts and probably an order or two of magnitude more than that. That means that Wales has quite a few more would-be, quite qualified encyclopaedists to draw from than Britannica actually employs. All that Wales needs is a smooth transition to an organizational structure that offers those experts a very Britannica-like home.
Britannica may pay its experts a modest sum but, for the most part, it is an honorarium not a living. Nearly none of Britannica's experts are "in it for the money." And so those many more experts-in-waiting? All that Wikipedia needs to offer them is credibility, not money. Will "Wikipedia Certified Expert" be something they can add to their CV? Once so, Wales will find himself turning away experts at the door -- "Sorry, no more room."
But wait, I hear you feign to cry, isn't Wikipedia *all about* replacing a system of traditional, careful, and systematic content development and editing with a wild, new-age harnessing of free-for-all energy? Isn't the defining feature of Wikipedia a "light touch" when it comes to setting rules or establishing exclusions about how articles may change?
No, Wikipedia is about no such thing. Wikipedia is about attracting volunteer labor and selling the work-product of that labor for self-sustenance of the project and (for the organizers) for-profit spin-offs. There is no other invariant principle in play here, unless you want to count the domain name "wikipedia.org", as a principle. There is no other constant than selling to volunteers and selling the product created by those volunteers.
The rules of Wikipedia participation? They are as fluid as Wales' imagination subject only to the constraint of keeping the volunteerism up. And the volunteers? A few loud voices may think that they have Important Principles to protect but if the uncritical mass disagrees? Well, I guess those few loud voices will leave in a huff. Or an hour and a huff.
Wikipedia has already begun dabbling
Wikipedia will, in the next year or two, make an effort to make a list: the core articles. Sure, people can create entries about, say, every car model that has ever been mentioned in a Simpson's episode and those articles will evolve as they always have but.... there will be a core list. The Important Articles. The articles on Quantum Mechanics and World War II and G.H.W. Bush. And the rules will change for the Important Articles. And they will change to bear a very close resemblance to Britannica.
And Wales will spin off the web service and print service that reaps the profit from this.
Everything that Britannica has been saying since this debate erupted will be accepted as True and Important. And all of the praise and treasure will go to Wales with the explanation that he said it first. Even though he didn't.
Britannica has about 1 or 2 years to avoid this outcome by: (a) forking wikipedia; (b) being the ones to define the rules for expert editing. I think it is unlikely they will do so.
-t
posted by dasht at 12:50 PM
5 Comments:
hey you,
you spelled Britannica wrong.
-me
Oops. Lemme go fix that.
-t
Note Encarta is going to open up as a controlled wiki...
"the web service and print service that reaps the profit from this"
Does this exist anywhere?
As far as I can tell, Wikimedia Foundation is 100% supported by donations, and have no affiliation with the large number of sites who slap adds on a mirror, or the small number of people who print and sell selctions.
Wikia, Wales' for-profit venture, proposes to sell a little software, and a lot of support services, but isn't anywhere near the Wikipedias' content.
Do you know something I don't?
"the web service and print service that reaps the profit from this"
Does this exist anywhere?
Please quote in full context. You are quoting a predition, not a report.
As far as I can tell, Wikimedia Foundation is 100% supported by donations, [....]
Conference fees are another source of revenue, no?
Wikia, Wales' for-profit venture, proposes to sell a little software, and a lot of support services, but isn't anywhere near the Wikipedias' content.
Do you know something I don't?
Wikimedia is mostly donation supported but also sells conferences. Additionally, the blogosphere has it at least, Wales commands fairly handsome speakers fees.
Wikia advertises itself as an advertising-supported web service, not a software support company.
I was not, however, refering to Wikia per se in my prediction. Rather, as Wikipedia becomes more and more like Britanica, demand will arise for all kinds of derivative, for-profit services for which Wales is likely to enjoy a significant first-mover advantage. He will need to be cautious to preserve the legal standing of the NPO but can do it.
-t
P.S.: Of course, the new fork by Sanger throws a wildcard into the mix and, if it doesn't flop, would change my predictions a bit. It doesn't change my larger point in this article -- just the details of the predictions.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home