Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.
That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.
Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.
When it comes to online 'encyclopedias', chances are that Wikipedia springs to mind faster than the 241 year-old Encyclopedia Britannica.
Despite the virtues of an encyclopedia that is 100% edited by humans, Britannica's influence has waned in today's Wikipedia world.
Now it's looking to change that.
These features will allow all users to contribute to and edit Britannica's online entries. But remaining true to its identity built over more than two centuries, Britannica will vet each user-generated content contribution before they appear on Britannica.com.
Cauz told The Sydney Morning Herald:
"What we are trying to do is shifting ... to a much more proactive role for the user and reader where the reader is not only going to learn from reading the article but by modifying the article and - importantly - by maybe creating his own content or her own content."
He also took a swipe at Google and complained about Wikipedia's superior SERPs:
"If I were to be the CEO of Google or the founders of Google I would be very [displeased] that the best search engine in the world continues to provide as a first link, Wikipedia. Is this the best they can do? Is this the best that [their] algorithm can do?"
Clearly, Britannica's changes are likely due in some part to Wikipedia's prominence and relevance, which has come at Britannica's expense.
The big question: is it already too late for Britannica? While Cauz is correct in noting that Wikipedia's model has some significant shortcomings, it's Wikipedia's all-inclusive user experience that has made it so popular. Whether Britannica can compete with that remains to be seen. Britannica.com users will need to register and provide their real names and addresses and because their contributions will be reviewed by Britannica staff before being published, there's no instant gratification even though the anticipated 20 minute turnaround time isn't bad for those with a bit of patience.
Britannica.com's one big selling point that Wikipedia can't match: some of the user-generated contributions may be included in future print editions of Encyclopedia Britannica.
Will this be enough? We'll soon find out.