It has been highly publicized for the past week, but as many people know - Britannica Encyclopedia has ended their production of printing their literature after 244 years. The last hard copy of Britannica's collection is their 32 volume 2010 edition (Bosman, 2012). Now the question is: will Britannica be in competition with Wikipedia?
As it turns out, Wikipedia has gone from being a website that no one trusts to one that is now being used in higher education for research. Now, sources must be cited. From reading different articles and blogs on this issue, many people think that Britannica will have a set up similar to Wikipedia and will be always-changing and current. I do think that this is a nice concept to have for an online, trusted encyclopedia source. It will be different not seeing the newest set of Britannica at a local library anymore, though!
I personally like to read a print book. I feel like by thumbing through pages, I can stumble across more facts and articles than just using a search engine to find a subject I may be interested in. I know many people that prefer this and are disappointed that Britannica is no longer in print. However, a collection of encyclopedias can be very expensive and not many people are willing to keep a collection of encyclopedias current.
What do you think? Are you a fan of digital copies? Do you think online encyclopedias will now be in competition with Wikipedia?
Britannica Shifts From Paper to Web
Bosman, J. (2012, March 13). After 244 years, encyclopaedia britannica stops the presses. New York Times. Retrieved from http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/
I too recently heard this news and have mixed feelings about it. Although I prefer printed books over digital as a general rule, I must admit that I use Wikipedia on a daily basis for one thing or another. When it comes to something as continually changing as an encyclopedia, it makes perfect sense to embrace this digital age and take advantage of the dynamic nature of it.
This being said, it is still somewhat awe-inspiring to hold all of the information of an Encyclopaedia Britannica in your hands. Unfortunately this charm just isn't enough to keep them selling. It was stated in a New York Times article that only 8,000 sets of the 2010 Encyclopaedia Britannica were sold, compared to 120,000 sets sold in 1990 (Bosman, 2012). One cannot argue with those numbers, and I understand why they would go digital, if for nothing other than business purposes. I have a feeling that the 4,000 unsold sets of the 2010 issue will likely turn into a hot item for book lovers willing to spend the money.
Works Cited
Bosman, J. (2012, March 13). After 244 years, encyclopaedia britannica stops the presses. New York Times. Retrieved from http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/
I was saddened to hear this news. I have fond memories of searching through the Encyclopedia Britannica for reseach when I was in school many years ago. I understand the cost involoved in updating the books every so often to keep them current can be a strain for libraries and schools but will they now subscribe to the online version? Will the public pay for an online version for accuracy rather than using a Google search for information? "Google's algorithm doesn't know what's fact or what's fiction," states Jorge Cauz the Encyclopedia Britannica's President. He bets they will. I'm not so sure. I hope that the Encyclopedia Britannica remains an available resource for generations to come.
Pepitone, Julianne (2012, March 13)Encyclopedia Britannica to stop printing books. CNN Money. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/13/technology/encyclopedia-britannica-books/index.htm
I completely agree with you, Krystal! I will miss having the concrete book in hand and available, though I do also believe that storing information in a technological world might serve purposeful as well (for instance, it's possible that people may find it easier to use and find what s/he is looking for, in addition to having more actual "space" for the information). While I certainly see the appeal--and like--digital copies of items (I am still amazed each time I purchase and instantly download something to my Kindle), I wonder how obsolete actual books are becoming. If Britannica is even shifting...what's next?
This seems to be a reflection of the changing, evolving digital world. Like Ty mentioned, I use Wikipedia more and more frequently particularly because it is easy to use. I still prefer an actual paper book in my hands and also have fond memories of casually browsing through the encyclopedia and stopping to read things that caught my attention.
On a slightly related note, this makes me think of the video, How Technology Will Shape the Future of Libraries, by Michael Leach. He mentions near the end of his lecture about book printing machines being in place for library users to request paper copies of books. While this seems unreal to me, in many ways this could be a reality. Also, a local Massachusetts school, Cushing Academy, switched over to a completely digital library in 2009. This was a shock to me when I heard the news but I think it is the way we are headed.
-Michelle John
References
Antolini, T. (2009) Digital School Library Leaves Books Stacks Behind. NPR. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120097876
Simmons College. (2009) How Technology Will Shape the Future of Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4HTZSSeGaU&feature=youtu.be
There is a good article about this in The New Republic. It makes an interesting point that physical encyclopedias allow us to imagine that all world knowledge can be defined and nailed down, and it offers an appreciation of the quixotic appeal of hardbound volumes.
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/101795/encyclopedia-britannica-publish-information
Like Kathryn was saying, though, I don't know who (other than school libraries?) would subscribe to Encyclopedia Britannica, online or in print. The web makes a lot of high quality highly detailed information available for free, and a broad general resource doesn't seem like an easy fit for the medium.
I work at a small library that doesn't have money to subscribe to databases, the only ones our library has access to are provided free from the state of Michigan. For our blog, we studied National Information Policy and the issue of access was prevalent in my research. I worry about small libraries like the one I work with being able to provide access to information if everything becomes digital. In many cases, communities with small libraries have patron bases that might be financially unstable and therefore rely on the library more than patrons from wealthy communities.
Tracy Bedford
The traditionalist in me mourns the loss of printed encyclopedia britannicas. I loved the way they looked and I loved looking through them as a child. But I got to admit the idea of the being online sounds way more accessible and probably more practical too (just think of the shelf space those bad boys took up). I think overall the good outweighs the bad. For all the drawbacks, it would be kind of nice to know that I could just look it up online instead of having to drive to the library in a Michigan snowstorm.
I am also sad to see the print version go, it definitely marks the end of an era. The online version however, will probably have the same advantages and disadvantages of the print vs. the online library catalog. For example, it will be much easier to make entries, so Britannica will be much more extensive. (Especially if it wants to keep up with Wikipedia.)
While a sad event in itself, publishing, printing, distributing, warehousing, and shipping Brittanica Encyclopedia is costly. I do support an amalgam of formats between digital and print. I worked very closely in my career with Ingram Book Company and for over 10 years, they've had a lightning print on demand product that enables less than a short print runs to fulfill demand, on demand. It reduces the cost of warehousing unsold inventory, and allows publishers an opportunity to print end of life, out of print titles without a large budget. It's true that the venerable Encyclopedia has superb quality requirements that lightning source may not fulfill, but it is still a consideration as printing technology improves. And let's not forgot about the possibility of unbundling the volumes into articles and chapters that individually have a value to be sold separately, not to mention the concept of membership paywalls, and other means of delivering content digitally to buyers who are corporate, public, private and individual.
Ingram Content Company. Lightning Source. 2012 Retrieved from http://www1.lightningsource.com/
I suppose to some extent online encyclopedias are in competition with Wikipedia. Most people seem to head straight to Wikipedia when doing initial research. For some, Wikipedia is good enough and they don't feel the need to perform further research into more substantial resources. Perhaps this has to do with word of mouth. Or great marketing and advertising on Wikipedia's behalf. If this is the case, then perhaps sites like the Britannica or World Book should think of new and improved ways of marketing their product. I mean when one hears the name "Britannica" they automatically think of "tons" of books and lots of information. Maybe too much for some. Look, for most people (the general public and lazy students), Wikipedia is easy to follow and gives decent information. Most people just want enough information to satisfy their questions and/or pass the class. The serious student (of any ilk),on the other hand, does not go to Wikipedia or if they do, it is only to use it as a "launching pad" to further delve into their research by backing up information from other sources, i.e. any site with ".edu" or ".org". submitted by Sarita Kiehm