Openpedia.org > Encyclopaedia Britannica To Follow a Modified Wikipedia Model

Bizwiki Blog[Bizwiki Blog] Britannica hopes that by editing all changes to its core base of information before they are posted online they will be able to receive input from their users while remaining a trusted source. Their registered users and scholars will be able to post about new topics without intervention, but Britannica says all articles on new topics will be fact-checked and vetted before appearing in their main edition.

Some related posts from Technorati and Google.

Connect with the Campus Library!http://cocclib.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/the-big-news-for-the-last-post-of-the-term/ [Connect with the Campus Library!] The big news for the last post of the term..: That’s an interesting piece of news: Encyclopaedia Britannica to Follow Modified Wikipedia Model! Apparently, Britannica’s latest decision in the midst of growing public perception that it’s becoming increasing irrelevant, .

THE RULES OF WEALTHhttp://therulesofwealth.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/top-7-alternatives-to-wikipedia/ [THE RULES OF WEALTH] Top 7 Alternatives to Wikipedia !: However, like Encyclopedia Britannica Online, this site requires a subscription fee. For $29.95 a year, you can access MSN Encarta in its entirety, including the site’s accompanying thesaurus, world atlas and other research tools for students.

Open Writinghttp://www.openwriting.com/archives/2008/03/the_cult_of_the_1.php [Open Writing] The Cult Of The Amateur: In the pages he devotes to citizen journalism, he also completely fails to acknowledge CJ sites such as OhmyNews where the content is fact checked and edited. OhmyNews has been on PBS and in Time magazine, so it's not as if it is .

My Journey Through Cyber Onehttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawgeek/2006/09/19/wikipedia/ [My Journey Through Cyber One] Wikipedia: Even though such vandalism is often caught quickly on Wikipedia, it is still possible. And while encyclopedias have been found to have nearly as many mistakes, they are still considered, for these reasons, to be a more verifiable source.

Dr. Oge Marques' Blog[Dr. Oge Marques' Blog] How reliable is Wikipedia?: After the paper came out, Wikipedia fact-checked and corrected all of the errors the study had found. When they looked up the source of one of the mistakes, they found that the error had come directly from a book written by the man who caught it.

VLA Blogs[VLA Blogs] Encyclopaedia Britannica To Follow Modified Wikipedia Model: And now that Wikipedia has reached a point of relative maturity, there’s even less of a reason for people to look to printed encyclopedias for information.

Uz-Translations Bloghttp://blog.uz-translations.net/2008/01/britannica-vs-encarta.html [Uz-Translations Blog] Britannica vs Encarta: This problem is compounded by a poorer use of the internet, a more cluttered interface and, most unforgivably, a higher price. There are some features that we did like, including the division of content into three categories for different age groups, the impressive Timelines and the Brainstormer feature, but these simply weren't enough to make up for Britannica's shortcomings.

Penultimate Reality[Penultimate Reality] On Wikipedia: The key thing to remember is that when using Wikipedia (and I’d say the same thing for any source, be it the Encyclopedia Britannica, the New York Times, or a blog written by some 8-year-old in Argentina) is that you shouldn’t ever trust a single source about anything. People make mistakes, and people are occasionally even wrong.

Reflected tags on Technorati: Blog, ,