Encyclopedia Wars

Interesting little discussion between Jimmy Wales, the creator of the Wikipedia and Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia Britannica from the Opinion Journal. It was an email debate, if you will and I think it shows both the strengths and the weaknesses of the two different models - a product of a small group of scholars and the effort of an anonymous group of people with no way to check their credentials.

Jimmy Wales begins: We don't view the open system as inherently superior in all respects; it is different, and it has some major strengths and of course raises some important challenges. The strengths include a much greater timeliness, a much more comprehensive coverage, and the wide range of inputs means a good chance at a more balanced and more neutral coverage. The weaknesses include the possibility of vandalism, and the fact that in the current incarnation of Wikipedia everything is always a work in progress.

We do not believe that any resource tool can be reliable without scholarly input; this is why we so warmly welcome and invite the contributions of experts. It is a longstanding mistake to think of Wikipedia as being anti-elitist. Virtually every top Wikipedian I know is an elitist of the best sort: We love people who know what they are talking about.

Wikipedia is a freely licensed encyclopedia. This means that we invite anyone to take our work and reuse it freely. You can copy it, modify it, redistribute it, and even redistribute modified versions. Commercially or noncommercially. We believe that encyclopedias should not be locked up under the control of a single organization, but a part of the healthy dialog of a free society.

….

Dale Hoiberg: I agree with some of Mr. Wales's points. Clearly, Wikipedia and Britannica are very different kinds of works. Even Wired magazine editor Chris Anderson, a fan of Wikipedia's, says Britannica and Wikipedia are different animals.

But there is little evidence to suggest that simply having a lot of people freely editing encyclopedia articles produces more balanced coverage. On the contrary, it opens the gates to propaganda and seesaw fights between writers with different axes to grind.

Britannica draws from a community, just as Wikipedia does. Ours consists of more than 4,000 scholars and experts around the world who serve as our contributors and advisers. Our system is designed to produce sound, informed judgments that lead to balanced presentations of the most controversial subjects. Longer articles often involve multiple contributors and, importantly, all Britannica contributors are directed to include alternative points of view wherever applicable. We continually revisit controversial articles, and since we publish principally on the Internet we can revise them when we see fit to do that.

While Wikipedia may welcome scholars, all the reports I've seen suggest that most of the work is done by individuals who, though very dedicated, have little or no scholarly background.

On the question of editorial control, I hardly think having an encyclopedia published by one organization undermines healthy dialog, since in a free society there are many voices. A reliable and well-written reference work helps keep the quality of the debate high.

Please read the whole thing if you'd like to see a debate from the "old guard" and the "upstart". Both, I think, have their places. I use the Wiki often because it is quick and easy (you also have to take any article with a grain of salt and realize it may change before anyone opens a link to it that you embed in a post). I am also a longstanding Britannica fan. I actually own a copy of the 11th edition of the Britannica, the one that is considered almost legendary. It is the compact edition, not the full size, but it is extraordinary. What is sad about this debate is that one thing becomes apparent:

Almost 100 years from now, nobody will be able to hold a 2006 edition of the Wikipedia or the Britannica in their hands as I can with my 11th edition. We have gained much with the internet, but we have also lost something.