The Encyclopedia Britannica just announced that it is adopting a number of wiki principles in developing and offering its product. http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/06/ency.html For centuries (literally), Britannica has reigned as the world’s premier encyclopedia. Its entries have been deemed authoritative to the point that scholars are not embarrassed to footnote them in their scholarly works.
Britannica has depended on experts to write its entries. This served them well until the arrival of Wikipedia, whose entries are developed dynamically by large numbers of “amateurs” who, through a process of checks and balances, manage to produce detailed and (mostly) accurate content. While the Britannica approach provides accurate material, this material is almost instantly dated and remains so until updated some time in an undetermined future. Entries in Wikipedia, in contrast, can be updated daily.
Britannica’s new approach focuses on three areas of content. The first constitutes materials written by Britannica experts, as in the past. The second solicits content from the public, in a way similar to the way Wikipedia operates. This material is then reviewed by Britannica experts in order to assure accuracy. The third is the Encyclopedia Britannica itself, which is composed of material from the first two content areas.
It is too early to say whether Britannica’s efforts to deal with Wikipedia will work. My personal view is that for Britannica to survive, it needs to completely reinvent itself. Adopting wiki principles is not enough. For example, if it expects to generate revenue through subscriptions, then its future is bleak – users access Wikipedia for free. Britannica needs to identify other ways to generate revenue – e.g., by linking its entries to fee-generating sources.
The story of Britannica’s attempt to adjust itself to today’s wiki world is instructive to government, as well as to traditional businesses whose existence is threatened by the Internet’s challenges – for example, book publishing, newspapers, entertainment, and retailing. The Britannica story shows that even the most venerable institutions are shaken to the core by the new order. It shows that a standard way they respond to the challenges of the new competitors is to copy their modus operandi – which is hardly an innovative way to deal with life-threatening challenges. It suggests that traditional organizations that are going to survive – and even thrive – in the new order need to reinvent themselves thoroughly. Simply adopting new technologies without reworking the organization to accommodate them in innovative ways is a formula for failure.
COMMENTS
There are internal Wiki sites at FS but we see a project management and community building need for external Wiki sites. There are a few people internally that are interested but we need more information from other agencies about whats worked and what to avoid. I have an instructional design model for using Web 2.0 for learning purposes. Do you think there is an audience for a model for using social networking as a tool for instruction?
Carol Richmond
Wiki's at the Forest Service 06/23/08 02:19 pm ET