This link has been bookmarked by 17 people . It was first bookmarked on 10 Jun 2008, by Jordan Wirfs-Brock.
-
26 Jul 08
-
06 Jul 08
EdurevueWired News, 2008.07.09
-
By editing all changes to its core base of information before they are posted online, Britannica, which has been online since 1994, hopes to create a trusted source that takes into account the input of the crowd. Members of the company's community of scholars and registered users will be able to post about new topics without intervention, but the company says all articles on new topics will be fact-checked and vetted before appearing in the main edition.
-
-
12 Jun 08
-
Lisa Spiron a bid to wed the comprehensive, grassroots information factory of Wikipedia with the authority of the traditional encyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica is opening the floodgates for online user submissions into its 240-year-old publication -- a move it long resisted and sniffed was akin to intellectual pollution.
-
11 Jun 08
-
10 Jun 08
-
Alejandro TortoliniEncyclopaedia Britannica se abre al modelo de la Wikipedia.
wikipedia enciclopedia britanica encyclopedia britannica crowdsourcing opensource colaborativo cooperativo for:dreig for:edans for:elearning20 for:enpatagoniasur for:fabiang for:fceblog for:futurosdellibro for:gsellart for:loboris for:luisramirezuchile fo
-
-
Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications, explained to Wired.com that the new site will include three main categories of content: content created by the site's existing community of experts, content created by users and Encyclopaedia Britannica itself, which will incorporate aspects of the first two once they have achieved a "Checked by Britannica" designation.
The newly redesigned site will differ from Wikipedia in other key ways, according to Britannica's blog. Anyone will be able to publish articles under their own name, including the scholars and experts who have traditionally provided new content to the publication. Imagine Wikipedia mashed with Linked In (see image above).
-
As much as the world might need something like this, one can see ardent Wikipedia supporters decrying Encyclopaedia Britannica's move, since it attempts to make private what Wikipedia makes public (information ownership). If that's the case, Britannica editors may have their hands full wading through bogus submissions.
-
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.