Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Picture of a Britannica Printed Set

We need a picture of an entire Britannica printed set. I tried to use a picture from Britannica Online, but when I asked over at Fair Use whether this was allowed, they said it was not. So, I am writing on Wikipedia:Requested pictures and here, to ask you to get out your cameras and go to your nearest library. NauticaShades 15:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Image:Encyclopaedia Britannica 15 with 2002.jpg (SEWilco 05:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

Thanks. NauticaShades 09:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

Is the stuff in there about spelling notable? It gives examples, but no references are given for this criticism. — Matt Crypto 17:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I may have missed your point, but this is from, if you like, the horse's mouth: "In some cases, a British spelling returns more hits than an American spelling. The term theatre returns more hits than the term theater... If you have trouble getting the results you want in a Britannica CD search, try using the British spelling of a word." The reference (16) then follows: "British Spelling, Query Quirks, Getting Started, Encyclopædia Britannica Online Help Accessed 10/16/2006." Publishers usually attempt to impose a unified house style onto their product - in the case of spelling/punctuation, this means either ALL UK spelling/punctuation, or ALL US spelling/punctuation. To produce a hybrid of the two systems seems rather notable. Ericoides 20:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean either British or American English. While the article may well mention that Britannica uses a hybrid (which is not particularly unusual), it is unsourced POV to describe it as "confusing" etc. Bramlet Abercrombie 21:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I was interested in sources that the spelling style was a notable criticism. — Matt Crypto 20:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Bramlet Abercrombie, if you revert once more, I'll have to report you for violation of WP:3RR. We have clearly put forth evidence and citations justifying this section, so please, stop removing it unless you can give a better explanation as to why it should be. It is common sense that the British/American spelling could cause ambiguity, and one does not really need to cite this (although a footnote would be nice), one only has to cite examples. NauticaShades 20:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. You have no source that its spelling style has ever been criticized, or that people are likely to get confused by it. Nor is there any source for the existence of a "publisher's decision to avoid British spellings that would be considered strange or quaint". Bramlet Abercrombie 21:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, please no more revert warring. Let's discuss this. I'm afraid evidence and citations haven't been given for this as a criticism. Are there any? — Matt Crypto 21:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense Bramlet, do I need a source to show that K2 is a mountain? It is as self-evident that it is a mountain as it is that a reference work with two different ways of spelling the same word is confusing. The fact that the EB itself uses the word "trouble" regarding "getting the results you want" speaks volumes ...Ericoides 21:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's very easy to find a source that K2 is a mountain. If you think that's equivalent, it should be easy for you to provide sources for the claims in the section. Incidentally, it does not spell the same word in different ways (except in proper names or within quotes). It uses a quite consistent system. For example, it always uses -ize endings (as in civilize), and it always uses -our endings (as in colour). Where is even your source for the claim that it uses "mostly but not exclusively British spelling"? It seems like a rather even balance between American and British English to me. Bramlet Abercrombie 21:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also the question of this being "original research" and "inappropriate weight". An encyclopedia article needs to to summarise the body of human knowledge on a topic, and give each topic space according to its significance in the literature. If nobody has really voiced this issue as a criticism anywhere notable (and it's just a pet peeve a Wikipedian has noticed, say), then we can't give it any weight. If you can come up with some sources showing this is a criticism that has been raised somewhere notable, then fine. Otherwise, we should remove it, or rephrase it so it's not cast as a criticism. — Matt Crypto 21:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point there; I'll go see if I can find a source. Until then, no more edit warring, please. NauticaShades 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've had little luck finding any source, and I apologize to both of you. Before we completey remove it however, we mgith want to wait and see if someone else can find it. If we do remove it, we should at least mention Britanica's style of spelling somewhere else, perhaps in the Current Version section. NauticaShades 22:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note points 2 and 3 of the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability:

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

The material should be removed unless and until a valid source is provided. -- Donald Albury 02:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've googled but can't come up with a source either. The case for removal looks strong.Ericoides 07:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So be it, but we shouldn't let all that information go to loss. We should at least mention Britannica's spelling policy elsewhere, without the criticism/confusion part of it. NauticaShades 09:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be alot of EB bashing -- what's with all the criticism of the 1911 edition? Come on, it's almost 100 years old. And isn't it the basis for WP itself? I'm really getting fed up with WP. And no, I'm not from EB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.179.5.126 (talk • contribs). 27 April, 2007

I, as a Britannica and encyclopedia user, beg to differ with the opinion of the writer of this section, pasrticularly the bit that mentions racism and sexism, and the inaccuracy of the contributors. I was taken slightly aback by the seemlingly false claims that the editor of this piece made, therefore I am going to remove it, as there seems to be no proof of this.

First of all, the idea that the Ku Klux Klan restored white supremacy was the general opinion of white America at the time of the controversy between whites and blacks. Britannica and encyclopedias in general do not write from their own opinion, they write from facts and viewpoints of the people at the time. Just because that's what the article says doesn't mean that this syndicate necessarily supports this idea.

Also, about Marie Curie not being mentioned as a winner of the Nobel prizes, I don't think that Britannica is writing this from a sexist point of view. At the time, men were glamourized in these categories often more than women, and seriously, how many women have you heard of that won the Nobel Prize for things that actually mattered, or for something that not many people would be able to achieve? Physics is extremely broad and there are many who have won for this category and therefore we cannot expect everyone who won a Nobel Prize for Physics to be on that list.

As for the inaccurate contributors to Britannica..

Dear Editor, Are you sure you're not talking about Wikipedia being unreliable with inaccurate contributors? Britannica has actual staff, someone who is assigned to write an article. No one can go and login to write whatever they want before the next volume gets published, unlike Wikipedia, where anything you read could be true or not. The articles are also revised, so please tell me how what their staff writes is inaccurate, especially when the content of the articles are checked over constantly to make sure that every single piece of information that one may happen to read is factual. This is complete nonsense, and by this point, I'm starting to think that most, or all of this criticism is nonsense.

Also, the part about Wikipedia receiving millions of hits or whatever- that is COMPLETELY irrelevant to this article. It basically says "Wikipedia surpasses Britannica as an online substitute, and frankly, more people would rather use it instead of a reliable source which is professionally edited to deliver factual information". I am just going to suggest that someone deletes that entire bit, because this article is not talking about substitutes for Britannica. And let's face it, Britannica is more reliable than Wikipedia, because any oxymoron could write anything from unsubstantiated rumours to what they would like people to believe.

For the person/people who contributed to this false information, you are as ignorant as the "facts" you post on this site.

I do hope that the controversy over this does not continue beyond this post, and that is why I am hoping that someone will take notice of it and confirm deletion of this piece of the article.

DiscardedDream (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any understanding of how Wikipedia works. It's virtually irrelevant who the editor or editors were who added this. The only thing that matters is citations. The criticism section looks pretty well cited to me. Your suggestion of deleting the criticisms section outright seems pretty absurd. Richard001 (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Competition

Are Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta, and such traditional encyclopedias Wikipedia's competitors? Their so different. At their core, these are are traditional paper encyclopedias and wikipedia is a free-content online work. If so, how do we which encyclopedia is ahead. There is no market share or sales to base a comparison. I don't think you could compare number users or articles, accuracy of those articles, or hits to the website. Wikipedia is so different from Britannica. How do we know which encyclopedia is winning.--Wikiphilia 05:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia isn't always very factual, because anyone may edit it. You can't really compare Wikipedia with other encyclopaedias. Universities say that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source and shouldn't be used when doing research. --Adriaan90 (Talk|Contribs) 09:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I won't accept wikipedia as a reference from my students - while on average it can be accurate, a reference taken at any given time can be hugely inaccurate, and is unlikely to be identical when someone checks the reference. Wikipedia is useful for a quick search (I use it all the time) but for scholarly works it has no authority. Sad mouse 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If properly referenced it will be identical, as it is possible to reference an exact version of an article, using the history tab. Pentalis 05:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Which encyclopedia is winning" depends upon who's keeping score of what. Who's keeping score? (SEWilco 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

I'm adding some more information about traditional encyclopedias as competitors. Superm401 - Talk 03:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Versions missing

The 1911 "Handy volume issue" is not mentioned nor are any reprints. I've been told there may be reprinted versions of some editions. (SEWilco 06:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

Proper Source?

Is Encyclopedia Brittanica a proper source for Wikipedia to cite? There an edit war in Joseph Stalin, one guy accusing the people who wrote the article and the Encyclopedia Britannica of bias, by calling Stalin a dictator, and there has been a huge revert war over this. Any suggestions--Vercalos 20:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a central question I'm walking around pondering. Before the era of Wikipedia, there was no centralized find-the-website-and-sources-by-click tool. At that historical era (from c:a -13.7 Ga to +2 ka), an Encyclopedia was motivated since the true source (research report and similar fact snapshot) was not always available for citation. Regarding Encyclopedia Britannica: of course it has a bias of the capitalist west civilization (while the red block was the communist part of west civilization), as well as antireligious logical positivist bias. No human population without a bias, but that bias usually regards limitations in experience, and more seldom in political bias. Personally I think using Encyclopedia Britannica will grow an obsolete custom, since the fact uptake of Wikipedia should preferrably be science reports and similar from all around the world. As regards Joseph Stalin, and other politics polluted reviews on conflicts on red-blue west civilization diochotomies, I personally think it is improper to use Encyclopedia Britannica as a source at all. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(paraphrasing) "Encyclopedia Britannica has an antireligious logical positivist bias". Beautiful :) And I agree with your statements both that Britannica will become an obsolete custom and that it is not a good source of citations - for example the same reason that neither encyclopedia should be cited in university papers. They are both (for the most part) tertiary sources. Robert Brockway 01:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-Nominate

What do you all think this article needs before it's re-nominated at WP:FAC? I've worked on it since the nomination and I think I've addressed most (if not all) of the issues raised. NauticaShades 10:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi NauticaShades!

I don't think we've really met before in Wikipedia — hi! :D I saw and admired your nice awards to Opabinia regalis, though; she totally deserves them, don't you think?

About this EB article — I'm wondering if you would mind waiting a little before you submit it again to be a FA candidate, so that I could tinker a bit? The article's already very good, but my intuition is that we might make it better in a few ways; Quality Overkill is always a helpful strategy at FAC. ;) I'll try to read up more, though, both here and externally, before I do anything rash and ill-considered. Do you mind waiting just a bit? Willow 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was planning to wait. I don't know if you noticed, but I said What do you all think this article needs before it's re-nominated at WP:FAC? Anyway, I would agree with you, but I'm not an expert on the history and makeup of Britannica, So I'll let you do that. I'm actively searching for references, though, because the WP:FAC people are not lenient on that. NauticaShades 11:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

California Island

I have heard it said that EB indicated that California was an island up until about WWI, but am unable to find any source online verifying this. Is there any truth in the story? If it can be verified, should it appear in the article as an interesting trivia note? Legis 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Only the 1st edition said: "It is uncertain whether it be a peninsula or an island." [1] And at that time it was indeed uncertain (see Island of California). Bramlet Abercrombie 17:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardly surprising, considering the Baja peninsula and what had been explored by 1771. In the 1st edition, the coastline of North America ends north of California and west of Hudson Bay. Where the northwest part of the continent belongs is simply labeled "unexplored". Some exploration was yet to be done. (SEWilco 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

I stand corrected. Legis 18:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We also need to be careful about putting in any errors that could be found. Can you imagine if the wikipedia article contained a list of amusing errors that existed at one point or other in it? Sad mouse 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC) My point is not to use EB-bashing (and I know this was just proposed for fun, not for bashing) as a proxy for wikipedia-glorification. Sad mouse 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on editing

It would be helpful if we could reach consensus on our goals, instead of reverting each other's edits. What do you all think of the following goals and guidelines?

• Subjective, unverifiable adjectives such as "important" should be deprecated unless accompanied by an explicit reference. We should strive to make the article as factual/referenced as possible and to abandon any personal biases.

• All references should be made as fully as possible and, consistent with usual practice, hardcopy references are preferred over electronic references.

That said, I have found and photocopied the Kister hardcopy reference. Interestingly, I cannot find the passage that judges the EB unfavorably in comparison with the other three encyclopedias; can someone here point me to it, perhaps the original editor of that passage?

I have to run now, but I'll check in tomorrow again, once I've digested Kister and the other hardcopy reviewing references.

I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage anonymous editors to become users here, which indeed offers more anonymity.

Ta for now, Willow 22:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a section in Kister's book devoted to general adult encyclopedias. At the end of each evaluation, it gives accuracy and recency ratings. So, there isn't a single location where the statement is substantiated, but instead each evaluation has to be referenced.--Sold FIRE insurance 07:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Preferred structure of participial clause

Regarded as one of the most important and widely recognized reference works in the English language, the Britannica is the oldest continuously published English-language encyclopedia in the world.

I respect the sentiment behind this sentence, but I would like to amend its wording to make it more forceful, more factual and more immediately intelligible. Some weaknesses I see in its present wording include

• the duplication of "English language"

• the initial participial clause (Regarded...language,) is rather long, making the idea more difficult to understand, since the reader has to wait to find out what it refers to. I suggest that we reverse the order, and begin with

The Britannica is the oldest continuously published English-language encyclopedia in the world, and is...

• Finally, the adjectives "important" and "recognized" are too subjective, too non-factual — don't you agree? I recommend that they be replaced, or at least that an impartial reference be supplied.

If the wording matters to you, please respond to this note and its predecessor — thank you! Willow 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Britannica is the oldest continuously published English-language encyclopedia in the world, and is widely recognized as an important reference work. How's that? The phrasing is weakened from "the most important" and both recognition and importance are supported by "widely recognized". The wideness of the recognition is missing a source. Would figures on sales popularity reflect wide recognition (at some point in time)? Is EB recommended in some library reference shopping list? (SEWilco 06:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC))

Haven't found a recommended library acquisitions list. Found [2] [3] (SEWilco 06:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC))

References

Do any of you mind I convert all of those Propedia The New Encyclopedia Britannica into one reference? By the way, reference 17 seems to be nonexistent. NauticaShades 11:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Order of the sections

There appears to be a difference of opinion regarding the best order of sections for this article. Let's discuss it and reach consensus, shall we? Here's the present order, which has been standard for a few weeks

1. History
2. CD-ROM edition and Britannica Online
3. Competition
   1. Wikipedia
   2. Encarta
   3. Encyclopedia Americana and other print encyclopedias
4. Current version
5. Staff
6. Editorial advisors
7. Versions
8. Summary table of the editions
9. See also
10. References
11. Further reading
12. External links

As I see it, there are several problems with this ordering:

• The "History" section is rather long, and a lot to slog through to get to a description of the current EB. I recommend putting at the end for the history buffs, and put the current information near the beginning for encyclopedia buffs. The summary table is too far away from the History as well; it seems like an appendix.

• The "Current version" section comes well after the "CD-ROM" and "Competition" sections, which seems non-sensical. I would recommend putting the "Current version" section above those two, and eliminate the redundancies.

• The "Versions" section (related materials published by EB Inc.) comes at the very end, and is uncoupled from the rest of the article. I recommend putting this section immediately after the "CD-ROM" section, but before the "Competition" section.

• Details of the current version such as its staff, editorial advisors, etc. are given their own sections, which seems to confer undue importance on them. I recommend making them into subsections.

• Finally, I'm intending to add more details into the History section for the editions between 3 and 14, on the historical context in which the 1st edition was published, and on the tradition criteria by which encyclopedias are assessed.

I invite all interested editors, anonymous or otherwise, to make comments and suggest alternatives. Thanks for your time and efforts to make this article as clear, informative and well-organized as possible! :) Willow 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

By convention most articles on Wikipedia (and most non-fiction books) move chronologically from oldest to newest. I agree history should come first, it is easier for the reader and other editors to understand the layout. I wouldn't worry about the history section being long, you never know why people read the article. If the article is long enough, it could move to History of Encyclopædia Britannica. I agree about sub-sections for staff. Look forward to your additions. -- Stbalbach 01:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nature study in intro

If anyone other than Wikipedia were writing an article about Encyclopædia Britannica, I can guarantee you that the Nature study comparing Britannica to Wikipedia would not appear in the intro. On Wikipedia, sometimes we really have to step outside of the Wikipedia bubble and think about the importance of things in the big picture. This would be the equivalent of mentioning Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia in the intro of the United States Congress article or Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China in the intro of the People's Republic of China article (not to give you any ideas).

WillowW says "If the study were insignificant, the EB would not have issued an exhaustive 20-page rebuttal on the web, and demanded a retraction from Nature (a serious step in science)."

I do not doubt the notability of this info for inclusion in this article, but merely challenge that it is one of the most notable things about Britannica, i.e. that it belongs in the intro. Things like the Nature study increase the credibility of Wikipedia; giving undue prominence to the Nature study decreases the credibility of Wikipedia. savid@n 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Nature study was not even a study (in the scientific sense) - there was no peer review and the methodology used was controversial - it is best described as a "Nature article". We have an entire lengthy section in this article about Wikipedia already which talks about it. It is too controversial to be mentioned in the lead section without a lot of qualifiers, explanations and opposing view points. Finally, as the "final word" of the lead section, it gets undo weight and importance. -- Stbalbach 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also unsure about the proper placement of the EB study, and am really happy that we're talking it over to help clarify it for ourselves. I completely agree that we should scrupulously avoid the appearance of bias. However, I also feel that the Nature study is really important for the following reasons:

• The Nature study has been mentioned prominently in many of the popular press articles about the EB over the past year. Others may imagine that we're biased in our own favour, but not the New York Times and other newspapers, right? If newspapers consider the Nature study worthy of mention in short articles about the EB, can't we do likewise in our lead?

Not sure I follow the logic. Newspapers publish lots of material that is never mentioned in WP. -Stbalbach

• Perhaps the most important asset of the EB is its hard-won reputation for being the best encyclopedia. Any factor that threatens that reputation is highly notable, particularly if it is published by a scholarly journal of the first rank, such as Nature.

All of this is controversial. Was it a study? Was it scholarly? Is it a threat? These are not clear and presenting them in such unambiguous terms in the lead section seems biased. -Stbalbach

• The WP lead is supposed to summarize the longer article below, and stand as a "mini-article" on its own. So the "Competition" section should be summarized, even if briefly, no?

Perhaps. Although the lead section is currently way off - it uses footnotes (not supposed to use footnotes since it is just a summary with the details repeated in the main article) - so, it is difficult to know how to best phrase it - it should just be high-level summary, something about how its credibility has been a subject of public discourse over time. -Stbalbach

• I have inside information (albeit, second-hand) that the upper management of the EB is seriously concerned about the threat of WP, concerned enough to convene an extraordinary meeting of its Editorial Advisors to discuss ways of dealing with it. That meeting, the press coverage mentioned above, the web publication of its exhaustive rebuttal (where it could be read by potential customers), the extraordinary step of asking Nature publicly to retract a paper with no falsified data, and recent changes in the EB's advertising to emphasize the unreliability of web resources — all these factors suggest that not only Wikipedians find the Nature study noteworthy.

It's certainly noteworthy and included in detail in the article. It's just how to deal with it in the lead section. -Stbalbach

How about the following compromise? We could replace the present specific-to-WP sentence in the lead with a more general statement that summarizes recent criticisms of the EB's quality, maybe something like this?

However, its reputation for excellence has called into question by several critics, who find it difficult to navigate<Kister citation> and only marginally more reliable than freely available web resources,<Nature citation> criticisms that have been challenged vigorously by the Britannica's management.<EB rebuttal of Nature study>

Again, this is biased because these points are controversial - why include the criticisms without also including the rebutals? -- Stbalbach

or the shorter version

Although its reputation for excellence has called into question by several respectable critics, these criticisms have been challenged vigorously by the Britannica's management.

This is better. It covers a lot of bases and is in the spirit of WP:Lead section. -- Stbalbach 15:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm very interested in all your ideas, though, and hope that you will consider this only as one proposal. Thank you also for being willing it to talk it over and for the courteous tone, Willow 23:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice and insights; I've been editing for some months now, but I still feel like a total WP newbie; I don't know what's proper and sometimes have a tin ear for how something sounds. It seems like the shorter version might be OK, though; if we're all agreed and there are no objections over the next few days, I'll add it. Willow 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer a generic summary sentence about its reliability and how it compares to other encyclopedias that doesn't specifically mention Wikipedia or the Nature study at all. Savidan 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

EB 1911 into Wikipedia

How much content from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (public domain) was copied into Wikipedia? --Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say. It was a lot. The Missing Encyclopedic Articles Wikiproject spent months importing and cleaning up the 1911 content, so they might have statistics. Each article incorporating 1911 content is supposed to make a note of it through {{1911}}, so you might want to check the Whatlinkshere for it. It's definitely up there in the thousands range. --Gwern (contribs) 05:33 10 January 2007 (GMT)

Also, a few editors copied and pasted entire EB1911 articles without much clean-up - I know of one editor (no longer around) that must have done it with over 1000 articles, at least in the account I knew about (he used multiple accounts). -- Stbalbach 15:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Novel topics?

The novel topics introduced into the Macropædia since 1989 include new taxonomic divisions (such as Algae, Animals, Dinosaurs, Fungi and Plants), new geographic discoveries (such as Atlantic Ocean, Belgium, Central Asia and Indonesia), new technological advances (such as Radar, Microscopes and Telescopes), and new developments in politics and history (such as Democracy, Diplomacy, Holocaust, European history, ancient Greek civilization and the Vietnam War). The Macropædia has also introduced new social developments of the past two decades such as rock music, science fiction, feminism, environmentalism, and puppetry.

I don't understand this at all. The Atlantic ocean, algae, dinosaurs, Ancient Greece, Indonesia, etc, can hardly be described as novel. Reference 33 is also missing. TimVickers 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh; that's an especially snarky part. What's written is factually true; the Macropædia did introduce those articles over the past twenty years, and they were indeed novel for the Macropædia. But clearly, they're also fundamental topics whose absence from the 1989 Macropædia gives the lie to its self-claims of catholic coverage. Sigh, you see, I'm having trouble mastering myself even now. :( Willow 22:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'll check for Ref. 33, hang on.

PPS. I think I'd better go home, and look at the article again once I've slept and had some pleasant dreams. Thanks for all your help, everyone! :) Willow 23:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sleep well, sweet Wiki-princess. TimVickers 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Is there an inconsistency here? How can it be American owned and owned by a Swiss billionaire. Something is missing here. David D. (Talk) 22:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Did I mention that I was dim? ;) Oops, will fix somehow. Thanks for stopping by, David — that's really nice! :) Willow 22:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts (long)

Posting this here in case anyone wants to refer to it (or troutwhack me, as the case may be):

"Troutwhack" — sigh, I love your use of words, I'm such a junkie.

• The lead is too long; four bulky paragraphs were recently shown to be too much. Substantial chunks of the history, I think, should be abbreviated in the lead. I'll have to think more about including criticisms in the lead section, which we may think of as more notable than they are in the wider society simply because we're here.

I'm inclined to think that the critiques have been notable, and not merely to Wikipedians. There's a discussion above where newspaper coverage, EB reactions, etc. are considered.

• The TOC is deadly huge. Can the editions be bundled into distinct periods of editorial leadership or philosophy, so there isn't a section header for every edition? Some of them only have a short paragraph of text. At minimum, the supplement subsections should probably be upmerged.

I tried to group them under three larger headings, but they're still there in the TOC — do you know how to fix this? I still would like to have individual sections for each editions, since they are discrete and fundamentally different from one another.

Depending on the final length, maybe they should be split into a history article and summarized - I didn't do the 'readable prose' calculation but I'm betting this is already on the edge. It's possible to forcibly construct a TOC that doesn't have the subheading links, but that seems a bit pointless; why else have them as section headers? Not quite sure what to about this, but it's a stylistic issue that can wait till the text is more mature.

• I imagine most of the history is recounted from a relatively small number of print sources, making it difficult and downright undesirable to achieve the citation density of many FAs, but I also imagine the current low density will be a problem. For example, 'historical context' has no inline citations. The scientific citation guidelines are meant for science, obviously, but IIRC there were some rumblings on the talk page about similar standards being desirable for humanities-based FAs; might be a good place to start style-wise.

I totally agree, but I'll have to do more research before I'm up to snuff. :( Please be patient; some references I have already, but have not uploaded their inline citations.

• Personal bias, but I hate {{cquote}}. I want those big cartoony quotation marks to die in a fire.

Let all of them burn, then — mwahaha. You really shouldn't encourage my arsonist tendencies. ;)

Oh yes, if you're feeling arsonistic, I can think of a few more templates that need flaming... :)

• Rather than (or in addition to) explicating the circumstances surrounding each edition, a more general historical trajectory would be helpful - public perception, critical commentary, sales figures, that sort of thing. In particular - and I'm the last person to be suggesting an 'in popular culture type section - everybody has in their head the archetype of the door-to-door encyclopedia salesman, and everybody knows that at one point it was a bit of a status symbol to own a Britannica set, but the article as it stands doesn't give me a sense of when one developed from the other, or how those perceptions came to be. To whom was the first edition marketed? Did any of the original customers publish a review of their purchase? Etc.

The public perception is tricky to handle, since it's hard to quantify. The existence of pirate copies suggests that the EB was well-regarded; imitation is the sincerest etc.

• • On that note, since this article is very long already, maybe it's worth splitting off a 'history of encyclopedia britannica' article. There's lots of information in the history section that seems interesting but ultimately minor, eg the pagination error of the 2nd edition. Similarly, there have been so many notable contributors of articles that I'm not convinced listing them in each edition's section is useful in this article, though it might be in a daughter article.

I agree totally; maybe I'll tackle that in a little while.

• There's a bit of editorializing; the excellent An Universal History of Arts and Sciences by the French-born but English-naturalized Dennis de Coetlogon (two volumes, published 1748) drove its worthy editor bankrupt. stood out for me. Too many adjectives. Also Bonar "tried to extort" (yikes!), Bell's heirs "botched" the 5th edition, etc.

You're totally right again (YTRA for future convenience). Feel free to revert any such, if I don't beat you to it.

• Things like "for further information, see <this reference>" are awkward and interrupt the prose - just a footnote works fine. (see 3rd edition section)

Yes, I had better fix those references, too.

• In the 9th edition section, there's a long quote with little context from a British critic in 1988 that reads as very misplaced; had 'encyclopedia' even been dropped from the spine as of the 9th edition? It's a bit anachronistic. There needs to be some fleshing out of the process by which Britannica was sold to Americans - a direct result of the piracy? When the US government intervened, was it with a general ruling on international copyright or specific to Britannica? Was it a court case, new legislation introduced...? How did two of the pirates buy out the others?

The piracy history is a cool one, I'm guessing. The quote was meant to illustrate the lingering resentment of some British citizens to the American coopting of the Britannica name while slighting proper British subjects (pun alert!)

I think this would read better with the quote shortened, so it doesn't mention things that haven't come up in the article yet, or were only passingly mentioned in the lead.

• Only 6.6% of the current contributors are female? Really? On the other hand, emphasizing that 'the dead outnumber women' is awkwardly POV.

It is, I know; I frustrate myself sometimes. :(

• Including 'systemic bias' in the header might be POV-ish, and is rather awkward given that that is an established 'Wikipedia term'. Same with the weasel word 'seems' in the text of that section.

Whoa, systemic bias is a WP concept? I think it might be older than that; I'll try to find a good reference.

Not the concept but the term itself has an established meaning and set of connotations here that isn't necessarily the 'common' meaning - the way 'non-notable' in the Wikipedia context has 'should be deleted' attached to it. I guess only Wikipedia 'regulars' will notice one way or the other.

• For purposes of minimizing bias, put Wikipedia last in the list of competitors? Also need citations for the commentary on people's preferred online search habits.

Good idea, someone already beat me to it. Thanks as always for your wonderfully insightful, unfailingly correct comments! You're the best set of eyes anyone could wish for, Willow 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• In general, it feels like the article gives a decently thorough description of the internals of Britannica's workings over the years, but comparatively little about its popular or lay reception during that time, or its impact on culture or education.

Opabinia regalis 06:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of ironic you say that the lead is too long, as it's a commonplace of FAC to cite WP:LEAD and say the lead is too short! --Gwern (contribs) 16:10 12 January 2007 (GMT)

Speaking for myself, I agree with almost everything you wrote, including the lead length. I didn't mean to commission a review so early in the article's development, but I'm very grateful nonetheless. I'll try to read up on the issues you raise, and fix up those that fall within my present understanding. The piracy thing should make for a cool story. :)

I especially agree about removing even the slightest whiff of WP bias; the EB article should be noble, honest and serene, whatever the shortcomings of a particular contributor. I think the anonymity of EB Inc. is making it difficult for me to feel affection for it and appreciate its beauty; I'm going to try to imagine that I'm writing about and to someone I instinctively empathize with, such as Christine.

So, about the 6.6% issue. It's true and verifiable because the EB lists the names and positions of its named contributors exhaustively at the end of the Propædia. The gender of the contributor can generally be discerned from the name, e.g., "Annette Elizabeth Armstrong" versus "Terence Edward Armstrong". After counting the obviously female names and omitting ambiguous names such as "Jean" and "Leslie", one arrives at the 6.6% figure. This might be construed as original research, but I construe it as summarizing what the EB has published. I personally feel that the 15:1 ratio of male to female contributors is significant and worthy of mention, particularly in the context of systemic bias; however, I also understand the "gender is irrelevant" attitude of many people and recognize that publishing the statistic could be seen as — ignoble. I would welcome your ideas, and those of our fellow Wikipedians; I'll usually yield to any reasonable argument, and I promise to be gentle, not stubborn. :) Willow 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The above is basically a brain-dump of things I thought while reading the article, so possibly not everything is well-thought-out. Pirates pretty much always make cool stories, don't they? Well, the swashbuckling kind does; I hope their encyclopedia-stealing fellows keep up the tradition.

My instinct is that that calculation of 6.6% is problematic - there are inherent subjective decisions about the names involved that make verifying difficult. 'Jean Smith' is probably a woman, 'Jean Rousseau' probably a man, there are still some male Ashleys, Courtneys, and Kelseys running around, etc... I imagine these wouldn't throw the statistics off too much, but they do introduce fuzziness. My bias is to not mention the gender issue unless it's been analyzed elsewhere (I'm going to go ahead and guess that it has). But that's my general bias anyway, so take it with a grain of salt or two.

This is going to be a great article, and very worthy of being featured. Opabinia regalis 02:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Competition" section

The competition section is problematic, but easily solved. The problem is, anyone and everyone who has a favorite competing product is invited to create their own sub-section as a competitor. The solution is to rename the sections to something like:

• Printed encyclopedias
• Digital encyclopedias (DVD/CD)
• User generated content encyclopedias

Then for each section, add a disclaimer that "there are many competitors but the most notable examples are .."

This will keep out the coat-tail riders. There are thousands of encyclopedia products that "compete" with EB (just by nature of being encyclopedias) and you don't want to create a monster here listing every one. -- Stbalbach 15:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Competition section should be shortened as there are probably thousands of printed and electronic encyclopedias, it is best to just name few notable ones.--67.2.149.47 21:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this paragraph, moved here:

Wikipedia receives roughly 400-fold more traffic than does the online version of the Britannica (britannica.com), based on independent page-view statistics gathered by Alexa from 15 October 2006 through 15 January 2007. The percentage of Internet users who visit Wikipedia is roughly 200-fold larger, based on the corresponding user-reach statistics. The measured average response time of the Britannica website (typically, 6.2 seconds) is over three times slower than that of Wikipedia (typically 1.8 seconds). Nine times as many web-sites link to Wikipedia (118,273, according to Alexa) as do to Britannica.com (13,628). Finally, the Alexa traffic rank for Wikipedia is roughly 11th, whereas that of the Britannica is roughly 4,573th; for comparison, the traffic ranks of the How Stuff Works and FunTrivia encyclopedias are 1,239th and 5,635th, respectively.

This is well researched, but too date and number specific. All of these numbers will be outdated very soon. I'm also not sure it is a good idea to get into a point by point debate about why one encyclopedia is better than another using such fine-grained measurements as hit counts, it seems too much like a sports competition and puts emphasis on things that are probably not even that important. -- Stbalbach 14:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

High level

Regarding this sentence:

Due to its high level of scholarship, it is targeted at educated adult readers, although simplified versions have been developed.

"High level of scholarship" is a value statement and thus POV. What if some people disagree that the scholarship is high? "High" is a part of the "high culture" (high art, higher education, etc..) lexicon and somewhat controversial. To be more neutral you could say "Due to its higher education scholarship.." but that is an awkward phrase that probably adds more questions than answers (when is a person an "adult", are they not adults if they don't have a higher education?). Perhaps just "Due to its level of scholarship.." and leave off any qualifiers of what "level" means and leave it to the reader to decide. I'll try that and see if anyone objects. -- Stbalbach 20:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Length of macropedia

The macropedia is 2-310 pages long? Something wrong there.--Shantavira 19:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the articles are between 2 and 310 pages long; should I reword that? Willow 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnote #13 "Britannica History"

What source is <ref name="Britannica History"/> supposed to be in reference too, in footnote #13? -- Stbalbach 16:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems to be blank... which means a named reference was used but that name isn't actually defined anywhere. Possibly there was a reference named "Britannica History" defined somewhere, but it got removed, and nobody noticed this reference was pointing to it. I'll have a look in the page history – Qxz 16:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Found it! The reference was originally used elsewhere in the article, but sometime in the last two weeks it was removed from there, and nobody noticed it broke this other reference. Fixed now – Qxz 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Stbalbach 16:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"After the 11th edition...

The article states, "After the 11th edition, the Britannica chose to simplify and shorten its articles, making them more accessible to lay-readers, with the goal of broadening its North American market."

However, as the list of editions makes clear, the 12th and 13th editions consisted of the 11th edition in toto, plus supplemental volumes. Thus, the quotation is inaccurate. Perhaps it should be altered to read, "After the 13th edition...". Shenkin 06:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Shenkin! :) I think it's straightened out now but, if not, please let me know. The History of the Encyclopædia Britannica article spelled it out more accurately. Thanks again and please keep a sharp lookout for other glitches; the article may go soon to peer review and then to FAC. Willow 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

harvard business school

HBS just put out this, which could be a good resource for this article. I've been tracking the progress here for a long time; keep it up guys its looking great around here. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Er... this seems to have more to do with Wikipedia than the Encyclopædia Britannica, would it be better there? – Qxz 09:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It talks about Britannica as well as comparing the wikipedia/britannica rather frequently. their 'exhibits' has a nice little comparison table too. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

4,000 contributors

Are the 4,000 contributors paid or volunteer? -- Stbalbach 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that they're paid, although I don't know what the prevailing rate is at the moment. According to the 1958 Kogan reference, the pay is relatively small and some contributors even try to return the pittance, on the idea that being allowed to summarize their field in a prestigious encyclopedia is reward enough. Perhaps we should track down more details on this? Thanks for the insight, Willow 10:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be very interesting and relevant. Obviously we can't know exact commissions, but any details that can be sourced. -- Stbalbach 15:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with Wikipedia

Ooh, I see the problem, the link in the reference did not go through, so it was removed! I cannot seem to figure it out, but the link is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800135.html

If someone wants to fuss around with the 'ref' tags and put that in, it would help out a bit! Alternatively, some might disagree with this. Sadly, this would be giving a biased view on this article, but if there is a particular reason for it, then let's hear it.

128.61.36.21 03:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, your original reference did indeed mess up the article, since you didn't include a closing </ref>, as I see now. Forgive me for having assumed it was mere vandalism.

That said, I still think the article is inappropriate here; it has little to do with the Britannica, being a minor summary of a minor event in Wikipedia's history, written by a reporter who didn't take the time to familiarize himself with Wikipedia. Your preceding sentence is also unfortunately disrespectful of the Britannica, which is counter to our mission here: to produce a factual, NPOV and courteous summary of the present Britannica and its history. Perhaps your article might find a home over at Wikipedia, but I think not; although the one episode is well observed, the article's scope is rather limited, and its author does not establish that the episode is representative.

However, please don't let this discourage you; it takes a while to get used to a place and its customs, no? :) Please consider forming an account here (it's that "Create account" at your upper right) and finding a place where you can devote yourself to improving Wikipedia. See you around, Willow 10:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we ready for Peer Review?

Hi all,

I've prepared the page for our next round of peer review, but I didn't want to submit it until we've agreed among ourselves that we're ready. What do you all think? Are there significant improvements left to be done before peer review? Willow 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Something has been bothering me for a long time and I don't have a solution for it, but if this article goes down the FA track, it will come up. That is, much of the article is based on information that is very time sensitive to 2007. There are some guidelines/rules somewhere (aren't there always) that talk about keeping articles as time-neutral as possible, so they don't quickly go out of date. It can't be avoided in places, but this article has a large chunk that is time-sensitive "Status in 2007", "Staff and Management" - also regarding the staff section, I would recommend deleting Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica and just move it as-is back into the main article as a generic list of major staff titles, with an external link to Britannica's staff list is much better. -- Stbalbach 14:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica Online

I recently came across the orphaned article Encyclopædia Britannica Online. I noticed that Britannica Online redirected here. (reverted my own edit). Should Encyclopædia Britannica Online be redirected here or be a separate article? Squids'and'Chips 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I had no idea this article existed, and was even thinking about creating it. The primary reason is, when linking to EB articles from within other Wikipedia articles in the External links section. For example at Sutton Hoo it should look like this:

==External links==

• "Sutton Hoo", from Encyclopedia Britannica Online

The reason is, we need a place to explain to editors that linking to EBO from Wikipedia brings up the full article, that it is not a pay-site when coming in from Wikipedia (as it would be normally reaching EBO from other sites, like Google for example). The Encyclopædia Britannica Online article would be the perfect place to explain that. Also, EBO is really an entity onto itself with a lot of additional features and could justify its own article. -- Stbalbach 01:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section (#2)

Does anyone think that the criticism segment is too long and takes too much space? It literally takes almost half of the History section! Many of these arguments seem like valid information, but the majority also seems to be repetitive and of about the same complaints (past versions are outdated; outdated view on race, sex...). --205.124.145.254 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach suggested at its featured article candidacy that the article include a significant section on the published criticisms of the Britannica. It is a fair request, and such a section is needed for balance; I've done my best to fulfil his request and, perhaps not surprisingly, I don't find the section repetitive. ;) Nor do I feel that the Britannica was merely reflecting the prejudices or misunderstandings of its era; rather, the cited errors seem to derive from a poor choice of "expert" editor. Willow 16:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Several of the facts from the criticism section strike me as wrong and badly-written. Such as criticizing the 11th edition of Britannica for ignoring D. H. Lawrence and James Joyce in favor of "Victorian" authors like H. G. Wells. Well, for what I know, D. H. Lawrence did not actually publish his first major novel until 1911, and most of what he has done are after that time period. Much of James Joyce's most renowned works are also published between 1910-20s, after the publication of the 11th edition of Britannica. H.G. Welles on the other hand, was already a very well-established literary figure in the late 19th century.

And it also said "Victorian" author H.G. Wells. Where did that label came from? H.G. Wells for what I know was a socialist and an atheist.

And Britannica neglected works of Sigmund Freud? Maybe that is the case, but I think he was also on Encyclopædia Britannica's Editorial Board of Advisors along with Marie Curie. Maybe that doesn't have to do with anything.--Balthazarduju 03:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree on Joyce and Lawrence, but the neglect of Freud in the 11th was criticized even then, as discussed in the Thomas reference. If I recall correctly, Freud was accepted by the EB in the 1920's, along with Marie Curie, Einstein and Trotsky, as described in the History of the Encyclopædia Britannica article. By "Victorian", I meant more "Victorian/Edwardian era", not Victorian morals or outlook.

Unfortunately, the Britannica has been and continues to be mistaken, by its own admission and according to the analysis of many, e.g., Kenneth Kister and Harvey Einbinder. Therefore, it has been criticized for "inaccuracies". As quoted in the Criticism section, Prof. Burr of Yale University also faulted it for "lack of authority". With those sentences deleted, the lead does not reflect the whole of the article; so per User:Stbalbach's request at FAC, I'm going to have to revert back to the original version. Please do not remove the material a third time tonight. However, I'm open to continued discussions, if you and others feel that it detracts from the article. Willow 03:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples of EB racism?

The examples drawn from the two Britannica articles are shocking by modern standards (and probably also by 1911 standards), but I think they're needed to back up the criticism of racism. Some people might argue that the earlier quotes — those involving terrorizing blacks and their supporters in the South — do not show racial hatred per se, but rather the desire of the KKK people to gain political power through terrorism and ethnic cleansing. What do other people think? I know it's a revolting topic, but we need to address it for completeness in the Criticism section. :( Willow 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No thistle trademark?

Hi, I was unable to confirm that the EB has a trademark on its thistle logo at the US Patent and Trademark Office. I searched through all the trademarks owned by the Britannica, and searched also using the design codes 05.03.10 and 05.03.25, which I know are appropriate, owing to another Britannica trademark (now dead). Could someone please help me track this down? Thanks! Willow 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources

I am suprised to see how many of the references... point straight back to the subject of the article. Especially given this is a featured article! If we write about the University of London then I would hope we get independent sources to confirm how many faculty members they have before we accept that as fact sufficeient for it to be a featured article. Why isn't the same scruitiny in place here? Garrie 04:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to put Template:Primarysources on it? Garrie 04:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia is notable :)

Some of you may recall this paragraph in the Criticism section, whose first version was added on 28 March 2007

Even now, the Britannica sometimes makes false claims about itself. For example, its Open Britannica site claims that the Britannica developed "the first encyclopedia in the English language, the first multimedia encyclopedia on CD-ROM, and the first encyclopedia on the Internet." Two of these claims are false and the third is misleading. The 1st edition of the Britannica states plainly that it was not the first encyclopedia in the English language; the preface compares itself to others and even admits to borrowing from four earlier general encyclopedias, those of Barrow, Chambers, Crocker and Owens. Indeed, at least two others were published decades prior to the Britannica: the Lexicon technicum, or An Universal English Dictionary of Arts and Sciences by John Harris (two volumes, published 1704 and 1710, respectively) and An Universal History of Arts and Sciences of Dennis de Coetlogon (published 1745). Moreover, there was an earlier English-language translation of the encyclopedia De proprietatibus rerum (On the properties of things) (1240) by Bartholomeus Anglicus. As for the other two claims, the Academic American Encyclopedia was the first online encyclopedia (1983), and also the first encyclopedia published on CD-ROM (1985), becoming multimedia in 1990. Although the first multimedia encyclopedia was Compton's Encyclopedia (1989) — then owned by the same parent company as the Britannica — the Britannica itself was not released on a multimedia CD until 1995.

Roughly a week later (today), the Britannica corrected their error. Admittedly, Wikipedia may have had nothing to do with it, but it was satisfying nonetheless. As a byproduct, their correction helps our article by making its Criticism section shorter and easier to read; thank you, EB! :) Willow 11:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This is a good occasion to extend the hand of friendship to any editors of the Britannica who wish to contribute here, be they Associate or Senior, Managing, Deputy, Executive or Chief. Your suggestions, additions and corrections would be most welcome, and we hope that you forgive us our imperfections. Facing a common enemy, ignorance, we encyclopedians should not contend with one another — a house divided, and all that. Well-meaning people who can appreciate beauty in its manifold forms (and yearn to share it with others) should likewise prize those rare gifts in one another. Willow 11:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

References

I wouldn't think too much about it. Is the "Open Britannica" even part of the official website? Do you know for sure that Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. actually operates this site because on the official Britannica website I couldn't find a link to it. Even it is part of Britannica, it's probably just a minor webpage.--Balthazarduju 14:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed managed by the parent company, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. You can get to it from the main-page in two steps: go first to the "Britannica Blogs" (left hand column of the main page), and thence to Open.britannica.com (4th item in the menu bar of the blog page). But I agree that it's relatively unimportant. Willow 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"the standard"

Regarding this sentence:

The Britannica is widely considered the standard by which other encyclopedias are measured.

This is a very strong statement. I can think of three solutions.

1. Remove it entire.
2. Re-word it in some way.
3. Provide very strong sources. Currently it lists two sources (no page numbers), no information on what was exactly said. The strength of the statement doesn't match the strength of the sources.

If this was a common knowledge I would not mind, but it honestly it sounds almost mythological, part of EB's very successful marketing over the years. -- Stbalbach 03:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I was carried away by enthusiasm; the sources are more measured in their praise. I'll amend it. Willow 14:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Britannica's omission of Wikipedia

Hi all,

I would like to include the omission of WP in the 2007 EB — and its inclusion in the online version — as an example that the EB is not always up-to-date. The 2006 World Book includes a reference to Wikipedia. I know that at least one fellow editor, Bramlet Abercrombie objects to this, though. What do other people think? I think it's a noteworthy fact, although perhaps it is too self-centric and might come across in the wrong way. I can see both sides and I'll defer to the consensus in any event. :) Willow 15:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That example doesn't prove anything about EB's up-to-dateness. Not everything that appears in the online version will eventually be in the print version. There are always some additional articles in the online version, since there's no space limit there. As to Wikipedia, for all we know they may never include it in the print version. Just because some other encyclopedia mentions it doesn't mean EB has to. Bramlet Abercrombie 15:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound rash, but I do think it is a bit too self-centric, and it would certainly come across in the wrong way to some readers at least. In my view it also clashes with the rest of the article, although I can't put my finger on why—perhaps it just seems off-topic or slightly POVish; are there any more appropriate examples of this "gap" in up-to-dateness (I can't believe I just wrote that) between the online and print Britannica? Fvasconcellos 15:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One good example might be its treatment of proteins in the "Biochemical Components" article of the Macropædia, which reads as though it were written in 1975. Written by Daniel E. Koshland (we need an article on him, inventor of the KNF model; I think there's an autobiographical article in Annu. Rev.) and the editorial staff, it hasn't changed significantly since 1989, and possibly even back to 1974. A better example, perhaps? Willow 15:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If the comparison is appropriate (i.e. between the Macropædia's coverage and online coverage or coverage from another encyclopedia, not ours) then yes, I think that's a nice example. Fvasconcellos 16:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Olive branches

I left a kindly meant note of friendship on Robert McHenry's blog, stressing the kinship of WP and the Britannica and inviting him to comment on our article, even to offer suggestions for improving it. In particular, I asked him about the Britannica's spelling policy and thistle logo, since he seemed "supremely qualified" to address the issues, having been editor-in-chief.

As of this moment, my letter hasn't been uploaded by the moderators there and I fear it never will be. A quixotic gesture, perhaps, but I hold out hope that the good-will and fellowship of scholars will prevail over the more meager-minded strategems of businessmen. It would be indeed a gracious gesture if he were to help us to improve the article. Dreaming of the grace that illumines a naughty world, Willow 23:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Magic — or at least a fine gentility — is in the air, since the moderators did indeed post my letter. Thank you, EB! Now I hope only that Mr. McHenry will receive it with the fond comradery with which it was sent. Instead of throwing down the gauntlet, we've thrown down the welcome mat. :) Willow 14:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said, here's hoping he reads it.-Ravedave 14:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Left-hand image placement

Images on the left hand side of the page, that start at the top of a section, should be aligned so that the header title is lined up with the body of text in that section - so the image goes before the header, not after. This is in the MoS, if a reference needed let me know. -- Stbalbach 15:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Balthazarduju's edits

I don't agree with these edits, but I decided to take it to the talk page. Anyone else agree that the above diff should be reverted? - Ravedave 04:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to be relevant when someone creates the article, and it is kind of WP:ORish, and kind of not encyclopedic (why are those in particular mentioned?). JoeSmack ^Talk 04:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone is preparing the (deleted) example beverage article, so that example was likely to be obsolete soon anyway. Any nonexistent article which is given as such an example becomes a target for creation. (SEWilco 05:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

The past advisors were interesting, and this item might be quotable

On 1 April, Willow made an edit that removed stuff about people on the editorial board who are no longer living:

The Propædia lists dozens of other editorial advisors, including many who have since died, the earliest in 1967 (Norwood Hanson). For example, 74% of the advisors on "Part Six. Arts" are dead. Similarly, 60% of the Propædia contributors have been dead for 30 years on the average: Rene Dubos (d. 1982), Loren Eiseley (d. 1977), Harold D. Lasswell (d. 1978), Mark Van Doren (d. 1972), Peter Ritchie Calder (d. 1982) and Mortimer J. Adler (d. 2001).

This item has nostalgia value for readers who remember those authors; in particular, Mortimer Adler because of his role in the Propedia. The replacement text sounds more like good-feeling marketing-speak: although roughly half of these have died, their work lives on in the Britannica. The original also points out a fixable problem that EB might want to correct in a future edition, so I think it's worthwhile information. The EB can't go on forever relying on its former glory. EdJohnston 16:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Opabinia made the well-taken point that that section sounded too much as though we were criticizing the Britannica implicitly for being outdated and for having dead/dying editorial advisors. Scholarly work does often survive its maker — particularly if it's useful — but I perhaps went too far in the other direction, trying to be respectful. I'll try to fix it up a bit. Thanks for catching the glitch, Willow 17:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Misinforming a Nation

Misinforming a Nation - I've read the book (it's online) and while it is characterized by Smollett's ghost of a spleen, most of what he says is accurate and ahead of his age. I have no doubt there were positive reviews of the book and not all negative as our article portrays. There was a certain intellectual "establishment" at the time that had a vested interest in maintaining the Victorian ideals in the EB1911 - Misinforming a Nation was ahead of its time rightly criticizing many of its faults, not only of the book but the age, that were indeed addressed in later editions.

Also re-worded the part about "never claimed to be perfect" - no one claimed perfection. Every work is open for criticism, it's normal. -- Stbalbach 21:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Condolences for Warren Preece

I sent our collective condolences to Robert McHenry and the EB on the loss of Warren Preece, who passed away on April 11th, the same day as our article became featured. I praised his talented and intrepid contributions, and expressed the hope that the Britannica might find a way to honor him. Hoping that the letter will be received as generously as its intent, Willow 00:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. McHenry has replied and directed us to Tom Panelas. -Ravedave 15:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you were a little bit over-the-top in your approach (not that it would make any difference, it seems). Christopher Connor 12:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't over-the-top, but certainly I was over-optimistic that Mr. McHenry would see that Wikipedia was working, at least in some cases. I honestly expected him to send us a nice picture of himself and maybe even make a comment or two. After all, how could it hurt him? It could only reflect a great-hearted spirit and a devotion to the ideals of encyclopedias.

When I wrote the letters, I knew that I was asking a lot of Mr. McHenry, and I was keenly conscious of the differences in our ages and accomplishments. Why should he, a respected former chief editor of the Britannica, take note of a young knitting nobody? It was maybe ridiculous to even attempt a dialogue. :( Despite that, I had hoped that I could appeal to him as a friendly fellow encyclopedian, which is why my letters were perhaps overly deferential and sympathetic. I was reminded of the scene in Les Miserables, where the future Bishop of Digne says to Napoleon as they wait together,

“ My lord, I am looking at a great person, and you are looking at a simple person. We both may benefit. ”

I was surprised and stung a little when he replied so dismissively. OK, I'm not an Authority, I get it. Nevertheless, since I believe that the strength of a person is measured by their power to open minds, I couldn't leave without encouraging him to consider our Featured Articles objectively and to temper his impulsive scorn with a more nuanced, more scholarly evaluation of Wikipedia.

After that, I did have a very nice correspondence with Tom Panelas, the last letter of which I reproduce here:

Willow,

Well, I probably won't be able to give you as much detail as you might like, but here's the information I have readily available on your questions.

Yes, we use the thistle as our logo because it's a symbol for Scotland, and so it serves as a reference to our Scottish heritage. We've used a thistle logo in one form or another since the 1920s, and it is trademarked.

Similarly, with style and spelling, as you've noticed, we do follow a number of British spelling conventions -- e.g., "colour," flavour," "centre," -- but our style isn't uniformly British.

As for awards, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to be content with whatever we have posted. We could go back endlessly into our archives, but the task would be endless. If you like, you could generalize by saying we've won many publishing and education awards, such as the Codie and Teacher's Choice Awards, or something to that effect, but really, how much of that do people really want to read? Not much I'd guess.

Thanks, Tom

Not as much as I hoped, but I'm still grateful for his courtesy and generous replies. Willow 13:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To avoid any COI....

should we now also include Citizendium in the online encyclopedia section? Wikipedia and Citizendium are both online competitors to EB so I feel we should at least mention Citizendium. Thoughts?↔NMajdan•talk 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a purposeful exclusion (COI). Including Citizendium. given its nascent status, would be "recentism", IMO. No big deal either way. –Outriggr § 00:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Front page

I noticed that the article hasn't been nominated for the front page. Anyone object to requesting it? Is there any particular date that would be special? -Ravedave 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest something like January 15 (founding of Wikipedia) for that extra "oomph".-Wafulz 19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we really have a "Wikipedia Day"? Very cool! Tim Vickers 14:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Solo years linked

Why are the solo years in the table in "Edition summary" linked? WP:MOSNUM, do they provide any WP:CONTEXT ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

info on EB spelling practice and/or policy

Please put any info below that you can find on this topic. Please also include any info you can find on the frequency or perhaps uniqueness of mixed UK/US spelling in any printed or online material produced by any major publisher. --Espoo 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/chorus/eresearch/reviews/britannica/page3.html

Dead external links found

Two (2) link was detect as requiring assistance, Ilan Yeshua Named Britannica CEO. Veteran Executive to Consolidate Operations of Encyclopaedia Britannica and Britannica.com and To wire or not to wire? Encyclopædia Britannica vs. Microsoft Encarta returned a HTTP 404 status message. —Dispenser 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Benton ownership and the University of Chicago

Bell went off in my head when I read this since I vaguely remembered talking to someone about the original ownership transfer years ago and found this with a bit of searching to confirm it: [[4]]. Britannica actually wasn't owned by Benton proper initially - it sold to the University of Chicago, with Benton merely owning the common and providing working capital but the University owning the controlling preferred. This came up in the context of trying to explain why the staff of that era was largely drawn from Chicago and why later the staff still seemed overweighted, although that's a point that I can't back up as easily. But...anyone want to take a whack at this one? Old64mb 06:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

More care should have been taken for this article.

To many editors here for a long time have used this article as an forum to tout wikipedia, and not enough of that fluff has been removed. To give a single example, the degree of error was not mentioned in the famous EB vs wiki section - if you read the Nature article most of the EB errors were omissions, while most wikipedia errors were dramatic factual mistakes. The criticism section seems to be blown out of proportion for this pro-wiki reason. 75.92.163.152 13:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Origin of name

Unless I missed it (which is possible), it seems to me a glaring omission in an article of this breadth and detail that there is no information on the origin of the name Britannica. As an uber-word geek, the first thing I look for in articles where the name could be the subject of wonder, is that explanation, and where appropriate, the etymology. Is "Britannica" just an old term for Britain so it's just the "Encyclopedia of Britain" in form? Something else? That's information I would want to know right off and its omission should be corrected, or you should point me to where it is as you admonish me for not reading more carefully.--71.249.59.41 15:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a Latin adjective. The English equivalent would be "Britannic" as in "Their Britannic Majesties". - Jmabel | Talk 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You've identified the answer but you haven't fixed the problem, i.e., that this information is not in the article and it should be.--68.237.234.81 21:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity in second paragraph

"Beginning with the 11th edition, the Britannica gradually shortened and simplified its articles…": I assume that this means after the 11th edition, but it could just as easily mean "Beginning with the 11th edition (inclusive)…" Either way, it should be reworded unambiguously. - Jmabel | Talk 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Beginning with" almost certainly means it's inclusive. Raul654 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarity and fairness

"On 14 December 2005, the scientific journal Nature reported that, within 42 randomly selected general science articles, there were 162 mistakes in Wikipedia versus 123 in Britannica." If, as is effectively stated below, the comparison used Britannica Online, we should say so in this introductory sentence, because Britannica unqualified suggests the print edition. - Jmabel | Talk 17:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is indeed the case (which it seems to be based on your post) then by all means make the change. Be Bold. Robert Brockway 07:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetisation

"Rulers with identical names are organised first alphabetically by country and then by chronology; thus, Charles III of France precedes Charles I of England." Please point out my error, but doesn't England precede France alphabetically? So, how am i misunderstanding this sentence? Cheers, Lindsay 17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Britannica article for Charles I lists him as king of Great Britain and Ireland. Wikipedia lists him as king of England, and he's listed as such in the article for wikilinking. I added a bit to indicate how he's listed in Britannica. I'm not sure which would be more accurate, for several reasons. Today, England, Scotland, and Wales together make up the island known as Great Britain. The three together with Northern Ireland make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Elizabeth II's realm. Since I'm not that clear on my British history, I really don't know if Charles I's kingdom would have been described, at the time, as being England or Great Britain. If so, then the Wikipedia title for Charles I's article is incomplete. --ChandlerH 19:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes better sense. Their calling him king of Great Britain and Ireland is acceptable shorthand; he really had three separate kingdoms (Scotland, Ireland, and England), but that would have been rather difficult to alphabetise, i suppose. Cheers, Lindsay 20:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

great article

Thanks to everybody who worked on it! Jakob.scholbach 04:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

essential facts missing?

I just browsed through all the likely sections, and narry a one carries the actual cost of the damn thing. I could find the price of the CD/DVD edition, but not the print. Shouldn't this info be in the list summary of the editions? A change in price over time would be an interesting addition to the chart. And isn't the fact that it is costly a part of the criticism, or at the very least part of the comparison to competitors? VanTucky ^Talk 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Britannica, the consumer print set is $795. I'm assuming that's in USD. VanTucky ^Talk 22:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Make Encyclopædia Britannica Online into a redirect to this article?

Recently User:Richard001 added a merge banner to this article, suggesting that the content from Encyclopædia Britannica Online should be merged here. I don't see anything of value to be kept in the other article, and the online version of EB is already described in this one. Richard001 did not post anything to this Talk page in support of his merge so I don't know if he had a specific plan in mind. My own proposal is to just make Encyclopædia Britannica Online into a redirect to Encyclopædia Britannica without changing the present article.

In the FA debate for EB, last March, Stbalbach argued The Online Britannica is more than just a digital version of the paper edition, it contains a lot of unique material. If Stbalbach decides to write a real article on EBO at a later time, he (or anyone) could just undo the redirect and restore the free-standing article.

Let me know your thoughts on this idea for resolving Richard001's merge proposal. If no-one objects, I'll go ahead with that, since it is easily reversed, and doesn't need the EB article to be changed (except to remove the merge banner). EdJohnston 12:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't so much my suggestion; I was simply adding the merge template to this article to be consistent with the merge template on the online article. I would support the existence of a separate article if it is notable, which I'm sure it is. If it contains no unique information though it is perhaps better to merge and wait for someone who is prepared to flesh it out. Richard001 (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot of EB Online

I've uploaded an image of EB Online (Image:Encycolopedia Britannica Online.PNG [sic]), which is much needed on this page. However, I'm not sure whether I should crop out the browser as I have, and I'm sure I shouldn't have shown the whole page. It's nice to be able to see it all, but it isn't really suitable for display. Should I crop it down to just what you can see on the screen normally, or to some specific point? Should I include the whitespace to the right? If someone else wants to do this instead, please go ahead. Richard001 (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've uploaded Image:Encyclopedia Britannica Online.PNG, which should be better. Is this one okay? I'm not sure what it normally says at the top, as I can't override that message. If nothing normally appears there we can crop it out too. I'll include it in the article now, lest it be deleted for not being used anywhere. Richard001 (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I anticipate there could possibly be some complaint at the use of a non-free image, but the article seems incomplete without any visual reference to the online form, and Encyclopedia Britannica Online does redirect here. Even if it had its own article though (which I'd like to see, if we can get some sources), I still think such an image would be appropriate here. (I don't know that anyone will object at all, but they might...) Richard001 (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the purposes of this article is to discuss EB Online, so a fair use justification ought to apply. The picture you just made seems adequately cropped. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the resolution? I'm not sure what's normally done with web images. I tried resizing it but it looked a bit distorted, so I left it as it is. Will this be alright? Richard001 (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The fair-use template mentions 0.1 megapixels. I think you've met that requirement, since the image looks to be no more than 200x400 pixels. Thus you should be able to mark it as low-resolution in the {{Non-free use rationale}} template, if I'm understanding it correctly. The screenshot is not very readable; the reader will mostly pick up the color scheme and the amount of information presented, which might be what you want. EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Britannica Online

I'd be prepared to help write this article, but I can't seem to locate many sources. Does anyone know of any? Richard001 (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here's one: The Building of Britannica Online. Richard001 (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

EB WebShare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange#EB --Historiograf (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

EB goes Wiki - no mention of it on Wikipedia

"Encyclopaedia Britannica To Follow Modified Wikipedia Model" (Wired): "There is no word of the Britannica news in its extensive Wikipedia entry."

71.191.136.185 (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironic! I've added a paragraph on this. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish to put in this text (can somebody do it for me in the proper way?)

"Recent development in the online version of Britannica" -Introduction of modified Wikipedia Model-

Britannica is opening up its site to the public, but keeping the main body of its content in the private domain, as the official version of the publication is concerned. They do so by editing all changes to its core base of information before they are posted online. The new version of their website will include content created by the site's existing community of experts and content created by 'common' users. Finally the content of both sources will be incorporated by Encyclopedia Britannica itself. By doing so this 'user genarated content', once it has achieved a "Checked by Britannica" designation, will be made content that belongs to the 'private domain' once again.

based on this source: http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/06/ency.html

By the way I love the comments on how the director of corporate communications talks about the wrong number 19 instead of 100 Brittanica workers. To me this shows exactly wikipedia's value. How much time did it take to correct that number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn du Pre (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A paragraph on this topic has already been added to the section on "Optical disc and online and mobile versions". Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken opinion in Britannica?

'Britannica-appointed contributors are occasionally mistaken or unscientific. [...] In the 11th edition (1911), an article on poltergeists, a then-popular topic of superstition, suggests: "there remains the chance that some agency of an unexplored nature is, at least in certain cases, actually at work."[38]'

In the absence of a reference to a scientific consensus that 'agencies of an unexplored nature' are positively ruled out as explanations for any so-called 'poltergeist' phenomena, I am removing the second of these quoted sentences. One is not asserting that poltergeists exist merely by stating that unknown agencies may be at work in some cases, which does no more than to state that not all 'poltergeist' phenomena have been satisfactorily reduced to known and generally recognised natural phenomena. Moreover, I am not sure whether the current trend of debate and investigation of paranormal activity warrants the confident (and perhaps emotionally coloured) assertion of 'superstition'.

I can probably come up with some better examples of failing scientific standards in Britannica from the fields of sexology and linguistics, and hope to do so when I have Britannica at hand. Ni'jluuseger (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

We need to either rename or otherwise deal with this. We need to integrate criticism throughout the article and/or mix positive and negative reactions to Brittanica in this section. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

How many full-time editors?

"Wikipedia doesn't have its facts straight in this instance, according to Panelas. "That's wrong," he told Wired.com. "The (correct) figure (for full time editors) is about 100." from "Encyclopaedia Britannica To Follow Modified Wikipedia Model". Can we check our sources on this? He may be inflating the number for promotional reasons, so I don't think his claim should be accepted as factual without independent verification. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Or he may be using a different definition of what counts as a "full time editor". Hard to tell. And "about 100" sounds too round. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I took my count from the final page of the Propædia of the most recently published version of the Britannica, the 2007 printing. I believe that's the only publication with a current count of editors. The heading of that page is "Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica", and its first section — conveniently labeled "Editorial" — lists the editors by name and position title, e.g., "Senior Editor". However, Panelas might have been using "editor" in a broader sense, such as "copy editor", or he may have been referring to the editors involved in the parallel electronic version? For my part, I'm willing to take him at face value. It always did seem implausible to me that such a large encyclopedia could be produced with so few people; even with 100 people, it seems like it would be difficult to keep abreast of the latest developments and to fact-check everything.

Sorry that I'm not able to help out with the Britannica right now! I'm wading through central simple algebras and the Brauer group to help Scartol bring his Emmy Noether biography to FA. :P I'll come back in a few weeks, though, and see if I can help out then. :) Willow (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That could be the editorial board, while he might be talking about all the employees who do editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, do you mean the Editorial Board of Advisors? They're listed earlier in the Propædia, along with other consultants. The staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica (check the history) have titles such as "Senior Editor", "Associate Editor" and the like; they seem to be doing the practical work of putting the encyclopedia together. If we count everyone on that page as an "editor", we get 74 people, which might make for "about 100 full-time editors" if we add in our imaginations some enthusiastic interns and some hard-working but uncredited assistant editors, or people working on the electronic version. Perhaps Mr. Panelas will drop by and give us the inside scoop? One can always hope for the gracious and generous gesture. :) Willow (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a list of their editorial staff members. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

EB to have online editing by anyone!

EB Wikinews story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Squares (talk • contribs) 14:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. All edits are only "suggested edits". They can post your change up as is, they can outright deny it, or they can use the information and write their own original update. So really, it's not overly that different to their original "email us when we have a problematic article" method, except for a much greater commitment to turnaround time. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

Would it be of any interest to the article to mention that the online version of EB now uses images from the Commons? See this and Image:Cambridge Bay.jpg. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a public domain image, so "from the Commons" doesn't make much sense. Surely EB has always used public domain images where available. It hardly matters where those images were first published. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I hadn't noticed that they were using PD images until I saw one I recognised. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do find that unusual. They essentially are trusting that user:CambridgeBayWeather is an honest, trustworthy user, and that they did actually create that image. For all EB knows, "CBM" just took that image from a random website, and for all they know, the picture is actually copyrighten. If it were a US government PD image, or an image that's fallen into the PD by age, I wouldn't find it unusual at all.

This image's viability in EB is solely based on the assumption that this Wikimedia contributor is good unless proven otherwise, completely contrary to the Wikipedia is completely unhealthy to knowledge attitude their editor has. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexa, Wikipedia, and balance

Alexa is not close to being a reliable source of web traffic. They make that clear in their own disclaimers. A self-installed web toolbar is not a means of proper sampling. Also, the the toolbar does not count visits to secure web sites (uses of "https"). Presumably, Britanica's nonfree content uses a secure connection, while Wikipedia access is almost entirely unsecure. I think its sufficient to say Britanica has been substantially hurt by a plethora of free alternatives, including Wikipedia. Putting a particular number on that is not possible, and not necessary --Rob (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I had posted here quite a while ago, concerned about where this information was even relevant. After all, we're not trying to advertise Wikipedia, therefore, simply saying "If you don't like Brittanica, an alternative is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that any oxymoron can edit". I only bash on it because of how the editor phrased it, as if Britannica was NO match for Wikipedia, and suggesting that this alternative was better. This was not the only problem with this article, but I believe it's the overall accuracy.

Someone deleted it, obviously enraged with what I was posting - perhaps they were mad at the fact that I had simply said what was true? I mean, of course, I'm sure in Britannica they do say that the KKK had restored peace and whatever else in the Southern-USA, but no way would they be selling copies if it was their opinion alone. They go by fact alone, and what the word around those days was, which was in fact that the KKK were heroes. So saying that Britannica is racially discriminating is ridiculous. Wikipedia is no better, in fact, it's more inaccurate because anyone can post anything without any substantial evidence to have it backed up.

From now on, ladies and gentlemen, please just check the overall reliability of your sources, and discuss it here before actually deciding to add to the article. Remember, we're not about opinions of the contributors; we're about solid facts. Don't bash another Encyclopedia and try to compare it to Wikipedia - after all, I'm sure EVERYONE knows it exists by now. DiscardedDream (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As a fan of ancient Greek, I was thrilled to see your witty use of "oxymoron", a pointedly stupid person. Nice! :)

I agree that we're not here to advertise Wikipedia and we absolutely have to stick to the sources. However, some scholars—as described and cited in the text—have criticized the Britannica. I know that might be shocking, but I hope you agree that the Britannica is not perfect and never has been been, as its own editors have said. They grapple with many of the same problems that we and all encyclopedists do: trying to stay current, trying to simplify complex topics into simple formulations, trying to organize their writing into a coherent and flowing story, relying on sometimes biased and sometimes unreliable contributors, making editorial mistakes, etc. They also have the difficulty of staying afloat financially in these troubled times. I'm sympathetic to their difficulties and I foresee that Wikipedia might someday experience similar difficulties.

Nevertheless, we have an obligation to document the criticisms that the Britannica has weathered. Published scholars have noted that it has been racist, unscientific, out of date by decades, etc. and the article records that. When a published scholar does the same to Wikipedia in print, we'll have the same responsibility to document their criticisms and the evidence for it.

The Alexa thing is relatively unimportant, and there I'm sure that we can work out some compromise wording. Whatever the exact numbers, probably no one denies that the Britannica web traffic is tens of times smaller than Wikipedia's. To me, that fact seems notable, although the interpretation of that fact may be ambiguous. Willow (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Willow, but I've decided to be bold and remove the Alexa-sourced traffic comparison. The reported ratio might be accurate, but there is no way that Alexa is a reliable indicator, because Alexa toolbar users are a self-selected audience, which probably excludes many people using school and institutional terminals (source of 85% of Britannica's online subscription revenue) because of locked-down configurations etc. It is out of date anyway ( as predicted) and carries just the faintest whiff of original research. As you said it is relatively unimportant, I hope this is OK with you. - Pointillist (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Alexa can be useful for getting an idea of how popular a site is, but if we went by that for notability that would mean that most porn sites would be notable. You also have to consider quality traffic versus quantity which is something that can't be measured. A site might have low visits compared to another site, but that does not mean the traffic is less of value. I would think that professionals in the academic community would visit Britannica before visiting a number of other options that are available even if those alternatives are more "popular" based on traffic. Artblogs (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Running the numbers

Encyclopedia Britannica is said to have about 65,000 articles. It is also said to have about 100 full-time editors and 4,000 expert contributors. Contributors are said typically to contribute only one article, or maybe a small handful. This does not compute. Wikipedia needs to change its numbers, or to say more about where all those articles come from. Lou Sander (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism Misinterpreted?

I undid this edit but I wonder if the IP editor might be correct, since this criticism doesn't seem to have been published in any mainstream source that I can discover. Possible self-published material? Tim Vickers (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the material for now, since I'm very doubtful as to if it should remain. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tim Vickers, Dhawan's article about misinterpretation of Hinduism in Encyclopeadia Britannica[5] is very authentic and excellently satisfies academic standards. You can verify the claims from Britannica Home and Student Edition 2009. As a result of this article, Britannica has promised to revise its article on Hinduism [6]. For further details, you can contact Brian Duignan, Senior Editor of Philosophy and Religion, Encyclopaedia Britannica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by All knowledge is free for all (talk • contribs) 13:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Where was Dhawan's critique published? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I had read about Dhawan's critique from a major Hindu website [7]. His article is available for free on the internet; I have read it thoroughly and confirmed his claims with EB's online article on Hinduism [8]. I am not aware of any journal publication but can't a self-published material be of excellent quality? Wikipedia is also an example of this. When EB has agreed to change its article after reading and praising Dhawan's critique then who can question the quality of his work. Do you think reputed media [9], [10], etc. would talk about it without substance. Don't they have the fear to be sued by EB? All knowledge is free for all 20:20 (GMT), June 1, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by All knowledge is free for all (talk • contribs)

It says in one of those sources that this was a letter that was sent to EB, which they replied to with a letter to the author. That doesn't strike me as a particularly good source. The letter has been picked up by a few websites, including a mention in Hinduism Today Magazine, but I'm still not convinced that the letter is a reliable source. I'll ask about this on the RS noticeboard. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

See noticeboard question. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Call EB +1800323-1229 or write to Brian Duignan, Senior Editor, Philosophy and Religion Encyclopædia Britannica (BDuignan@eb.com) to confirm it. I have done it. All knowledge is free for all (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The source does not appear to be acceptable, since it is a self-published letter written by a person who is not known as an expert in the field. I have removed it from this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as presented by people like Tim Vickers, is biased. Why is it so that news from Hinduism Today Magazine is not reliable, not even when it is about Hinduism? What authority does Tim Vickers, a biochemist, possess to judge religious critiques and magazines? If anybody takes the little pain of reading Dhawan's critique [11], confirms its claims with EB's online article on Hinduism [12], and consults it with scholars like Prof. Arvind Sharma, there remains no doubt. And the nature of his critique does not require a PhD in Hinduism; the argument presented there speaks for itself, and to such an extent that EB has decided to change its article on Hinduism. If a topic is not covered by The BBC or The Washington Post, it does not mean that it is not true. If HPI [13] requests for news, it does not mean that they do not do their research on the received news before publishing it -- even The BBC, The Washington Post, etc. accept letters to the editor, where people can send news and other matters.

My contribution in Wiki's article on Britannica ends here questioning the depth of research shown by Wikipedia. A story for you:

A doctor and a mathematician meet. The doctor says: 2+2 = 4, but the mathematician contradicts saying: 2+2 = 1. We say the mathematician is correct! Where is our common sense? One doesn't need to be a mathematician to claim: 2+2 = 4!All knowledge is free for all (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read our verifiability policy. I'm making no comment on if this argument is true or not, since I'm not an expert on the topic. All I'm saying is that it has not been published in a reliable source. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Forget specifically mentioning any critique. Why does "our" Wikipedia think that HPI [14], which is 30 years old with its magazine distribution in more than 60 countries, is not a reliable source? I don't see any point in HPI lying on a serious matter like EB's article on Hinduism. The website of Hinduism Today was not launched yesterday -- HPI archives take you back to December, 2000.All knowledge is free for all (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping verifiability policy and the above mentioned discussion in mind, I have edited the article.All knowledge is free for all (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The article includes the following "Online alternatives to the Britannica include Wikipedia, a freely available Web-based free-content encyclopedia." I love that fact the author felt the need to tell us what Wikipedia was! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.145.140 (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Any use for this link?

It's old, but an interesting read.----occono (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

16th edition?

Is there any information whether a 16th edition is in the works? The present one dates back to 1974 and it would seem that it's life-span is nearing it's end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.252.5.66 (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What are the original sale prices?

What was the original price for any of the 19th or 20th century editions? Ideally, I'd like to know as many as possible, but at least once per 20 years (ideally).

Hoping to see what "Britannica Price / median income" over time looks like. CreedShandor (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

racism accusation

The criticism article features a section about criticisms of the eleventh edition being racist stating that "[the eleventh edition was]citing the need to "control the negro", to "prevent any intermingling of the races" and "the frequent occurrence of the crime of rape by negro men upon white women."" This implies, or outright states, that the encyclopedia was citing a need to prevent said "intermingling of the races." However, when one reads the eleventh editions article on the Ku Klux Klan, the context of that phrase was a paragraph stating "The constitutions and rituals of these secret orders [the KKK and the like] have declarations of principles, of which the following are characteristic:...to prevent any intermingling of the races." I fail to see how this somehow means the encyclopedia was citing that this needed to be done; it was merely explaining the beliefs of the KKK, right or wrong. That paragraph also lists among these declarations and principles: emancipate the whites, and law of God. I do not see any accusations of EB saying the whites had to emancipated.

To take this to the extreme, it would be like accusing an article that explained what the principle tenants of the NAZIs were of being NAZI propaganda itself. Nitpicky perhaps, but I feel it is a valid contention. Fhqwgads (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not at all nitpicky but actually a serious problem, if you're right. If your reading of the primary source is correct, please make the necessary corrections to the article. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The sexism claim as to not mentioning the female editorial staff has to be treated cautiously as well: No member of the editorial staff is mentioned in any of the 29 volumes (yes I checked). From the sleve notes of reference 27 (Gillian Thomas, 1992, A Position to Command Respect: Women and the Eleventh Britannica.) we learn:

That 34 of the 1,500 contributors were women was widely perceived as signaling a significant breakthrough into the world of learning.

Hardly the sexist bias claimed in the lemma and sourced with this book. It looks more like the beginning of the liberation at the end of the Victorian and Edwardian Era. DrJunge (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Quote Incorrect?

"Robert McHenry stated that Wikipedia cannot hope to rival the Britannica in accuracy.[111]"

I don't think he actually states this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.64.150 (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"Competition section" leading to unbalance?

I've noticed that this article has a section on the EB's competition, both print and digital. I worry that this is an example of skewing towards points of view. The Digital competition section, for example, discusses Wikipedia vs. EB. However, there is no such 'competition' section on the Wikipedia page, or on the pages of any of the other articles that this section links to.

Is this a bias? Shouldn't all of the various articles on the various encyclopedias have such a section? The section here comes off as just another subset of the 'criticism' section. Can they be merged? Sevey13 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This article claims to be of higher quality (FA) that the others you mention, so perhaps the other articles should follow this as a standard. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The A and the E

Yeah I don't know if anybody noticed this but there something screwy going on with the "A," and the "E," in this title...even if this is done on purpose it should probably be removed as on Wikipedia we spell words in the correct english way. I'm just saying I'm against the way its being spelled out here.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.18.254 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It is called a ligature and it is done on purpose. It is archaic, not necessarily incorrect, and it is the way Britannica continues to spell the word in the title of the publication in 2011. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Although the Encyclopaedia spelling has common usage, the æ typoface doesn't. In fact, most common usage is just Britannica. Marcus Qwertyus 20:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts? Marcus Qwertyus 19:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the above IP was yanking your chains. Of course "Encyclopædia" is the original and standard spelling although in most of the world "encyclopaedia" is more common nowadays and in the USA simply encyclopedia. It's a shame that Wikipedia chose to use the American spelling.--ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 21:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Retraction

That goes down in history as the most dumbest complaint I have ever written. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that down. Yes I agree completely with you the way it's written down is fine please don't change it. I withdraw my earlier objection completely.I'm not going to remove the comment just on the wild chance that someone does agree with me but really I seriously doubt it. How could I have been so stupid. I apologize. -James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.18.254 (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

FAR

An editor has suggested that this article be nominated for a featured article review. I am copying his statement below to allow editors a chance to address his concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails criteria 2c (inadequate in-line referencing). Snowman (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As explained in the FAR talk page header, a special sup-page for this discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Encyclopædia Britannica/archive1, where relevant comments should be written. Snowman (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The nomination is on hold pending discussion here. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that you could have been more helpful and more commutative. There has been a maintenance template on the article for over a year and I think that FAR should preceded without delay. Editors have had about a year to do the relevant maintenance to the poorly referenced section. I have provided User:Raul654 (the director for FAR) with a short report on his talk page. Snowman (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read and follow FAR instructions. [15] (Not sure why I was notified, since I did a bit of cleanup many years ago, but notifying article talk pre-FAR is a consensus part of the FAR instructions, so we don't just ignore it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User Sandy Georgia is one of the top dozen contributors to this articles by edit count, so I included her in the list for notification on their talk pages. The FAR project recommendation is to notify key contributors on their talk pages. Snowman (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I had not listed an article for FAR for over a year and I was not aware that the policy had changed. I think that a better explanation from User Nikkimaria could have avoided confusing me. I had notified lots of people on their talk pages and I wondered what talk page nomination I could possibly have missed. I wondered if I had inadvertently excluded someone from the list and I even re-checked to see if the person who nominated the article for FAC was included. Nevertheless, I think that an maintenance banner indicating that a section is out-of-date being on a FA article for a long time is adequate notification that can be seen by anyone watching the page, and any interested editors could have made improvements if they were minded to. I think that the current FAR guidelines/rules insisting on talk page discussion prior to FAR are being applied too dogmatically here. Snowman (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Out-of-date maintenance template was recently removed with this edit having been on the page for more than one year. Snowman (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The FAR is currently active at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Encyclopædia Britannica/archive1. Snowman (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge EB staff stub here

I didn't see a merge discussion started yet for merging Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica to this article. Just wanted to say that I would support such a merge. Gobonobo ^{T C} 23:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

website or Web site

An editor recently changed every instance of "website" to either "site" or "Web site". To me, "website" is greatly preferable to "Web site"; and my preference aside, I'm sure that "website" is generally accepted and that an editor shouldn't make a change from a generally accepted form to one that is or looks dated -- cf a change from "show" (the verb) to "shew".

Additionally, "Britannica Web site", which the article now mentions, carries the slight risk of misreading, as a/the site of the mysterious entity "Britannica Web".

(I also brought the matter up here on the MOS talk page.) Morenoodles (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear from the answer you received that you should change it back. You might want to look at the user's history and see if he did the same to other pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

In the news update mentioned in media

CARYN ROUSSEAU of Associated Press notes which is published in Star Tribune, "It was announced that after 244 years, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is going out of print, instead focusing on its online encyclopedia," the entry read." [16] --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

Do we really need all of those different criticial subheadings (bias etc.)? Particularily when most of those comments are about the 1911 set, I do not think we really need any references to issues with the 1911 since after all we already have a seperate article dedicated to that set. The criticism section ought to be primarily for the more modern sets with less of an overemphasis on just one old set in my opinion. Threadnecromancer (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

I completely agree, having criticism of an edition of the encyclopedia that is literally over 100 years old is pure undue weight. I have moved some content to Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. --SF007 (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

• Ionescu, Daniel. "Has Wikipedia Beaten Britannica in the Encyclopedia Battle?." PC World. March 14, 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, no offense, WhisperToMe, but I find that page curiously imperceptive and uninteresting. By contrast, I recommend:

• Carmody, Tim. "Wikipedia Didn’t Kill Britannica. Windows Did." Wired, 14 March 2012.

-- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Current event" tag

I have removed the current event tag, has I don't think this is really necessary. The template states "This article documents a current discontinuation of print editions. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.", but it is higly unlikely information will "change rapidly": they announced they discontinued, and that's it. As stated in the template page, this is to be used "in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news.", but that isn't really the case. It also states "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic". It simply is not necessary. --SF007 (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Kenneth Kister

I noticed Kenneth Kister's comparison features heavily. However, Kister doesn't generate much coverage; much information regarding him originates from a few sources, of which his Wikipedia article is most prominent. His 1994 encyclopedia doesn't appear to be particularly prominent either. I've included what I found inside Wiki markup hidden tags. Thoughts? Bunston (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes. We read: A well-known comparison is that of Kenneth Kister, who gave a qualitative and quantitative comparison of the Britannica with two comparable encyclopaedias, Collier's Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Americana. (Current mark-up stripped, and bold added by me.) No source is given for the claim that this is well known. But what do you mean by "his 1994 encyclopedia"? (Do you perhaps mean his 1994 book about encyclopedias?) ¶ This article is a bit off, isn't it? Sample: the whole of Buddhism and most other religions is covered in a single Macropædia article. Wow, amazing! What's the title? "Individual world religions (apart from Christianity)", perhaps? Source for that: the 2007 edition of the Macropædia edition of Britannica. (Er, what?) I'd guess: With the exception of Christianity (17 articles totaling X pages[itemizing footnote]), the coverage by Macropædia of most world religions[itemizing footnote] is limited to a single article (e.g. "Buddhism", Y pages). But unfortunately I don't have immediate access to the 2007 EB and so cannot check. -- Hoary (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling: -pædia vs. -paedia vs. -pedia.

I just corrected some inconsistent spelling - some places used "-pædia", some used "-paedia" and a few used "-pedia". I used the following rule to make the corrections: "-pædia" is the UK English spelling, and is used as the default. "-pedia" is the US English spelling, and is used for titles of US books, etc. that should be spelled with US English even though the rest of the article is in UK English. "-paedia" is used in URLs and Wikilinks that were written in US-ASCII. (These are not visible in the article, but they are a reason to go through everything manually instead of using a dumb search-and-replace).

I am open to making them all "-paedia" or even "-pedia" if that is the consensus, but they need to be consistent. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The British spelling is -paedia. The ligature is archaic and only survives in the Britannica's proper name. Now fix that mess you created back to the correct way as it stood for years. Mewulwe (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article had been using a generally consistent rule for formatting, although some exceptions may have crept in. The article uses British English spelling, as does the Britannica itself. The correct British English is "-paedia"; the Wikipedia MoS discourages use of the archaic ligature for words derived from Greek and Latin. Specific publications use the spelling found in their titles (e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica), though there has been some lobbying to eliminate the ligature even in those cases. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with F&H and Mewulwe - the article's previous use of "paedia" should be restored. Ligatures break simple text searches and are confusing more than helpful. SnowFire (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Though the ae ligature is unusual, the registered legal name of the company uses "Encyclopædia Britannica" and they refer to the product in the same way apart from when spelling in the non-ligature form for websites and mobile applications. This article should probably stick to the form most used by the company in their literature. --Fæ (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We know that; no one wants to remove the ligature from the product name. Guy Macon, however, introduced the ligature into the generic term "encyclopaedia." Mewulwe (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that as a reason for referring to the publication itself (and it's corporate publisher) using "Encyclopædia Britannica"; I don't see their non-standard usage in their own title as a reason to change other occurrences of the word in the article. Britannica itself titles its article on the subject "Encyclopaedia" in both the current on-line version and an older print copy. Their on-line article titled "The Encyclopedia Americana" refers to the subject as a "general encyclopaedia" in the opening sentence. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Mythbusting time. When an English word has two spellings and one or the other is said to be more British/American than the other, I've learned to be wary of flat statements such as The correct British English is "-paedia" (above). And sure enough this turns out to be a simplification at best. Let's start with the present. For its own use (and without dictating to others), the prominent London newspaper the Guardian says encyclopedia not encyclopaedia. But might this perhaps be just some newfangled aping of the US, or pandering to the lucrative US market? The existence of incompatible library catalog(ue) entries demonstrates that cataloguers have been (healthily?) uninterested in such minor distinctions (additionally, earlier librarians may have been forced to one or other ASCII representation for the non-ASCII æ); but if we're not lucky enough to have access to the actual physical objects we can see from scans and photographs that various encyclop*dias published in Britain have long been titled "encyclopedia": Green's Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine and Surgery (multivolume, about a century old), Harmsworth's Universal Encyclopedia (about 90 years old), etc etc. And therefore, putting aside the desirability of its use within this article, the spelling encyclopedia should be perfectly acceptable in a British context. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Wikipedia's article "Harmsworth's Universal Encyclopaedia" is as wretched as one might guess from the misspelling in its title. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course "Encyclopædia" should be retained for EB and "Encyclopaedia" for any other specific encyclopedia so titled (not that I suppose anyone here would disagree). As for the word starting with a lowercase e, I suggest encyclopedia: the spelling is standard in the US (very possibly with exceptions), and as I've demonstrated above jointly standard (and I suspect increasingly common) in Britain. After all, an "Encyclopædia/encyclopedia" distinction is likely to be easier to understand than an "Encyclopædia/encyclopaedia" distinction. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of those æ's have got to go. They can stay in proper titles, but not when used elsewhere. This isn't Ye Olde Wikipædia. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said at the top, I am open to whatever the consensus is, but they need to be consistent. I see that someone else made "ae" the standard except in proper names, which is fine. I just double checked them all, and there are now consistent, with the exception of two possible issues:

First, we have a link to "[[Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences|Chambers's ''Cyclopædia'']]", which redirects to "[[Cyclopaedia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences]]", a page that has an image that clearly shows "CYCLOPÆDIA".

Second, we have "[[Dobson's Encyclopaedia]]" (and "title = Dobson's Encyclopaedia:") which redirects to "[[Dobson's Encyclopædia]]". No image on Wikipedia, but http://www.cyclopaedia.org/frontispieces/1798frontis.html clearly shows "CYCLOPÆDIA".

Any suggestions as to how to handle these cases consistently? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If the title of a given book indisputably (and consistently) has/had a ligature, I suppose that it should be used (as we do for the EB, of course). ¶ But there are caveats. We should consider multiple editions. Our ancestors very sensibly had a less a less fetishistic concern for orthography than we do, and it's easy to imagine The Nonesuch Encyclopædia (1st and 2nd eds) silently becoming The Nonesuch Encyclopaedia or even The Nonesuch Encyclopedia (3rd to 6th eds). If the title changed, I suppose we should use the most recent title -- unless the editions with the earlier name were far more significant than those with the later name. So although this is a bore, I fear that one should check different editions before rushing to retitle an article. ¶ When I searched yesterday in library OPACs for British XYZ Encyclopedia (so spelled), I quickly found them; I quickly then found the exact same XYZ Encyclopaedia (so spelled) -- same edition, year, and place of publication. For some of these, I suspect that the cataloguer was either deciding for herself or following her institution's policy for transcribing the untypable and/or undesirable "æ"; but whatever the reason might have been, OPACs (and thus Worldcat etc) are not reliable for this kind of thing -- unless perhaps you're somebody like DGG who'd know which OPACs to use and what to bear in mind while using them. ¶ Another worry: How far should one take this? If "æ" ligatures, then why not long "s"es: Love and Religion Demonſtrated in the Martyrdom of Theodora, and of Didymus (here). I wouldn't be happy with that; and whatever next: Love and Religion Demonſtrated in the 𝔐𝔞𝔯𝔱𝔶𝔯𝔡𝔬𝔪 of Theodora, and of Didymus. perhaps? Please no! ¶ Perhaps it would be good to find out the facts about what's on the title pages and then let the denizens of the MOS talk page discuss it; they seem to have unlimited reserves of energy for this kind of thing. -- Hoary (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Does anyone have any objection to copying this thread from "two possible issues" downward to WT:MOS and closing this discussion? It looks like we have a clear consensus and that the page matches it. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The consensus, as I understand it, is: (i) Encyclopædia Britannica; (ii) Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.; (iii) Encyclop*dia Whatever (to fit the particular encyclopedia, e.g. Encyclopedia Americana); (iv) avoid ligatures elsewhere. There's still a bit of disagreement over the generic term. For a number of minor reasons I tend to prefer "encyclopedia", but if others prefer "encyclopaedia" then this would be fine with me. The question for MOS would then I suppose be "Should we take the trouble to retain ligatures in English or Anglo-Latin titles; and if not, what's the best substitute for them?" But maybe I've overlooked something. -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A concern about the recent flurry of edits

By my count there have been exactly 100 edits made to this page in the last two days. This is not unusual, considering that it has been recently in the news, but it does raise some questions.

Here is a diff showing the net result of the last 99 changes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica&diff=481942903&oldid=481625692

Most of the changes are improvements, but some of changes raise a concern First we have this removal:

"The Britannica has had difficulty remaining profitable. Some articles in earlier editions have been criticised for inaccuracy, bias, or unqualified contributors. The accuracy in parts of the present edition has likewise been questioned, although criticisms have been challenged by Britannica's management."

Then, further down, the criticism section has been pretty well gutted. The entire Racism and sexism section was deleted. Same with the Bias section. The Inaccuracy and Criticisms sections were cut down and folded into the Accuracy and Contributors section.

Overall, in the last two days this article has become far less critical of the Encyclopædia Britannica. So I have to ask, was there a consensus that the previous stable version was too critical? Or are we introducing a bias -- perhaps unconscious -- against criticism? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

An excellent question. The sections on charges of racism and sexism might have benefited from some pruning but I do not understand why they were cut. Can somebody give a reason why they should not be resuscitated? -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about the undue weight given to criticism have already been expressed here and here and I agree with both comments. I have made significant changes, so I can comment on them:

• I, user SF007, removed the "The Britannica has had difficulty remaining profitable." mainly because that was unsourced and it was giving undue weight to a particular aspect of the company in the introduction (and this article is not even about the company), simpy undue weight. The rest of the sentence was removed again due to undue weight, and simply not being from a neutral point of view: if focused simply on the negative criticism (a small part of the commentaries about Britannica), completely ignoring the awards and positive criticism; even worse than that, it was partially referring to criticism of "earlier editions", possibly the 11th edition which was mentioned in the "Criticism" section; again, this was clearly being given undue weight, since that version is **literally** over 100 years old and several editions have been printed later. --SF007 (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• The "Criticism" section was integrated in the rest of the article, like it should be ("Avoid sections and articles focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies""). It should be noted **nothing** was simply "deleted", some content was moved to Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, mainly because it was being given undue weight (old edition, 100 years old...) and because the article was too big (and still is), being over "100 KB", for which the guideline recommends the article "Almost certainly should be divided". So it made perfect sense to move the content. --SF007 (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• One other thing, "Inaccuracy" was renamed to "accuracy" because this section should discuss the **accuracy** of the encyclopedia (with examples of innacuracies, of course), and not the inaccuracy, which would be focusing on the negative aspect and in violation of WP:NPOV. --SF007 (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How about the racism and sexism section? Should that have been removed? (I didn't pay attention to who deleted what.) --Guy Macon (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, they should be moved to the appropriate article (again, nothing was simply removed), it refers to the eleventh edition, which, again, is 100 years old, it simply isn't NPOV to include it in this article. In addition to that, the supposed sentences about racism and "negro"s (words from the article) are not even supported by reliable sources discussing the issue, instead simply linking to the supposed articles of Britannica 11th edition. (a violation of WP:OR). Current criticism should undoubtedly be included here, but issues over 100 years old? Yes, certainly, IF they were considered extra-ordinary or "remarkable", which don't seem to be what the sources indicate. To be honest, it really seems that information was added in clear violation of the NPOV spirit. --SF007 (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

"Although publication has been based in the United States since 1901, the Britannica has maintained its traditional British spelling."

It hasn't really maintained British spellings; it has maintained enough British spellings to give it a somewhat British flavor. I see somebody has made a to-do list above which includes "Find official spelling policy at the Britannica." If that isn't done, we should make a list of examples; even if the source cited for the statement above actually puts it that way, the facts will show otherwise.

Maybe this has already been discussed in the archived talk pages; I didn't check. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have the 15th edition published 2007 and it appears to be entirely American spelling. LairdKeir (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)LairdKeir

Really? Try looking up "colour." Mewulwe (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Which years?

It is unclear which years editions were put out during the 1827-1901 era. i have a 1892 edtion (that is it says 1892 for the last 24 volumes but book one says edition 1891. can somewhat shed some light on the editions during this period and if any editions have multiple publishing dates within the same edition: that is does the first volume (or volumes) have an earlier dating than the following books in that edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOHN C MCNALLY (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 April 2012‎