On Wikipedia and traditional Britannica
I was searching for information about an animal that is common in South-East Asia, and for once, Google not only had the Wikipedia link, but also the Encyclopaedia Britannica link. I thought I’d amuse myself and click it, considering I used to read dead-tree encyclopaedia’s from the 60’s.
I can understand the need to monetise content, and to be fair, paying USD$69.95/year is cheap as chips (since you save $1,325.05 off the print version it seems!), but I think I learned more from the Wikipedia article, than I did the one at Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Do you feel the same way? Wikipedia is going through a fundraising drive, and I think it would be wise to make a donation.
With the technological evolution and information overload, i think the encyclopedias or hardcover ones are having a hard time to catchup.
There are always free alternatives to paid solutions, fortunately.
However, TIME also highlighted internal problems of Wikipedia http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917…