Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica/Archive 1

message: IMHO the competition section reads like a Wikipedia advertisement, and needs some serious rewriting. This is especially discordant with the banner which claims this article is of high quality. Anyone agree disagree? Would anyone object that this section needs a rewrite?
:Andy 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was right to cut it down as coverage of the issue should be kept in proportion to other sections of the article. There is plenty of coverage elsewhere in Wikipedia, maybe in the Wikipedia namespace. I think it would be impossible to find an organisation more open to criticism than Wikipedia. EB of course is not open to criticism at all. 62.31.55.223 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition Section Below Quality Standards 

message: This  was just aired today on All Things Considered and as a Wikipedian I found it intriguing.  Apparently the scientific articles on EB and Wikipedia were reviewed by independent experts for accuracy.  The EB articles averaged 3 errors per article while the Wiki articles averaged 4.  What's more, Wikipedia got some mixed, but generally favorable coverage.  Take a listen!  --Kasreyn
I think the Britannica Article is a bit bias (perhaps due to wording) - it says: 
They found Britannica to average almost three errors per article. By comparison, Wikipedia contained close to four errors per article. [5]
But Nature says:
"The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in ***accuracy was not particularly great***: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
The current wording makes Wikipedia seems more inaccurate than it really is??? 
Any comments?
--Mshe 12:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment to that is that the EB article is the less biased of the two since EB is merely stating numbers while Nature has expressed an opinion along with the numbers. 
--J-Star 13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: EB has nothing like the inaccuracies at Roswell incident, Green Fireballs, Philip J. Klass, Majestic 12, and a whole host of articles dominated by POV-pushers.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia "not markedly less accurate" than EB, sez National Public Radio

message: Are these publication dates correct? We have the 15th edition (32 volumes: Propædia + 12 * Micropædia + 17 * Macropædia + 2 index volumes), and it is dated 1988. -- Oliver P. 04:23, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication dates 

message: Hi, I am new to wikipedia. I found on page http://www.britannica.com/premium/ that britanica has over 120,000 articles.
I did noticed that on their DVD version on page 
http://store.britannica.com/escalate/store/DetailPage?pls=britannica&bc=britannica&clist=03258f0014009f&pc=B_2004URS&cc=encyclopedias
it is mentioned that it has over 100,000 artices and below it in section updated
it is mentioned that it has over 75,000 Articles
I believe 120,000 artices are available online so 120,000 should be mentioned. I am editing th page If I am doing any thing wrong plz mail me.
thanks.
Zain 21:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems sensible to mention the highest figure as you suggest. Pcb21| Pete 22:35, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Articles in Britanica 

message: I find the prices that are associated with the various editions of the Encyclopedia to be rather crass. Could these be removed, or a link inserted to some page where people could subscribe to the services if they were interested? --Reagle 16:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, while I certainly find the prices associated with Britannica to be unfortunate, I think their inclusion in this article is quite relevant.  — Matt 17:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The prices 

message: I altered this sentence:
:"One former Editor in Chief was Robert McHenry, thought to be among the corps of administrators responsible for the publication's decline in the 1990s."
McHenry criticised Wikipedia in an article, and this sentence seemed to be "revenge" of some sort. This kind of thing only hurts Wikipedia's credibility. — Matt 16:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Critic bashing

message: What does "bring to book" mean?  Besides being a pun?  RickK 07:16, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
: Yeah, i agreed its kind of a little bit of a pun, but i think one can get the meaning by reading only the first paragraph. One thing i have noticed is a couple of media sources  have used the same title, so it could have been picked else where.
::Gee, I must especially dense, or wouldn't have needed to have it explained to me.  So, I'm going to ask again, what does "bring to book" mean?  RickK 05:41, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
::: It means to correct, normally in an officious or valiant manner. No idea on the source of the phrase.
::: James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  12-year-old expert brings top encyclopaedia to book 

message: Should a link or reference be added to this article:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%E6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia
For some reason, you can't easily find this article from within wikipedia itself.  I tried searching for "Encyclopedia Britannica errors" and it doesn't come up.  And typing in just "Encyclopedia Britiannica" brings up the main article.  -- 21 Feb 2005
: Maybe. I had trouble finding it myself just now. — Matt Crypto 00:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the Wikipedia article has a "Errors in Wikipedia corrected by Britannica" link, for NPOV. Pcb21| Pete 08:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alrighty: Wikipedia:Errors_in_Wikipedia_that_have_been_corrected_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica . ;-) — Matt Crypto 12:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, knowing how some wikipedians choose to work, that will get populated soon enough :). Pcb21| Pete 09:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page Wikipedia:Errors_in_Wikipedia_that_have_been_corrected_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica, has been started so iMHO it is NPOV to have both this and Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia, even if formally speaking they are in Wikipedia: space rather than article space. Boud 11:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  NPOV has nothing to do with it. We don't have self-references because re-users of our content do not take Wikipedia: namespace content. If you really want to link to those pages, you must format the links as an external link. However in the context of an encyclopedia article about EB, they are not particularly relevant. Pcb21| Pete 11:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly the Wikipedia:Errors_in_Wikipedia_that_have_been_corrected_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica is not worth including in the article, because it's primarily a "parody/half-serious point page". You could argue that Wikipedia:Errors_in_Wikipedia_that_have_been_corrected_in_the_Encyclopædia_Britannica is a useful resource as a comparison between Wikipedia and Britannica, but I'm not convinced it's that great, personally. And, as Pcb21 points out, they'd need to be added as web links, not internal links. — Matt Crypto 12:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  i think you (matt crypto) got your second internal link the wrong way around :P. (Hopefully, Britannica editors will correct this if they publish a talk page on this topic. ;) But i disagree with the "parody/half-serious point page". There are intelligent people who, implicitly, claim that because of its expert editors, Britannica is more correct and reliable than wikipedia. i would say the page is something more like an "empirical proof" page. Anyway, the argument in favour of an external link, at least for "errors in Britannica..." makes sense IMHO. Boud 14:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to say that argument borders on nonsense. The emptiness of that page proves absolutely nothing about the number of mistakes in WP corrected in EB, for obvious reasons. People may want to keep it in the WP: for their amusement, but we mustn't link to it from the encyclopedia proper. Pcb21| Pete 15:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A link to "errors in Britannica fixed in WP" page?

message: They also made a spectrum of educational films. 68.39.174.150 01:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other thinks 

message: Doesn't this violate NPOV or assume good faith policy? I mean, it was just a couple of edits (possibly from random employee), does it really warrant a section in this article? At least, I would wait with this until wee see Britannica's article about Wikipedia... ;-) Samohyl Jan 15:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EB vandalism on Wikipedia 

message: I've moved the following here from the article:
:Possibly because Wikipedia and Britannica are competitors, it appears that over the years, the EB staff has performed some minor vandalism on various Wikipedia articles. It is not known at this time if it was under official EB policies, or if it is the doing of random employees. The history of edits can be seen here, which is the list of contributions for the IP 216.146.93.139 which resolves to corp.eb.com.
I don't think the above is approproate for this article, for a number of reasons. In my opinion it is POV, based upon speculation and makes us seem petty to boot. I will go into more detail if others disagree. Paul August ☎ 16:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Yeah, a little too much like gossip. Perhaps a project or even meta page would be appropriate, let others research the whole thing further. It would be amusing to have some accumulated evidence to trot out if EB decides to hassle us... Stan 23:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree, I don't think this is appropriate in this article. — Matt Crypto 08:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted it back. Sorry, but 4 (or more) people agreed it shouldn't be here, so it shouldn't. Also consider the following example: If a random employee from Microsoft would have vandalized Wikipedia, would he deserve a mention in Microsoft article? Samohyl Jan 07:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Microsoft was a direct competitor? And they did it thru Microsoft corporate addresses? And they did it multiple times? Yes. Elfguy 13:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of the entirity of EB and its history, i.e. the subject we are trying to cover here, the incident is so totally trivial there is no way it deserves a mention. If you can't see that, then you need to take a step back and re-evaluate the importance of a Wikipedia edit! Pcb21| Pete 18:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If Microsoft is direct competitor doesn't matter (but it is, see Encarta), since articles are written from NPOV. Why would a reader of this article be interested in such incident? It's absolutely uncyclopedic. And also, if some MS (or Mathworld) employee will become angry, he vandalizes three articles here and gets a free promotion in MS article? Anyway, 5 people (me included) were against this mention in the article, so you should at least abstain from reverting it back unless you come with some real convincing arguments why it should be here. Samohyl Jan 00:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Elfguy, given that you're aware of a number of people who disagree, please wait for a consensus in favour of your change before going ahead with it. — Matt Crypto 16:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And where else should it go? A company that deliberately defaces articles from its corporate address and doesn't care to apologize for it should get a mention in the company's article. There's tons of examples of company articles with criticism about them. NPOV also means showing both sides. Elfguy 16:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not that it's criticism (believe me, I'm as happy as the next WP-dian to see EB criticised), but that this criticism is non-notable and original research. i.e. it doesn't need to go anywhere at present. We might be able to include it if, say, a major news outlet took up the story. — Matt Crypto 16:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And a minimal criteria for that news outlet to take up the story, I imagine, would a shread of evidence that these couple of edits were sanctioned by EB in some official capacity. The more likely case is that some bored officer worker heard about Wikipedia and decided to give it a quick whirl to see if what people said about it was true. In other words, a true yawnfest of an incident. Pcb21| Pete 16:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that it's a Britannica (please, N EB! That's Electric Boat in my house, & they're good people!) employee. So? It's news. Wikipedia isn't a news site, it's an encyclopedia. Unless it was a massive campaign orchestrated from the corporate offices, it shouldn't get in--& shouldn't for a year or more anyway, til it stops being news & becomes history, which is a legit subject.  Trekphiler 04:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism on Wikipedia 

message: :However as of 2005, Britannica still commands the authority and respect ascribed to the "best encyclopedia."
This is a problematic sentence. For example, for me, and a few others I imagine, Wikipedia commands more authority and respect than Britannica. So what does "best encyclopedia" mean? Is it a quote? Does it mean "so-called best encyclopedia", or what? — Matt Crypto 12:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: People have repeatedly deleted my (attributed ; to the New York Times) comment that Britannica is the "most prestigous" encyclopedia. It has been replaced with a long piece about the so-called decline and fall of EB. It is embarassing that Wikipedians show their bias so brazenly in this of all articles! I agree that that sentence is inadequate - it is currently is it is because I cut the nonsense about "loyalties", but couldn't delete the whole sentence as the section would then seem to end mid-flow. Pcb21| Pete 13:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We do have "judged by many as the foremost authority in the field, its articles are commonly considered accurate, reliable, and well-written." in the lead section. I've made some edits to that section to try and make it more NPOV, but I've removed the sentence above. — Matt Crypto 13:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Best encyclopedia"

message: Is the symbol in the article inappropriate considering Wikipedia does not suggest using special symbols? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not suggest it, but in this case the æ is part of the correct spelling. --Speakslowly 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special symbol 

message: I object to this redirect.  This is impossible to search for.  -- Zoe
The use of the ligature is ludicrous, and the fact that there's an ad from EB that doesn't use it right next to the title just highlights the ludicrosity (!) of it.  (Well, that and the way it takes up a good chunk of the first line of the article.  Oy.)  I can only assume it was done by someone from the EB trying hide this article from the public!! ;) Flux.books  11:53 Oct 15 2005
----
Propose we move this to Encyclopaedia Britannica.  It should read ae, or just e, but the ligature is silly, and introduces all kinds of problems.  Internally, you can use a redirect, but the use of the ligature gurantees that many if not most users will get to the article via a redirect - and that's slow for the user, and demanding on the already-strained resources of wikipedia.  Online library catalogs deal with it by adding extra search terms, but that doesn't really make sense here and the system is not well adapted to it.  In short, it's pointlessly fussy, archaic, a waste of resources and most importantly user-unfriendly.flux.books 19:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any evidence that the ligatured name of this article makes any non-trivial difference to the Wikipedia servers' resources? And if you're concerned about redirects, why not update the linking pages so that they point here directly? I don't think you've yet presented a compelling case to move away from the correct rendering of the name. — Matt Crypto 17:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Don't lose track of the bigger issue, which is usability - people being able to search for the title, type the title, etc.  As far as redirects, having spent many hours revising the EB and encyclopedia articles, and been through many redirects, I am well convinced that it adds a substantial amount of time to the page loading process; and wikipedia frequently gives server errors, far more than any other site I've used (in fact, I've had several just trying to edit this message). As far as the "correctness" of it - I don't agree in the least that has been established as the correct form. flux.books 19:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that the ligature marks on the title caused your server performance issues. Wikipedia can sometimes be quite flaky regardless. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's not causing all the delays, but it is adding pointless delays; and that's not the point, which wasit's not in modern usage - no one is going to use or search on the ligature version, and it's a nuisance to type it in other articles.  That's the main point.  In addition, they'll always get redirected, which clearly adds a delay, too, a secondary issue.flux.books 15:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with a move to a title without the ligature.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To move it to a title without the ligature would be incorrect. The correct title is Encyclopædia Britannica, we shouldn't remove the ligature for the sake of making things easier, that would be accepting lazyness and false information. --Speakslowly 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page title / redirect

message: Any Sherlock Holmes fanatic will recall the appearance in the story "The Red-headed League" of the Encyclopædia Britannica.  The text of this story indicates that the action takes place in 1890.  The publication of the Britannica's 9th edition was completed in 1889.  The story itself was first published in August 1891.  Therefore, the story surely refers to the ninth edition.  Just in case anyone else wanted to know.   -- 67.174.231.120 18:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: "Furthermore, recent encyclopedias are far more widely available, and are designed to reflect wider use, in contrast to earlier scholarly versions." - I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? Can someone explain it to me? Would anyone mind if I remove it? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it; it seems like deadwood in the lead section. — Matt Crypto 17:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yoink! :) I rewrote that paragraph and shortened it a bit. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on a sentence in the lead 

message: The image currently at the top, the 1913 advertisement, in my view depicts Britannica in a rather POV way. It implies that the encyclopedia is an historical publication and not something used nowadays. However true this may be, it's still being developed today, and the advert doesn't really represent what it is. This image should move to the History section and it place be taken by something else, perhaps a photo of the volumes of a recent edition, or similar. --BigBlueFish 17:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is particularly POV, but it would be nice to have some images of a modern set of volumes. — Matt Crypto 17:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top image 

message: Kolokol: I wonder why you have such a problem with my improvements to this article; the Manual of Style says:
"3.3 Numbers in words
Numbers may be written as words or numerals, although note that many users prefer that numbers less than ten be spelt out. It is considered awkward for a numeral to be the first word of a sentence: either recast the sentence or spell the number out. A consistent approach is required within each article."
So regarding the sentence that begins "19th century editions of the Britannica regularly included notable new or major works from its authors", both the MOS and the Chicago Manual of Style agree that this is not correct. Please cite your sources as to why you believe the numbers are better. Also, I believe the following sentence: "The 11th edition was the first edition to be published substantially at one time, in instead of volume by volume", makes no sense if you leave the extra word "in" before instead in there. Thank you.--FeanorStar7 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "in" thing was an oversight, now corrected. As to the numbers, you even changed sentences like "Not only broader in scope, with 18 volumes plus a two volume supplement..." - the "18" there is neither "less than ten" nor the first word of a sentence. Kolokol 15:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting my edits

message: I have the 2002 DVD edition, but I also inherited a copy of the 1966 printed edition.  Some of the articles show a re-writing of history that makes it seem more agreeable to the modern view.
Sir Winston Churchill was not an anti-Fascist before Hitler came to power.  He rather approved of Mussolini, saying in the 1920s that the Italian Fascist movement had “rendered a service to the whole world”.  (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1966 edition)  In the Encyclopaedia Britannica DVD edition of 2002, the whole topic of Churchill and Mussolini is absent from the rewritten text.  
What he did at Tonypandy in 1910 broke a rule that had been established in 1688 and still holds today: that troops are never ever used in internal disputes on the British mainland.  The 1966 edition speaks of him “calling in the military to aid the police in the Welsh miners strike in Tonypandy”.  The current edition says that “he had to devote himself principally to coping with a sweeping wave of industrial unrest and violent strikes. Upon occasion his relish for dramatic action led him beyond the limits of his proper role as the guarantor of public order.”  Clarity has been replaced by vagueness; troops and Tonypandy are no longer mentioned as such.  
The Microsoft Encarta also dodges both topics, while citing an obituary from the Times which omits Churchill’s role as a strike-breaker.
Quintin Hogg (1907-2001) is not to be found in any edition of the Britannica.  That's a major Tory policitian who came close to being Prime Minister in the 1960s.  Who was also the pro-Appeasment candidate in an Oxford Bi-Election in 1938, which may be why they want him forgotten.
--GwydionM 18:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopædia Britannica rewrites the past 

message: These were published from the 1930s, describing one year from the perspective of the next year.  Consider the following:
“[Hitler] continued with great success his policy of national expansion, though this was directed, not to the re-acquisition of colonies, but to the absorption of expatriated Germans, those on Italian soil excepted, and by the expatriation, in so far as this was possible, of non-Aryan nationals...
“Herr Hitler delivered two further speeches of importance... memorable, from the British point of view, for its attack on Mr Eden, Mr Winston Churchill, and Mr Duff Cooper, and the second...  drew a comparison between the authoritarian states and the democracies, to the great disadvantage of the latter.
“Early in the year Herr Hitler had made some efforts to stem the wave of anti-Semitism that threatened the country, but its effect was slight, and was entirely obliterated after the murder of the German diplomatist, vom Rath, in Paris by a crazed young Polish Jew in November.”  (Entry for Hitler, Encyclopaedia Britannica Book Of The Year 1939.)
Churchill comes second to Eden, and Hitler is still viewed quite politely, in a way that would soon become unthinkable.  Likewise no one now would now insult Herschel Grynszpan, who was foolish but who had suffered much provocation.
“The invasion of Poland seems to have been made against the advice of Italy.  It marked the weakening, or perhaps even the breaking, of the Berlin-Rome Axis. The German-Soviet pact also proved a bitter disillusionment to Hitler. It destroyed further any faith in his sincerity, because it was a complete reversal of his whole previous policy; for years he had been denouncing the Russian Communists as the worst enemies of mankind... Hitler appears to have been duped by Stalin... The Russian dictator took advantage of Hitler's war with Poland, France and Germany to secure imperialist advantages for Russia.” (Entry for Germany, Encyclopaedia Britannica Book Of The Year 1940.)
It's now mostly taken for granted that Hitler was clever and Stalin was foolish.
--GwydionM 18:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica Yearbooks 

message: The history of Britannica's ownership during the 20th century seems to be the subject of conflicting accounts. Compare The People's Almanac with the Chicago Tribune. There would appear to be a New York period that's not discussed, the Sears acquisition dates conflict, and the narratives about chain of ownership are difficult to reconcile, whether with the content here or with each other. Can somebody sort this out? --Michael Snow 00:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting histories 

message: Is EB really the very oldest (and implied, first) encyclopedia in the English language? I had been pretty sure that the first was back in the 1600s, not the 1700s. Perhaps what was meant was oldest English encyclopedia still being published and updated? --Maru  (talk) Contribs 05:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it wasn't the first. (See the article on encyclopedia, that would shed some light on those dates for you.)  EB is more like the oldest one still being printed in some form; which would actually apply in any language, not just English.  But given the gaps in publication, changes of ownership, move to the U.S. - it's not as if you can say it's been in continuous existence.  I'm not all that happy with the first couple sentences, but have run out of time so perhaps someone can refine what's there.  flux.books 22:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest 

message: It seems a basic flaw in mentioning the price of online Britanica (or prices in general), as we're merely showing the highest price they charge.  I get free (or more precisely "no extra fee") online access to the full length articles through my library's web site (with a non-commercial restriction).  I assume the same goes for the typical library (I never checked).  I'm not sure how much they pay Britanica on my behalf (e.g. per user license fee), but I'm sure its a lot lot less then $69.95/year, as I pay the library only $10 a year, and I know that while the library is subsidized, its not subsidized to the extent its paying Britanica close to that much on a per-user basis.  Then, of course, a huge portion of Britiancia readers are in educational institutions, who presumable get print or online access for a substantial discount.   If we talk about price at all, we have to talk about all major pricing options, and give an idea what the typical user pays (directly or on their behalf with an institution paying a licensing fee for them).  Now, I don't know all the pricing information.  But I feel we must either show pricing in a truly NPOV fashion, or we should not mention pricing at all.    --Rob 00:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pricing for educational and non-commercial use 

message: This article is incredibly biased, no where is a scquelch of criticism allowed. 165.247.85.153 20:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no fan of Britannica, but your edit was not only devoid of NPOV, it also cut lots of useful information. Removing useful information is what vandals do, so I suggest you refrain from using that word when referring to editors who restore useful information. I suggest you discuss it here. What criticism would you have included? Please also provide sources for these criticisms. — Matt Crypto 20:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I didn't look at your edit closely. You were trolling. Best ignored. — Matt Crypto 20:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem seems to be getting any authoritative criticism, or any kind of fair discussion of various points of view.  So far it's been unsupported comments, random potshots, or axe grinding. What would be your criticism, and what would you base it on? flux.books 22:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: "Encyclopedias have become a general reference used by a wide audience, with shorter, more readable articles. They no longer serve as the authoritative reference on a topic; in the modern era, a wide range of academic journals, textbooks, specialized publications and electronic resources have displaced the encyclopedia."
Shouldn't this be in the general 'encyclopedia' entry? It's not specific to Britannica alone
:See the discussion above under 'Question on a sentence in the lead'.  The point is to convey the significance the EB once had, and why; and the current important but much reduced role.  You can't understand that without some context.  
:And behind that, the point was to help resolve the endless unfruitful debates / edit wars about the EB ("it's the greatest ever!" "it doesn't live up to its reputation!" or "it's lame").  The article has had quite a bit of axe grinding and POV in it over time.  Hopefully we can avoid that by putting in more precise discussion.  The net of it being, the EB was once towering, a landmark in Western culture.  Today it's a pretty good encyclopedia for some things and some people.  No more, no less.
:That doesn't of course mean it couldn't be improved, just that before editing this article it helps to consider & discuss.flux.books 20:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonspecific information 

message: According to this page, Brittanica has about 120,000 articles. However, I couldn't find a list of how many articles it had on their website - could someone source this for me (since if it's true, I plan to use it in a newspaper article I'm writing)? Aerothorn 19:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actaully, I seem to have the opposite problem: I couldn't find any number of articles in the latest printed version. It says the DVD version has about 100.000. Was the last printed version the one from 1974? And even so, how many articles did it have? --SidiLemine 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Brittanica articles?

message: Is this statement in the "Competition" section still true:
:"Both Wikipedia and the Britannica contain articles on subjects that the other does not."
If so, I for one would like to see a list of articles in Britannica but not in Wikipedia so that can be rectified. Jokestress 22:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We used to have one, but it was removed for copyright reasons. Instead, we now have Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot, which performs a similar purpose but is an amalgamated list of topics from several encyclopedias. I've access to an old Britannica list, and there's plenty of topics we don't have. — Matt Crypto 23:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *I estimate that there are thousands, possibly tens of thousands of articles found in Britannica but not Wikipedia. Much of what I do on Wikipedia is write articles found in Britannica but not Wikipedia. I am a biography / humanities guy, so don't even ask me about other fields. Some examples of articles found in Britannica but not in Wikipedia include the following: (1) Théophraste Renaudot--the father of French journalism, (2) branle--a dance popular in England and France from the 1200s to around 1650, (3) José Gómez Ortega--the greatest matador who ever lived, (4) John Astbury--a pioneer in potting technology, and (5) Sir John Hare--considered the greatest actor of his day. The articles I created that were found in Britannica and not Wikipedia were essential (e.g., Sahaptin people, a group of tribes [including the Nez Percé] in in the Pacific Northwest). Another example would be the three paragraphs I added about the culture of Cameroon in the "Cameroon" article because it was blank except for holidays (16 million people live in Cameroon). The articles dealt with as stubs in Wikipedia but full articles in Britannica I estimate to be several tens of thousands more.--Primetime 23:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I started the ones above, and I'll start working on that hotlist. Jokestress 01:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first edition of Britannica was in 3 volumes and it took 11 years for them to expand it to 10 volumes. Wikipedia is improving rather faster than that. The implication that there was no coverage of Cameroonian culture before your additions is incorrect. There was a substantial article about the Music of Cameroon and several other bits and pieces. Anyway it is good to see progress. It is desirable to that media coverage of Wikipedia should be balanced so that knowledgeable people will be encouraged to contribute. People are far more likely to find out about Cameroonian culture here than from Britannica because they are far more likely to visit the site in the first place. 62.31.55.223 23:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *I think you are being negative for the sake of it. It's nice to have articles about those six topics, but are they really that essential? Not one of them has an article in Encarta. I've just written an article about John Ellerman who I would say is as significant was most of them, and not only does he not have an article in Britannica, but there isn't even a passing mention of him. Your comments are unconvincing because you see only Britannica's strengths and only Wikipedia's weaknesses. Criticising Wikipedia for being incomplete is like criticising a toddler for being short. Everyone knows it's true, but condemning it as a terrible shortcoming is absurd. Wikipedia's popularity is well established and the negative publicity has been great for traffic. The main question hanging over its future development is whether it can, across the board, make the final step up in quality which requires expert synthesis. If this happens it will be wonderful; if it doesn't because the establishment generates sufficient negative vibes to stop a suffieciency of experts editing, people will carry on using Wikipedia but it will be a Wikipedia which has fallen short of its potential. That is all the skewed criticism can really achieve: to undermine the quality of the wikipedia people use, not to stop them using it. Hawkestone 02:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My copy of Encarta doesn't have a Théophraste Renaudot article so maybe it is a recent edition. Encyclopedia's expand and improve over time, even Wikipedia. As for the ethic group I didn't say that it doesn't deserve an article, just that its pretty low down on the list of essentials. A little humility on your part would be more impressive. I expect your contributions are useful, but people who behave as you do shouldn't expect praise from others. No one has an obligation to write any article for Wikipedia, so it is out of order to criticise other users for not having written on a particular topic when many of them are doing very valuable work on other topics. There is every liklihood that someone else would have expanded Salvatore Quasimodo in due course; that is how wikipedia is. You don't know when things will get done, but chances are they will at some point. Everyone knows that Wikipedia is a work in progress; it is only critics who infer that this has ever been denied. My views on Britannica fluctuate; right now they are harsh because its editors have shown a total lack of grace and class. Hawkestone 03:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have changed the subject from the lack of content I just pointed out to the thing you know the least about--me. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you have inferred that I am narcissistic--even though you just met me and even though I was using the articles I wrote as an illustration of what is in other encyclopedias but not here. However, thanks for proving another point: the people who get praised the most on Wikipedia are the most popular. At a real encyclopedia, those who work the hardest get promoted, but here the administrator list is littered with high-school and junior-high school students, because they know all about popularity contests. Writers are the least popular, because they get involved in the most content disputes. I can also see that pointing out the blatantly obvious is unpopular as well. This shows that our culture has a long way to go.--Primetime 04:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles in Britannica not in Wikipedia? 

message: I added the following yesterday:
In addition, the Britannica DVD can be obtained for free through file-sharing services like BitTorrent, and both the print and electronic versions of Britannica can be checked out of some libraries (directly or through interlibrary loan) and accessed from home using some library web sites.
I was reverted, but my addition is certainly verifiable (which is the reason for the WP:NOR policy). I understand that copying it is illegal, but I was not giving a how-to (even though I know of no policy that would prohibit me from doing so). I think it's obvious that using Britannica is not always expensive for the reader, and that the phenomena described above are a boost for Britannica readership levels.--Primetime 15:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Competition" paragraph now reads very strangely. A point we wish to make is how Wikipedia is thought to have an advantage over Britannica in that it is free (as in beer, no cost).  Instead of making that point, however, we end up emphasising how easy it is to get hold of Britannica without cost; you've added a rebuttal to a point that hasn't even been made yet! My comment about original research was because this argument about the "ease" of getting hold of EB without paying for it seems to be your personal argument, rather than an argument made by others. — Matt Crypto 15:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it's clear that Wikipedia is still less expensive for most people, because most are unaware of how to obtain it for free. So, the fact that Wikipedia is always free still makes it preferable for some people to Britannica, meaning the paragraph is almost neutral, but still shows challenges to Britannica clearly, when it says that Wikipedia is a "free-content encyclopedia" and when it mentions that it's larger than Britannica. So, it's titled Competition and it shows that there is competition for Britannica.--Primetime 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that your argument about BitTorrent or libraries etc is just your own original thinking. It is not relevant unless at least someone — and preferably a group of notable people — other than yourself has made the argument. — Matt Crypto 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we should remove all implications that Wikipedia challenges Britannica. That appears to me to be an original commentary, as I think that the consumers for each product are very different.--Primetime 16:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that's not necessary. We can find sources to assert that Wikipedia is thought to be a challenge to Britannic, e.g. this news article: "Are traditional encyclopedia publishers aware of Wikipedia's threat? Here's a clue: Try looking for the "Wikipedia" article in the online version of Britannica. You won't find it. Nor will you find it in any of the half a dozen or so mainstream encyclopedias currently on the market. These folks should be busy brainstorming a survival strategy. Instead the range of reaction has run in a comically limited range from denial to derision. Even Britannica with its prestigious reputation needs to figure out how it will thrive in what will increasingly be a Wikipedia world. In the final analysis, Wikipedia is more than just the raising of a new barn. It's the tearing down of the old ones." . We can show that at least some other people view Wikipedia in terms of a challenge to Britannica. — Matt Crypto 16:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Matt that this paragraph should be removed. My reason is that it is misleading, because it is in fact illegal to get britannica via bittorrent, so it's not free in the common sense of the word. And if you write that it is illegal to do so (I wouldn't like that anyway, because it certainly won't help whole britannica vs. wikipedia debate), you should, by the same logic, add the same phrase to 100 000+ copyrighted and sold works we have an article for. Ditto for libraries. It's just not encyclopedic to have sentence like "if you're poor, perhaps you can get this book from the library" in all articles about books. Samohyl Jan 17:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And we would also need to mention that it's free if you can make it out of the store without getting arrested, too ... flux.books 20:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Encyclopaedia Britanncia'' Sometimes Free 

message: I found a certain -- very small -- amount of bias in some portions of the article. For example, in articles about encyclopedias that Wikipedia covers, such as Funk and Wagnalls and Encarta, critical links at the bottom are rare. Thus I removed the link about "One user's compilation of errors" -- although if someone wants to put that back, that's fine with me.
There were also several instances of Wikipedia being mentioned, which I removed. The user isn't interested that the text of many historical articles is sourced from the 1911 EB (and in any case the relevant articles have a template that provides this information). I also don't see how the EB-Wikipedia spat should be mentioned, as one is supposed to not mention Wikipedia.
If you disagree, could you please discuss it here before reverting my changes? Thank you. laddiebuck 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the stuff on Wikipedia was perhaps excessive (and the 1911 EB mention irrelevant to this article), I'm not aware of a standing policy that Wikipedia should not be mentioned.  I think a brief, NPOV discussion of the EB-Wikipedia spat belongs in the article. -- Mwanner | Talk 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a moment, looking for link on policy. laddiebuck 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Here: WP:SELF. The second example mentioned is specifically the sort of thing that I removed from the article. laddiebuck 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Also -- I agree now that a brief mention of the spat is in order. However, the version I removed was rather POV, and came across as someone trying to sell Wikipedia rather than an objective listing of the dispute without going into arguments and opinions. laddiebuck 02:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systemic bias 

message: I shortened down the dispute, as it's really not the goal of the article (see above) to summarize every dispute the EB has had. It's still a relevant issue, but does not deserve several paragraphs with a blow-by-blow description of each side's salvos. laddiebuck 21:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we ought to either (1) cover the dispute in such a way that people know everything they would need to in order to draw a reasonable conclusion, or (2) not mention it at all. As it is, it covers the findings of the study, but not the fact that the study may be inaccurate. If the study is notable enough to be mentioned, then concerns raised about it are, as well.--Primetime 21:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the best solution is to make it clear in the article that the findings of the study are controversial. It is too early to say whether the study is accurate or not, as opinions are very heated on the subject, and it would certainly be hard to objectively support any conclusion. Thus I think the information is best presented as controversial, or as you say, removed entirely. I personally am in favor of leaving it in but indicating that it is controversial. laddiebuck 21:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks a lot better at the moment, good work! — Matt Crypto 23:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening of the EB-Wikipedia dispute 

message: "privately held by Encyclopaedia Britannica Holdings S.A., a Luxembourg corporation"
Where to incorporate this detail?
Lotsofissues 03:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being precise about its corporate structure 

message: The links under Sample articles don't work anymore. Dan, the CowMan 23:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not for me. I will remove them. 62.31.55.223 04:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Does anyone have a source for the statements about the alleged 16th edition? I can't find any proof that there is a plan to produce a completely new edition either on google or on EB's own site. I don't see why they would choose to do so rather than continue with regular(ish) updating, given that it is now a mainly electronic publication, so it seems a little improbable that it is going to happen. 62.31.55.223 20:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there really going to be a 16th edition?

message: Is Britannica published in any other languages except for English? I tried to check their website, but the information was rather hard to find. If so (or not) this probably should be mentioned in the article.Moreschi 11:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other languages. 

message: It seems someone has changed the spelling of several instances of the word Encyclopædia. Could someone please check the article?
Perhaps we should add a warning, as it seems to be happening quite often, and seems to often go unnoticed. -- Ec5618 16:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have we even decided as to which spelling we should be using? I understand that they're all correct, but for the sake of consistency we should pick one. I nominate we only use encyclopædia with the ligature except in the case where the spelling relates to a brand name like Compton's Encyclopedia. Using the ligature would tie in the title of the page. --Speakslowly 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I think you meant to say that the ligature should only be used where it is used in a proper name, for all the reasons previously discussed - the ligature is archaic, fussy, inaccurate and difficult to search. flux.books 12:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that is not what I meant to say, I meant exactly what I wrote. It may be an archaic spelling, but it is in no way obsolete. The ligature is not "fussy," inaccurate, or difficult to search for. Look up the spelling in the OED, not inaccurate whatsoever. But if the majority prefers the lack of a ligature then I guess that's that. --Speakslowly 02:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: æ vs e, redux

message: The page currently says:
"The 2007 print version of the Britannica has 32 volumes: a 12-volume Micropædia containing short articles (typically 1-2 paragraphs), a 17-volume Macropædia containing 699 longer articles (ranging from 3 to over 400 pages in length) and a single Propædia volume that seeks to give an outline of all human knowledge"
12 + 17 + 1 = 30... not 32. I checked out Britannica's webpage (http://www.eb.com/library/print/eb.html) and they confirm that it is 32 volumes but don't break it down by micro, macro, and pro. Does anyone who has access to a printed set explain correct this and put the correct numbers of volumes of each (micro, macro, and pro). Thanks.
Michael.passman 08:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Michael, sorry about that; I forgot to mention the two Index volumes at the end.  I've fixed it in the main text now.  Thanks for catching that! :) Willow 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Volumes 

message: Anyone want to work to make this article featured? I think it would be quite interesting to have an FA on a "compeditor" -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Did you know that I was thinking of the very same thing? I checked the talk page to post my idea, and here was yours! Anyway, I think it's a great idea, considering the growing tension between Britannica and Wikimedia. It would show that Wikipedia is a true neutral encyclopedia, capable of featuring it's own competitor. I'll go ahead and nominate it, if you want. NauticaShades(talk) 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without suggesting it's a bad idea in the slightest, just "go ahead and nominate it" is probably not the best approach to FA. Take care of the cite requests to begin with; also consider a peer review and maybe look through the history for heavy contributors who can help-out polishing it. Marskell 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it was pretty well cited, except for the two missing citations. I'll try to get citations for them, then I'll get it peer reviewed. NauticaShades(talk) 06:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't found any information about the idea Britannica being taken from the French Encyclopedia at all. I'm going to remove that line. Any objections? NauticaShades(talk) 06:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I nominated it over at peer review. NauticaShades(talk) 07:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We did everything we could at Peer Review. It's been nominated at FAC. NauticaShades 20:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well actually, some vandalism has been traced back to EB office computers. NauticaShades 20:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conspiracy ;) Seriously though, that is not a good preconceived notion for someone writing an article. Sad mouse 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree.  It's implausible that the official EB would want to vandalize, even manipulate, Wikipedia's EB article; it would be far too risky.  Can you imagine what the press would say: "Desperate Goliath resorts to 'dirty tricks' against virtuous David", the classic literary trope.   It seems more likely that we're beneath their contempt and concern; they don't mention Wikipedia even once in the 2007 print edition.  Willow 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs.  Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.See footnote
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.  See footnote
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article.See footnote (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL. 
*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.See footnote
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.  See footnote 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 13 additive terms, a bit too much.
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I'll strike these suggestions when I have completed them. NauticaShades(talk) 09:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That Auto-peer review sure is nifty. Marskell 11:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Auto Peer Review

message: Does anybody object for me adding a userbox to this article? NauticaShades(talk) 16:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? What sort of userbox could be added? "This user uses both Wikipedia and Britannica"? --Gwern  (contribs) 18:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean't infobox, sorry. NauticaShades(talk) 05:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: Firstly, what was sold in 1901: the A & C Black, the Britannica or The (London) Times? And how did this American publisher get involved?
Second, when the Britannica becomes 'associated' with The Times, and 'associated' with the University of Cambridge, what the heck does that mean? They get bought? They get power-played? They get funding? JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  section needs clarifying 

message: At present this article is inconsistent re. superscript; sometimes we have the 11th edition, sometimes the 11th edition. (The same inconsistency applies to centuries as well.) Is there a Wiki policy regarding this? I personally find the superscript in this article to be both superfluous and ugly. Anyone have any opinions on this?Ericoides 18:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not really as long as it's one way or the other. I've been making 1800's into nineteenth century and spelling out amounts ten and under and not spelling out higher ranges like say 27. superscript: i don't mind either, as long as it's consistent. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I vote all superscript, it looks nice. Ericoides, you want to handle this? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd happily change it all to non-superscript ... Ericoides 19:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If i have to lay sides i'd say non-superscript. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK then, instant democracy dictates non-superscript.Ericoides 07:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you are aware we are not voting. We are trying to make a decision. Why not superscript, anyway? It's neater. NauticaShades 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I wasn't aware of that. Why not superscript? In my opinion, it is untidy and pretentious, drawing attention to itself when there is no need. There was considerable inconsistency in its use and so a decision had to be made one way or the other, the green light to which I considered I had been given. Apologies if this decision was rushed or unrepresentative, but for something so relatively trivial I just went ahead after minimal consultation.Ericoides 15:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being bold doesn't require apologies. Anyways, my reason is it looks fugly when you're editing for a marginal difference in where the little 'th' ends up, slightly above the word line or on the word line. Simple = Better. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cluttered and unnecessary HTML syntax makes baby Jesus cry. --Gwern  (contribs) 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superscript for different editions?