The End of the Print Britannica

The company that publishes the Encyclopaedia Britannica announced on Tuesday that it will no longer offer a print edition of its venerable flagship work, according to an article in the Boston Globe. The Britannica is bowing to reality. After 244 years of publishing a print edition, the encyclopedia is becoming a digital-only publication. The reason is simple: "'The sales of printed encyclopedias have been neglible for several years ... We knew this was going to come,'" says Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. President Jorge Cauz. I have mixed feelings about this announcement.

My father was a Britannica author (he wrote the articles on purpura and other hematological disorders), and this was a source of enormous family pride--it signified that he was the world's expert. The Britannica could have chosen any specialist to write these articles, but they chose my dad. The print edition, in its specially-designed wooden bookcase, occupied a prominent place in our house, and it played a prominent role in my and my sister's education. It was the first place we turned when we had to write reports or get some background information.

I often use Wikipedia for background information but I prefer to verify its accuracy before relying on it. I know that Wikipedia offers some of the same information as the Britannica, but I do worry about who is vetting it. As the Globe points out, "Britannica has thousands of expert contributors from around the world, including Nobel laureates and world leaders ... It also has a staff of more than 100 editors." Wikipedia can't compete with that. On the other hand, as a librarian, I think that reference sources work particularly well in a digital format because they can be updated continuously to avoid obsolescence, and also because they can be accessed on mobile devices, which is a tremendous convenience. In addition, reference works tend not to be read from beginning to end, and do not suffer when accessed in random order.

I hope the digital Britannica will thrive!

Open Access Encyclopedias

Having been involved in an open access database here at Pace Law School, I know from experience how difficult it is to keep it going. Funding is available for start-up ventures, but harder to get for established programs. Even though a database is extremely valuable, users are reluctant to pay for it, especially if it's been free for awhile and they have never paid for it. The sponsoring institution may recognize its value, but not have the resources available to devote to it, especially when there are so many competing demands. How do you maintain a database or other online scholarly project in the absence of regular sources of funding?

This article from Inside Higher Ed provides some insights from institutions that are trying to "build online encyclopedias that are rigorous, scholarly, and free to access." Why even bother with encyclopedias when "journals ... have the cachet of being the frontlines of academic discovery"? According to a librarian at the University of Pennsylvania, "'There is a need to get good verifiable academic information out there,' ... 'whether it's general or specific.'" One of the major roadblocks to producing a scholarly encyclopedia is securing contributors who are willing to write for free "without compromising the rigor of the editorial process." Eugene M. Izhikevich, editor-in-chief of Scholarpedia, "a free, 'peer-reviewed' online compendium" says the way to do this is to "make contributing a privilege." By "playing to [contributors'] egos," a great deal of high-quality material can be secured at no cost. Unlike Wikipedia articles, Scholarpedia articles are credited, and the name of the "curator" of each article appears in a prominent position. This may mean that authorship of a Scholarpedia article will have value during the tenure process.

Even with some free labor, open access encyclopedias need money to keep going. Some encyclopedias have to hire editors to improve articles written by non-native speakers of English. The editors of other encyclopedias want to translate their articles into other languages, and translators do not work for free. One possible "solution" to the funding problem is to induce libraries to pay dues to encyclopedias that are freely available online. This strategy is being sold to libraries "as an investment in open access--a cause many libraries, frustrated by the rising prices of academic journals, have been happy to support." The author concludes that there is no "blueprint for success," and that some projects may not "survive in the long term." Interestingly, "even Wikipedia is beginning to bend under the burden of the free-content model. It recently started running large banner ads asking users to donate money to curb the massive infrastructure costs that come from being the world's fifth most highly-trafficked Web site. It has imposed increasingly strict submission and editing codes, and the rate at which new articles are added has fallen significantly."