While Googling this morning I came across a search result that promised exactly what I was looking for. The landing page however made my heart slump – it was obvious from the sign-up form in the middle of the page that I was required to register for my much-desired information. Even worse, I realised I was actually expected to actually *gasp* PAY for the information!

The offending site was none other than Encyclopedia Britannica. Something way back in the dark and cobwebbed corners of my mind brought forth memories of afternoons at the public library photocopying grainy photos from the heavy alphabetised volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Photocopies that would later be coloured in with pencil crayons, cut out with scissors and pasted alongside non-plagiarised hand written copy in my projects book.
I’m sure that everyone born before 1985 has similar recollections of school projects?

Anyway, I’m getting off the point. And my point is – Does Encyclopedia Britannica have a place in the 21st century?
I thought Britannica was pretty much wiped out by Microsoft’s Encarta back in the 90’s so I’m surprised that they are still around. Even more surprising is that they haven’t changed their business model. Why would anyone pay for Britannica when they can freely access Wikipedia?

As far as I can tell, the only advantage that Britannica potentially has over Wikipedia is that its entries are more controlled meaning they should also be more accurate. Then again back in 2005 Nature.com (also have to pay for this one – damn!) famously compared the two encyclopedias and found that Wikipedia was almost as accurate Britannica.

Since that study Wikipedia have also tightened up their security and accuracy measures. Just ask Quirk’s own Wikipedia enthusiast, Sarah Manners, how long it takes to become a trusted source for the online encyclopedia these days?

Can anyone think of any other advantages of Britannica?