Wikipedia versus the Britannica
Completely ignoring the utility and the open-ended nature of Wikipedia, a former Britannica editor attempted to criticize it at Tech Central Station yesterday. Robert McHenry calls Wikipedia "The Faith Based Encyclopedia."
The
user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some
matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public
restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great
care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a
false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has
used the facilities before him.
What does this tell us about Robert McHenry?
In the methodology of knowledge-seeking most of us enjoy a shift somewhere between the ages of nine and thirteen. If we ever saw an encyclopedia as a primary source, we learned soon enough that the genre contains mere pointers. No matter how well edited for factual content, any encyclopedia before the Wikipedia project was severely limited by its bound and printed format, and by the perspectives of the largely white-male (and probably anal compulsive) editorial staff self-elected to compile it.
The Encyclopedia Britannica is first of all a product. Out here on the fringes of Jesus Land, most households will eventually have the opportunity to discuss buying an encyclopedia with a traveling salesman. The 32 volume set is a deal at only US$995. And it gaw-rahn-tees that my children will be an equal footing with Muffy and Fenrick when they’re competing to matriculate at a decent university… equal I suppose except for the imponderables of the legacy admissions. But don’t get me started on the class war stuff this morning.
McHenry argues that people use an encyclopedia to find factually correct answers to questions. I think people older than thirteen rely on a book behind the bar for factually correct answers (or on the bartender’s encyclopedic knowledge of the subject being debated). They use an encyclopedia to drive a stake in the ground for further study of a topic.
Wikipedia works for this, as does Britannica, but you can’t make any money selling Wikipedia door-to-door, so I see where McHenry is coming from.