I frequently tell my coaching clients about the importance of regularly updating web site content. Fresh content keeps customers coming back and gets indexed more frequently by search engines. Novelty spurs attention, whether human or technological. A …

Thanks for the comment. You pointed out some significant differences between the two models, Wikipedia and Britannica. These explain a lot of the appeal of one versus the other.

1) The content and substance of the entries of Wikipedia is decided by a world wide community of readers and editors. This is a paradigm change from a traditional approach to knowledge. It may be true that there are tens of thousands of people who are interested in a subject, know about the subject and have opinions on it. But when someone is looking for information, they may not be interested in the popular or most recent answer. They want something definitive and conclusive -even if its not the most up to date.

If someone wants the most up to date information, they should visit a news site, not an encyclopedia.

2) Many people have said they prefer Wikipedia because it is more up to date. Up to date is not a necessary component of knowledge -it might be critical for the process of determining knowledge, discovery and research. But it is not worth trading off accuracy for latest-greatest. Its ok for there to be open questions and uncertainty. We don’t know everything (nor will we). Speculation belongs in the realm of scientific inquiry and the methodology of discovery.

3) Collaboration can be a powerful tool for research and for those people on the Internet who participate in the collaborative of Wikipedia, its a lot of fun. Who doesn’t want to feel that their passions matter? But for people who are looking up a quick fact or to learn about something for the first time, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia can be misleading.

Since there is no lock-down on the knowledge and since it is ever morphing, one needs to approach a Wikipedia entry with a grain of salt. People who aren’t part of the community don’t know that (there’s no disclaimer on Wikipedia to that effect).

Maybe we’re just talking two different worlds, here.

There is one world, online, where people want to be part of the process of growing knowledge, of being heard and sharing. Knowledge in a particular area, for them, is something maleable and something they use to identify themselves with a community.

Then there is another world, offline, where people just want the facts, as they are. Doesn’t have to be latest greatest. Doesn’t have to be with a grain of salt. Something straightforward they can learn and then get on with their lives. Knowledge in that particular area, for them, is something they want to find out about, but not something they want to give too much committment to.

The self-appointed editor crowd do not decide what is relevant. Instead, they decide whether an article is a spoof or factual. The world wide Wikipedia community decides what is relevant, what affects them, what is important to them and what is useful to them. Editors just does the editors job. Checking against misuse by greedy advertisers is just one of them. Editors and Community of wikipedia are doing what they are doing because of their passion about the subject. Obviously many of them write about what they know best.

If some one thinks 4000 ‘paid’ scholars know a lot more than those 10s of thousands of passionate editors and community, so be it. But, I believe, many of us are Experts in some thing. But don’t like to be one of those 4000 at Britannica to be full time ‘authors’ of world wide knowledge. But spend a little time to share our expertise on Wikipedia.

Britannica might be a better choice if one want to dwell in the past. But definitely, I get a lot more latest and relevant information from wikipedia than Britannica. Take any contemporary topic, and compare. Handsdown.

Finally, there are millions of blogs each talk about some thing they know better. There is a reason many more millions read them. Embrace them. There may be more accurate and factual magazines, research, and volumes of books on those subjects. But every body love to read it on blog. They are free. They are up to the minute. They have the contemporary coverage. More over, they talk our mind. Wikipedia exemplfies that spirit that each one of us have some thing special. We are experts in some things. So let us share it to the world. Its confusing and amusing to agree that The whole world of knowledge is decided by some 4000 paid authors against passionate millions.