Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Encyclopædia Britannica article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Featured article star Encyclopædia Britannica is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 8, 2007.
To-do list for Encyclopædia Britannica: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. Find official spelling policy at the Britannica.
  2. Track down the history of its thistle logo.
  3. Resolve the revision discrepancies (35% vs. 46%) published by two Britannica sites.
  4. Create an Encyclopædia Britannica Online article. Some sources: [1], [2]

Contents

[edit] Are we ready for Peer Review?

Hi all,

I've prepared the page for our next round of peer review, but I didn't want to submit it until we've agreed among ourselves that we're ready. What do you all think? Are there significant improvements left to be done before peer review? Willow 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Something has been bothering me for a long time and I don't have a solution for it, but if this article goes down the FA track, it will come up. That is, much of the article is based on information that is very time sensitive to 2007. There are some guidelines/rules somewhere (aren't there always) that talk about keeping articles as time-neutral as possible, so they don't quickly go out of date. It can't be avoided in places, but this article has a large chunk that is time-sensitive "Status in 2007", "Staff and Management" - also regarding the staff section, I would recommend deleting Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica and just move it as-is back into the main article as a generic list of major staff titles, with an external link to Britannica's staff list is much better. -- Stbalbach 14:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopædia Britannica Online

I recently came across the orphaned article Encyclopædia Britannica Online. I noticed that Britannica Online redirected here. (reverted my own edit). Should Encyclopædia Britannica Online be redirected here or be a separate article? Squids'and'Chips 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I had no idea this article existed, and was even thinking about creating it. The primary reason is, when linking to EB articles from within other Wikipedia articles in the External links section. For example at Sutton Hoo it should look like this:
==External links==
The reason is, we need a place to explain to editors that linking to EBO from Wikipedia brings up the full article, that it is not a pay-site when coming in from Wikipedia (as it would be normally reaching EBO from other sites, like Google for example). The Encyclopædia Britannica Online article would be the perfect place to explain that. Also, EBO is really an entity onto itself with a lot of additional features and could justify its own article. -- Stbalbach 01:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section (#2)

Does anyone think that the criticism segment is too long and takes too much space? It literally takes almost half of the History section! Many of these arguments seem like valid information, but the majority also seems to be repetitive and of about the same complaints (past versions are outdated; outdated view on race, sex...). --205.124.145.254 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach suggested at its featured article candidacy that the article include a significant section on the published criticisms of the Britannica. It is a fair request, and such a section is needed for balance; I've done my best to fulfil his request and, perhaps not surprisingly, I don't find the section repetitive. ;) Nor do I feel that the Britannica was merely reflecting the prejudices or misunderstandings of its era; rather, the cited errors seem to derive from a poor choice of "expert" editor. Willow 16:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Several of the facts from the criticism section strike me as wrong and badly-written. Such as criticizing the 11th edition of Britannica for ignoring D. H. Lawrence and James Joyce in favor of "Victorian" authors like H. G. Wells. Well, for what I know, D. H. Lawrence did not actually publish his first major novel until 1911, and most of what he has done are after that time period. Much of James Joyce's most renowned works are also published between 1910-20s, after the publication of the 11th edition of Britannica. H.G. Welles on the other hand, was already a very well-established literary figure in the late 19th century.
And it also said "Victorian" author H.G. Wells. Where did that label came from? H.G. Wells for what I know was a socialist and an atheist.
And Britannica neglected works of Sigmund Freud? Maybe that is the case, but I think he was also on Encyclopædia Britannica's Editorial Board of Advisors along with Marie Curie. Maybe that doesn't have to do with anything.--Balthazarduju 03:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree on Joyce and Lawrence, but the neglect of Freud in the 11th was criticized even then, as discussed in the Thomas reference. If I recall correctly, Freud was accepted by the EB in the 1920's, along with Marie Curie, Einstein and Trotsky, as described in the History of the Encyclopædia Britannica article. By "Victorian", I meant more "Victorian/Edwardian era", not Victorian morals or outlook.
Unfortunately, the Britannica has been and continues to be mistaken, by its own admission and according to the analysis of many, e.g., Kenneth Kister and Harvey Einbinder. Therefore, it has been criticized for "inaccuracies". As quoted in the Criticism section, Prof. Burr of Yale University also faulted it for "lack of authority". With those sentences deleted, the lead does not reflect the whole of the article; so per User:Stbalbach's request at FAC, I'm going to have to revert back to the original version. Please do not remove the material a third time tonight. However, I'm open to continued discussions, if you and others feel that it detracts from the article. Willow 03:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of EB racism?

The examples drawn from the two Britannica articles are shocking by modern standards (and probably also by 1911 standards), but I think they're needed to back up the criticism of racism. Some people might argue that the earlier quotes — those involving terrorizing blacks and their supporters in the South — do not show racial hatred per se, but rather the desire of the KKK people to gain political power through terrorism and ethnic cleansing. What do other people think? I know it's a revolting topic, but we need to address it for completeness in the Criticism section. :( Willow 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No thistle trademark?

Hi, I was unable to confirm that the EB has a trademark on its thistle logo at the US Patent and Trademark Office. I searched through all the trademarks owned by the Britannica, and searched also using the design codes 05.03.10 and 05.03.25, which I know are appropriate, owing to another Britannica trademark (now dead). Could someone please help me track this down? Thanks! Willow 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources

I am suprised to see how many of the references... point straight back to the subject of the article. Especially given this is a featured article! If we write about the University of London then I would hope we get independent sources to confirm how many faculty members they have before we accept that as fact sufficeient for it to be a featured article. Why isn't the same scruitiny in place here? Garrie 04:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to put Template:Primarysources on it? Garrie 04:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps Wikipedia is notable :)

Some of you may recall this paragraph in the Criticism section, whose first version was added on 28 March 2007

Even now, the Britannica sometimes makes false claims about itself. For example, its Open Britannica site claims that the Britannica developed "the first encyclopedia in the English language, the first multimedia encyclopedia on CD-ROM, and the first encyclopedia on the Internet."[1] Two of these claims are false and the third is misleading. The 1st edition of the Britannica states plainly that it was not the first encyclopedia in the English language; the preface compares itself to others and even admits to borrowing from four earlier general encyclopedias, those of Barrow, Chambers, Crocker and Owens.[2] Indeed, at least two others were published decades prior to the Britannica: the Lexicon technicum, or An Universal English Dictionary of Arts and Sciences by John Harris (two volumes, published 1704 and 1710, respectively) and An Universal History of Arts and Sciences of Dennis de Coetlogon (published 1745).[3] Moreover, there was an earlier English-language translation of the encyclopedia De proprietatibus rerum (On the properties of things) (1240) by Bartholomeus Anglicus.[4] As for the other two claims, the Academic American Encyclopedia was the first online encyclopedia (1983), and also the first encyclopedia published on CD-ROM (1985), becoming multimedia in 1990.[4][5] Although the first multimedia encyclopedia was Compton's Encyclopedia (1989) — then owned by the same parent company as the Britannica — the Britannica itself was not released on a multimedia CD until 1995.[4]

Roughly a week later (today), the Britannica corrected their error. Admittedly, Wikipedia may have had nothing to do with it, but it was satisfying nonetheless. As a byproduct, their correction helps our article by making its Criticism section shorter and easier to read; thank you, EB! :) Willow 11:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This is a good occasion to extend the hand of friendship to any editors of the Britannica who wish to contribute here, be they Associate or Senior, Managing, Deputy, Executive or Chief. Your suggestions, additions and corrections would be most welcome, and we hope that you forgive us our imperfections. Facing a common enemy, ignorance, we encyclopedians should not contend with one another — a house divided, and all that. Well-meaning people who can appreciate beauty in its manifold forms (and yearn to share it with others) should likewise prize those rare gifts in one another. Willow 11:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think too much about it. Is the "Open Britannica" even part of the official website? Do you know for sure that Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. actually operates this site because on the official Britannica website I couldn't find a link to it. Even it is part of Britannica, it's probably just a minor webpage.--Balthazarduju 14:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed managed by the parent company, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. You can get to it from the main-page in two steps: go first to the "Britannica Blogs" (left hand column of the main page), and thence to Open.britannica.com (4th item in the menu bar of the blog page). But I agree that it's relatively unimportant. Willow 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "the standard"

Regarding this sentence:

The Britannica is widely considered the standard by which other encyclopedias are measured.

This is a very strong statement. I can think of three solutions.

  1. Remove it entire.
  2. Re-word it in some way.
  3. Provide very strong sources. Currently it lists two sources (no page numbers), no information on what was exactly said. The strength of the statement doesn't match the strength of the sources.

If this was a common knowledge I would not mind, but it honestly it sounds almost mythological, part of EB's very successful marketing over the years. -- Stbalbach 03:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I was carried away by enthusiasm; the sources are more measured in their praise. I'll amend it. Willow 14:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Britannica's omission of Wikipedia

Hi all,

I would like to include the omission of WP in the 2007 EB — and its inclusion in the online version — as an example that the EB is not always up-to-date. The 2006 World Book includes a reference to Wikipedia. I know that at least one fellow editor, Bramlet Abercrombie objects to this, though. What do other people think? I think it's a noteworthy fact, although perhaps it is too self-centric and might come across in the wrong way. I can see both sides and I'll defer to the consensus in any event. :) Willow 15:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That example doesn't prove anything about EB's up-to-dateness. Not everything that appears in the online version will eventually be in the print version. There are always some additional articles in the online version, since there's no space limit there. As to Wikipedia, for all we know they may never include it in the print version. Just because some other encyclopedia mentions it doesn't mean EB has to. Bramlet Abercrombie 15:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to sound rash, but I do think it is a bit too self-centric, and it would certainly come across in the wrong way to some readers at least. In my view it also clashes with the rest of the article, although I can't put my finger on why—perhaps it just seems off-topic or slightly POVish; are there any more appropriate examples of this "gap" in up-to-dateness (I can't believe I just wrote that) between the online and print Britannica? Fvasconcellos 15:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
One good example might be its treatment of proteins in the "Biochemical Components" article of the Macropædia, which reads as though it were written in 1975. Written by Daniel E. Koshland (we need an article on him, inventor of the KNF model; I think there's an autobiographical article in Annu. Rev.) and the editorial staff, it hasn't changed significantly since 1989, and possibly even back to 1974. A better example, perhaps? Willow 15:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If the comparison is appropriate (i.e. between the Macropædia's coverage and online coverage or coverage from another encyclopedia, not ours) then yes, I think that's a nice example. Fvasconcellos 16:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olive branches

I left a kindly meant note of friendship on Robert McHenry's blog, stressing the kinship of WP and the Britannica and inviting him to comment on our article, even to offer suggestions for improving it. In particular, I asked him about the Britannica's spelling policy and thistle logo, since he seemed "supremely qualified" to address the issues, having been editor-in-chief.

As of this moment, my letter hasn't been uploaded by the moderators there and I fear it never will be. A quixotic gesture, perhaps, but I hold out hope that the good-will and fellowship of scholars will prevail over the more meager-minded strategems of businessmen. It would be indeed a gracious gesture if he were to help us to improve the article. Dreaming of the grace that illumines a naughty world, Willow 23:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Magic — or at least a fine gentility — is in the air, since the moderators did indeed post my letter. Thank you, EB! Now I hope only that Mr. McHenry will receive it with the fond comradery with which it was sent. Instead of throwing down the gauntlet, we've thrown down the welcome mat. :) Willow 14:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Well said, here's hoping he reads it.-Ravedave 14:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left-hand image placement

Images on the left hand side of the page, that start at the top of a section, should be aligned so that the header title is lined up with the body of text in that section - so the image goes before the header, not after. This is in the MoS, if a reference needed let me know. -- Stbalbach 15:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balthazarduju's edits

I don't agree with these edits, but I decided to take it to the talk page. Anyone else agree that the above diff should be reverted? - Ravedave 04:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to be relevant when someone creates the article, and it is kind of WP:ORish, and kind of not encyclopedic (why are those in particular mentioned?). JoeSmack Talk 04:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone is preparing the (deleted) example beverage article, so that example was likely to be obsolete soon anyway. Any nonexistent article which is given as such an example becomes a target for creation. (SEWilco 05:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] The past advisors were interesting, and this item might be quotable

On 1 April, Willow made an edit that removed stuff about people on the editorial board who are no longer living:

The Propædia lists dozens of other editorial advisors, including many who have since died, the earliest in 1967 (Norwood Hanson).[6] For example, 74% of the advisors on "Part Six. Arts" are dead. Similarly, 60% of the Propædia contributors have been dead for 30 years on the average: Rene Dubos (d. 1982), Loren Eiseley (d. 1977), Harold D. Lasswell (d. 1978), Mark Van Doren (d. 1972), Peter Ritchie Calder (d. 1982) and Mortimer J. Adler (d. 2001).[7]

This item has nostalgia value for readers who remember those authors; in particular, Mortimer Adler because of his role in the Propedia. The replacement text sounds more like good-feeling marketing-speak: although roughly half of these have died, their work lives on in the Britannica. The original also points out a fixable problem that EB might want to correct in a future edition, so I think it's worthwhile information. The EB can't go on forever relying on its former glory. EdJohnston 16:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Opabinia made the well-taken point that that section sounded too much as though we were criticizing the Britannica implicitly for being outdated and for having dead/dying editorial advisors. Scholarly work does often survive its maker — particularly if it's useful — but I perhaps went too far in the other direction, trying to be respectful. I'll try to fix it up a bit. Thanks for catching the glitch, Willow 17:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misinforming a Nation

Misinforming a Nation - I've read the book (it's online) and while it is characterized by Smollett's ghost of a spleen, most of what he says is accurate and ahead of his age. I have no doubt there were positive reviews of the book and not all negative as our article portrays. There was a certain intellectual "establishment" at the time that had a vested interest in maintaining the Victorian ideals in the EB1911 - Misinforming a Nation was ahead of its time rightly criticizing many of its faults, not only of the book but the age, that were indeed addressed in later editions.

Also re-worded the part about "never claimed to be perfect" - no one claimed perfection. Every work is open for criticism, it's normal. -- Stbalbach 21:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Condolences for Warren Preece

I sent our collective condolences to Robert McHenry and the EB on the loss of Warren Preece, who passed away on April 11th, the same day as our article became featured. I praised his talented and intrepid contributions, and expressed the hope that the Britannica might find a way to honor him. Hoping that the letter will be received as generously as its intent, Willow 00:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. McHenry has replied and directed us to Tom Panelas. -Ravedave 15:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that you were a little bit over-the-top in your approach (not that it would make any difference, it seems). Christopher Connor 12:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't over-the-top, but certainly I was over-optimistic that Mr. McHenry would see that Wikipedia was working, at least in some cases. I honestly expected him to send us a nice picture of himself and maybe even make a comment or two. After all, how could it hurt him? It could only reflect a great-hearted spirit and a devotion to the ideals of encyclopedias.

When I wrote the letters, I knew that I was asking a lot of Mr. McHenry, and I was keenly conscious of the differences in our ages and accomplishments. Why should he, a respected former chief editor of the Britannica, take note of a young knitting nobody? It was maybe ridiculous to even attempt a dialogue. :( Despite that, I had hoped that I could appeal to him as a friendly fellow encyclopedian, which is why my letters were perhaps overly deferential and sympathetic. I was reminded of the scene in Les Miserables, where the future Bishop of Digne says to Napoleon as they wait together,

“ My lord, I am looking at a great person, and you are looking at a simple person. We both may benefit. ”

I was surprised and stung a little when he replied so dismissively. OK, I'm not an Authority, I get it. Nevertheless, since I believe that the strength of a person is measured by their power to open minds, I couldn't leave without encouraging him to consider our Featured Articles objectively and to temper his impulsive scorn with a more nuanced, more scholarly evaluation of Wikipedia.

After that, I did have a very nice correspondence with Tom Panelas, the last letter of which I reproduce here:

Willow,
Well, I probably won't be able to give you as much detail as you might like, but here's the information I have readily available on your questions.
Yes, we use the thistle as our logo because it's a symbol for Scotland, and so it serves as a reference to our Scottish heritage. We've used a thistle logo in one form or another since the 1920s, and it is trademarked.
Similarly, with style and spelling, as you've noticed, we do follow a number of British spelling conventions -- e.g., "colour," flavour," "centre," -- but our style isn't uniformly British.
As for awards, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to be content with whatever we have posted. We could go back endlessly into our archives, but the task would be endless. If you like, you could generalize by saying we've won many publishing and education awards, such as the Codie and Teacher's Choice Awards, or something to that effect, but really, how much of that do people really want to read? Not much I'd guess.
Thanks, Tom

Not as much as I hoped, but I'm still grateful for his courtesy and generous replies. Willow 13:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To avoid any COI....

should we now also include Citizendium in the online encyclopedia section? Wikipedia and Citizendium are both online competitors to EB so I feel we should at least mention Citizendium. Thoughts?↔NMajdan•talk 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a purposeful exclusion (COI). Including Citizendium. given its nascent status, would be "recentism", IMO. No big deal either way. –Outriggr § 00:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Front page

I noticed that the article hasn't been nominated for the front page. Anyone object to requesting it? Is there any particular date that would be special? -Ravedave 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest something like January 15 (founding of Wikipedia) for that extra "oomph".-Wafulz 19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Do we really have a "Wikipedia Day"? Very cool! Tim Vickers 14:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solo years linked

Why are the solo years in the table in "Edition summary" linked? WP:MOSNUM, do they provide any WP:CONTEXT ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] info on EB spelling practice and/or policy

Please put any info below that you can find on this topic. Please also include any info you can find on the frequency or perhaps uniqueness of mixed UK/US spelling in any printed or online material produced by any major publisher. --Espoo 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead external links found

Two (2) link was detect as requiring assistance, Ilan Yeshua Named Britannica CEO. Veteran Executive to Consolidate Operations of Encyclopaedia Britannica and Britannica.com and To wire or not to wire? Encyclopædia Britannica vs. Microsoft Encarta returned a HTTP 404 status message. —Dispenser 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benton ownership and the University of Chicago

Bell went off in my head when I read this since I vaguely remembered talking to someone about the original ownership transfer years ago and found this with a bit of searching to confirm it: [[3]]. Britannica actually wasn't owned by Benton proper initially - it sold to the University of Chicago, with Benton merely owning the common and providing working capital but the University owning the controlling preferred. This came up in the context of trying to explain why the staff of that era was largely drawn from Chicago and why later the staff still seemed overweighted, although that's a point that I can't back up as easily. But...anyone want to take a whack at this one? Old64mb 06:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More care should have been taken for this article.

To many editors here for a long time have used this article as an forum to tout wikipedia, and not enough of that fluff has been removed. To give a single example, the degree of error was not mentioned in the famous EB vs wiki section - if you read the Nature article most of the EB errors were omissions, while most wikipedia errors were dramatic factual mistakes. The criticism section seems to be blown out of proportion for this pro-wiki reason. 75.92.163.152 13:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of name

Unless I missed it (which is possible), it seems to me a glaring omission in an article of this breadth and detail that there is no information on the origin of the name Britannica. As an uber-word geek, the first thing I look for in articles where the name could be the subject of wonder, is that explanation, and where appropriate, the etymology. Is "Britannica" just an old term for Britain so it's just the "Encyclopedia of Britain" in form? Something else? That's information I would want to know right off and its omission should be corrected, or you should point me to where it is as you admonish me for not reading more carefully.--71.249.59.41 15:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a Latin adjective. The English equivalent would be "Britannic" as in "Their Britannic Majesties". - Jmabel | Talk 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You've identified the answer but you haven't fixed the problem, i.e., that this information is not in the article and it should be.--68.237.234.81 21:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity in second paragraph

"Beginning with the 11th edition, the Britannica gradually shortened and simplified its articles…": I assume that this means after the 11th edition, but it could just as easily mean "Beginning with the 11th edition (inclusive)…" Either way, it should be reworded unambiguously. - Jmabel | Talk 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Beginning with" almost certainly means it's inclusive. Raul654 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity and fairness

"On 14 December 2005, the scientific journal Nature reported that, within 42 randomly selected general science articles, there were 162 mistakes in Wikipedia versus 123 in Britannica." If, as is effectively stated below, the comparison used Britannica Online, we should say so in this introductory sentence, because Britannica unqualified suggests the print edition. - Jmabel | Talk 17:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is indeed the case (which it seems to be based on your post) then by all means make the change. Be Bold. Robert Brockway 07:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetisation

"Rulers with identical names are organised first alphabetically by country and then by chronology; thus, Charles III of France precedes Charles I of England." Please point out my error, but doesn't England precede France alphabetically? So, how am i misunderstanding this sentence? Cheers, Lindsay 17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Britannica article for Charles I lists him as king of Great Britain and Ireland. Wikipedia lists him as king of England, and he's listed as such in the article for wikilinking. I added a bit to indicate how he's listed in Britannica. I'm not sure which would be more accurate, for several reasons. Today, England, Scotland, and Wales together make up the island known as Great Britain. The three together with Northern Ireland make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Elizabeth II's realm. Since I'm not that clear on my British history, I really don't know if Charles I's kingdom would have been described, at the time, as being England or Great Britain. If so, then the Wikipedia title for Charles I's article is incomplete. --ChandlerH 19:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes better sense. Their calling him king of Great Britain and Ireland is acceptable shorthand; he really had three separate kingdoms (Scotland, Ireland, and England), but that would have been rather difficult to alphabetise, i suppose. Cheers, Lindsay 20:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] great article

Thanks to everybody who worked on it! Jakob.scholbach 04:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] essential facts missing?

I just browsed through all the likely sections, and narry a one carries the actual cost of the damn thing. I could find the price of the CD/DVD edition, but not the print. Shouldn't this info be in the list summary of the editions? A change in price over time would be an interesting addition to the chart. And isn't the fact that it is costly a part of the criticism, or at the very least part of the comparison to competitors? VanTucky Talk 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Britannica, the consumer print set is $795. I'm assuming that's in USD. VanTucky Talk 22:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make Encyclopædia Britannica Online into a redirect to this article?

Recently User:Richard001 added a merge banner to this article, suggesting that the content from Encyclopædia Britannica Online should be merged here. I don't see anything of value to be kept in the other article, and the online version of EB is already described in this one. Richard001 did not post anything to this Talk page in support of his merge so I don't know if he had a specific plan in mind. My own proposal is to just make Encyclopædia Britannica Online into a redirect to Encyclopædia Britannica without changing the present article.

In the FA debate for EB, last March, Stbalbach argued The Online Britannica is more than just a digital version of the paper edition, it contains a lot of unique material. If Stbalbach decides to write a real article on EBO at a later time, he (or anyone) could just undo the redirect and restore the free-standing article.

Let me know your thoughts on this idea for resolving Richard001's merge proposal. If no-one objects, I'll go ahead with that, since it is easily reversed, and doesn't need the EB article to be changed (except to remove the merge banner). EdJohnston 12:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't so much my suggestion; I was simply adding the merge template to this article to be consistent with the merge template on the online article. I would support the existence of a separate article if it is notable, which I'm sure it is. If it contains no unique information though it is perhaps better to merge and wait for someone who is prepared to flesh it out. Richard001 (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot of EB Online

I've uploaded an image of EB Online (Image:Encycolopedia Britannica Online.PNG [sic]), which is much needed on this page. However, I'm not sure whether I should crop out the browser as I have, and I'm sure I shouldn't have shown the whole page. It's nice to be able to see it all, but it isn't really suitable for display. Should I crop it down to just what you can see on the screen normally, or to some specific point? Should I include the whitespace to the right? If someone else wants to do this instead, please go ahead. Richard001 (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've uploaded Image:Encyclopedia Britannica Online.PNG, which should be better. Is this one okay? I'm not sure what it normally says at the top, as I can't override that message. If nothing normally appears there we can crop it out too. I'll include it in the article now, lest it be deleted for not being used anywhere. Richard001 (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I anticipate there could possibly be some complaint at the use of a non-free image, but the article seems incomplete without any visual reference to the online form, and Encyclopedia Britannica Online does redirect here. Even if it had its own article though (which I'd like to see, if we can get some sources), I still think such an image would be appropriate here. (I don't know that anyone will object at all, but they might...) Richard001 (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the purposes of this article is to discuss EB Online, so a fair use justification ought to apply. The picture you just made seems adequately cropped. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What about the resolution? I'm not sure what's normally done with web images. I tried resizing it but it looked a bit distorted, so I left it as it is. Will this be alright? Richard001 (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The fair-use template mentions 0.1 megapixels. I think you've met that requirement, since the image looks to be no more than 200x400 pixels. Thus you should be able to mark it as low-resolution in the {{Non-free use rationale}} template, if I'm understanding it correctly. The screenshot is not very readable; the reader will mostly pick up the color scheme and the amount of information presented, which might be what you want. EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Britannica Online

I'd be prepared to help write this article, but I can't seem to locate many sources. Does anyone know of any? Richard001 (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here's one: The Building of Britannica Online. Richard001 (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EB WebShare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange#EB --Historiograf (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)