In 1768, three Scottish printers began publishing an “integrated compendium of knowledge” that they called Encyclopedia Britannica (EB). In 1920 it was bought by Sears Roebuck, the US mail-order company, and moved its headquarters to Chicago. In 1941 ownership passed to William Benton, who later bequeathed it to the Benton foundation, a US-based charity. EB grew into a profitable enterprise whose product was regarded as the gold standard for accuracy and comprehensiveness. By 1990 sales revenues had reached US$650 million.
Yet within five years, EB underwent a near-death experience. What almost killed it was a product that most of its executives regarded as a joke, an encyclopedia on CD-Rom launched by Microsoft called Encarta.
The original content was licensed from an outfit with the Dickensian name of Funk and Wagnalls, and some of it gave trash a bad name. So Microsoft spruced it up, added multimedia content and made it easy to use. To the astonishment of the EB board, this meretricious object triggered a precipitous decline in sales of their gold-standard product.
Faced with catastrophe, the Benton foundation put EB up for sale. It took 18 months to find a buyer — a Swiss billionaire named Jacob Safra who bought the company for half its book value. The story of EB is now a business-school case study in how rapidly competitors can emerge — apparently from nowhere — in a digital world.
The First Rule of Business nowadays is that somewhere out there someone (and not just Google) is incubating a business plan that is based on eating your lunch.
But the story continues. On Monday last week Microsoft announced it would be closing all its Encarta Web sites (with the exception, for some reason, of the Japanese one) at the end of this year, and discontinuing sales of Student and Encarta Premium software products worldwide in just two months’ time.
Why? The company explained on the Web site: “Encarta has been a popular product around the world for many years. However, the category of traditional encyclopedias and reference material has changed. People today seek and consume information in considerably different ways than in years past.”
Translation: Wikipedia ate our lunch.
To see why, log on to Wikipedia and search for “Britannica”. Shortly after the announcement, a new paragraph was added to the lead-in material to the entry.
“In March 2009,” it read, “Microsoft announced it was discontinuing the Encarta disc and online versions.” QED.
Wikipedia’s ability to respond instantly to developments is just one of the reasons it has transformed the world of reference works. Another is its sheer scale. I’ve just checked the main page and it is reporting that the English version currently has 2,822,233 articles.
Yet another is its linguistic diversity — 875,000 articles in German, 774,000 in French, 568,000 in Chinese, 585,000 in Polish and so on. There is no way a conventional, centrally edited, commercially financed operation could match this.
It’s said that aeronautical theory says bumblebees ought not to be able to fly. Likewise, the idea that a useful, serious reference work could emerge from the contributions of thousands of “ordinary” Internet users, many without scholarly qualifications, would until comparatively recently have been dismissed as absurd.
Unwillingness to entertain the notion that Wikipedia might fly is a symptom of what the legal scholar James Boyle calls “cultural agoraphobia” — our prevailing fear of openness. Like all phobias, it’s irrational, so is immune to evidence.
I’m tired of listening to brain-dead dinner-party complaints about how “inaccurate” Wikipedia is. I’m bored to death by endless accounts of slurs or libels suffered by a few famous individuals at the hands of Wikipedia vandals. And if anyone ever claims again that all the entries in Wikipedia are written by clueless amateurs, I will hit them over the head with a list of experts who curate material in their specialisms. And remind them of Professor Peter Murray-Rust’s comment to a conference in Oxford: “The bit of Wikipedia that I wrote is correct.”
Of course Wikipedia has flaws, of course it has errors; show me something that doesn’t. Of course it suffers from vandalism and nutters who contribute stuff to it. But instead of complaining about errors, academics ought to be in there fixing them. Wikipedia is one of the greatest inventions we have. Isn’t it time we accepted it? Microsoft has.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS