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.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with