<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wikipedia and Britannica swap operating models.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/01/29/wikipedia-and-britannica-swap-operating-models/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/01/29/wikipedia-and-britannica-swap-operating-models/</link>
	<description>arrogant pontification</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:03:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: S Wills</title>
		<link>http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/01/29/wikipedia-and-britannica-swap-operating-models/comment-page-1/#comment-11174</link>
		<dc:creator>S Wills</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:38:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/?p=161#comment-11174</guid>
		<description>The comments about Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia are interesting.
 
Britannica never thought that an open source product like Wikipedia would seriously challenge the credibility of its brand. They were wrong and Encyclopaedia Britannica&#039;s staff seriously misread the global market. They are now very concerned about the widespread use of a free Wikipedia vs their paid subscription model From a corporate and financial perspective, Encyclopaedia Britannica is in serious trouble.
 
It will be interesting to see if Encyclopaedia Britannica survives, but recent indications do not look good. It is the combination of a) the success of Wikipedia and b) improved search engines that has put financial pressure on Encyclopedia Britannica over recent years. Many libraries, schools &amp; individuals are questioning the need to pay for sets of expensive books, or to subscribe to Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, when the content is free on the internet, and often much more comprehensive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The comments about Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia are interesting.</p>
<p>Britannica never thought that an open source product like Wikipedia would seriously challenge the credibility of its brand. They were wrong and Encyclopaedia Britannica&#8217;s staff seriously misread the global market. They are now very concerned about the widespread use of a free Wikipedia vs their paid subscription model From a corporate and financial perspective, Encyclopaedia Britannica is in serious trouble.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see if Encyclopaedia Britannica survives, but recent indications do not look good. It is the combination of a) the success of Wikipedia and b) improved search engines that has put financial pressure on Encyclopedia Britannica over recent years. Many libraries, schools &amp; individuals are questioning the need to pay for sets of expensive books, or to subscribe to Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, when the content is free on the internet, and often much more comprehensive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

