Re: Wikipedia: an old-fashioned corner of truth on the internet

tpanelas — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:21:22 -0000

This article is full of inaccuracies. Virtually every reference to Britannica is wrong, wrong-headed or both.

The worst one is the assertion that Wikipedia "killed off" Britannica. What on earth are you talking about? Britannica is alive and profitable; we’ve got products and services online and for mobile devices used by millions of consumers, educators, students, and parents around the world. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is published in a number of widely used digital forms. Killed off? No.

Your suggestion that Wikipedia brought about the demise of the Britannica print set is equally wrong and shows ignorance of what actually happened to printed encyclopedias. Sales of the Britannica print set plunged in the 1990s (before Wikipedia existed) from over 100,000 in 1990 to about 3,000 in 1996. This was caused by the proliferation of PCs, CD-ROMs, and the Internet. The sales figures in the chart that appears with the article, which are apparently an attempt to bolster your case, are simply wrong. If you want the correct historical sales figures for the Britannica print set, see "How I Did It . . . Encyclopædia Britannica’s President on Killing Off a 244-Year-Old Product" in the March 2013 issue of Harvard Business Review. The Britannica print set was a moribund product by the turn of the century. Again, to repeat, because repetition seems necessary here, before Wikipedia existed.

https://hbr.org/2013/03/enc...

And Nature did not find "a tie" in its 2005 comparison of Britannica and Wikipedia; Wikipedia had a third more errors.

You’re entirely welcome to your affection for Wikipedia and, for that matter, any antipathy you may harbor toward our company for not being Wikipedia. You’ve got an obligation, nevertheless, to get your facts straight and not publish falsehoods. The facts about Britannica’s history and business are not hard to find and verify. A call or an e-mail to our office would have done it. You really couldn’t be bothered?

Tom Panelas
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Re: Do I Qualify?

tpanelas — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:00:08 -0000

You should have it now.

Re: Do I Qualify?

tpanelas — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:58:03 -0000

Does this e-mail address work? If so I'll send you the subscription
stuff right away.

Tom

Re: Do I Qualify?

tpanelas — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:51:35 -0000

Yes, you qualify. Tom (@ Britannica)

Disqus - Latest Comments for tpanelas

Re: Wikipedia: an old-fashioned corner of truth on the internet

Re: Do I Qualify?

Re: Do I Qualify?

Re: Do I Qualify?