Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica

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)

A redirect to this main article should also be added for the words "irrelevant", "anachronism", "insignificant" and "pointless". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.246.55.134 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

EB WebShare

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

EB goes Wiki - no mention of it on Wikipedia

"Encyclopaedia Britannica To Follow Modified Wikipedia Model" (Wired): "There is no word of the Britannica news in its extensive Wikipedia entry."

71.191.136.185 (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironic! I've added a paragraph on this. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How many full-time editors?

"Wikipedia doesn't have its facts straight in this instance, according to Panelas. "That's wrong," he told Wired.com. "The (correct) figure (for full time editors) is about 100." from "Encyclopaedia Britannica To Follow Modified Wikipedia Model". Can we check our sources on this? He may be inflating the number for promotional reasons, so I don't think his claim should be accepted as factual without independent verification. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Or he may be using a different definition of what counts as a "full time editor". Hard to tell. And "about 100" sounds too round. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I took my count from the final page of the Propædia of the most recently published version of the Britannica, the 2007 printing. I believe that's the only publication with a current count of editors. The heading of that page is "Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica", and its first section — conveniently labeled "Editorial" — lists the editors by name and position title, e.g., "Senior Editor". However, Panelas might have been using "editor" in a broader sense, such as "copy editor", or he may have been referring to the editors involved in the parallel electronic version? For my part, I'm willing to take him at face value. It always did seem implausible to me that such a large encyclopedia could be produced with so few people; even with 100 people, it seems like it would be difficult to keep abreast of the latest developments and to fact-check everything.

Sorry that I'm not able to help out with the Britannica right now! I'm wading through central simple algebras and the Brauer group to help Scartol bring his Emmy Noether biography to FA. :P I'll come back in a few weeks, though, and see if I can help out then. :) Willow (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That could be the editorial board, while he might be talking about all the employees who do editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, do you mean the Editorial Board of Advisors? They're listed earlier in the Propædia, along with other consultants. The staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica (check the history) have titles such as "Senior Editor", "Associate Editor" and the like; they seem to be doing the practical work of putting the encyclopedia together. If we count everyone on that page as an "editor", we get 74 people, which might make for "about 100 full-time editors" if we add in our imaginations some enthusiastic interns and some hard-working but uncredited assistant editors, or people working on the electronic version. Perhaps Mr. Panelas will drop by and give us the inside scoop? One can always hope for the gracious and generous gesture. :) Willow (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a list of their editorial staff members. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish to put in this text (can somebody do it for me in the proper way?)

"Recent development in the online version of Britannica" -Introduction of modified Wikipedia Model-

Britannica is opening up its site to the public, but keeping the main body of its content in the private domain, as the official version of the publication is concerned. They do so by editing all changes to its core base of information before they are posted online. The new version of their website will include content created by the site's existing community of experts and content created by 'common' users. Finally the content of both sources will be incorporated by Encyclopedia Britannica itself. By doing so this 'user genarated content', once it has achieved a "Checked by Britannica" designation, will be made content that belongs to the 'private domain' once again.

based on this source: http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/06/ency.html

By the way I love the comments on how the director of corporate communications talks about the wrong number 19 instead of 100 Brittanica workers. To me this shows exactly wikipedia's value. How much time did it take to correct that number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn du Pre (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A paragraph on this topic has already been added to the section on "Optical disc and online and mobile versions". Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

Would it be of any interest to the article to mention that the online version of EB now uses images from the Commons? See this and Image:Cambridge Bay.jpg. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a public domain image, so "from the Commons" doesn't make much sense. Surely EB has always used public domain images where available. It hardly matters where those images were first published. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I hadn't noticed that they were using PD images until I saw one I recognised. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do find that unusual. They essentially are trusting that user:CambridgeBayWeather is an honest, trustworthy user, and that they did actually create that image. For all EB knows, "CBM" just took that image from a random website, and for all they know, the picture is actually copyrighten. If it were a US government PD image, or an image that's fallen into the PD by age, I wouldn't find it unusual at all.

This image's viability in EB is solely based on the assumption that this Wikimedia contributor is good unless proven otherwise, completely contrary to the Wikipedia is completely unhealthy to knowledge attitude their editor has. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Criminals

The EB were convicted of defrauding minors in America in about 1958. They have a conviction for fraud in England in the 1960's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.211.191 (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC) They were convicted of fraud in England in 1964 or 1963. They described salesmen as "researchers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Huh? Do you have any sources? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

See Harvey Einbinder, The Myth of the Brittanica, 1964. This refers to the American

conviction.

Mistaken opinion in Britannica?

'Britannica-appointed contributors are occasionally mistaken or unscientific. [...] In the 11th edition (1911), an article on poltergeists, a then-popular topic of superstition, suggests: "there remains the chance that some agency of an unexplored nature is, at least in certain cases, actually at work."[38]'

In the absence of a reference to a scientific consensus that 'agencies of an unexplored nature' are positively ruled out as explanations for any so-called 'poltergeist' phenomena, I am removing the second of these quoted sentences. One is not asserting that poltergeists exist merely by stating that unknown agencies may be at work in some cases, which does no more than to state that not all 'poltergeist' phenomena have been satisfactorily reduced to known and generally recognised natural phenomena. Moreover, I am not sure whether the current trend of debate and investigation of paranormal activity warrants the confident (and perhaps emotionally coloured) assertion of 'superstition'.

I can probably come up with some better examples of failing scientific standards in Britannica from the fields of sexology and linguistics, and hope to do so when I have Britannica at hand. Ni'jluuseger (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Alexa, Wikipedia, and balance

Alexa is not close to being a reliable source of web traffic. They make that clear in their own disclaimers. A self-installed web toolbar is not a means of proper sampling. Also, the the toolbar does not count visits to secure web sites (uses of "https"). Presumably, Britanica's nonfree content uses a secure connection, while Wikipedia access is almost entirely unsecure. I think its sufficient to say Britanica has been substantially hurt by a plethora of free alternatives, including Wikipedia. Putting a particular number on that is not possible, and not necessary --Rob (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I had posted here quite a while ago, concerned about where this information was even relevant. After all, we're not trying to advertise Wikipedia, therefore, simply saying "If you don't like Brittanica, an alternative is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that any oxymoron can edit". I only bash on it because of how the editor phrased it, as if Britannica was NO match for Wikipedia, and suggesting that this alternative was better. This was not the only problem with this article, but I believe it's the overall accuracy.

Someone deleted it, obviously enraged with what I was posting - perhaps they were mad at the fact that I had simply said what was true? I mean, of course, I'm sure in Britannica they do say that the KKK had restored peace and whatever else in the Southern-USA, but no way would they be selling copies if it was their opinion alone. They go by fact alone, and what the word around those days was, which was in fact that the KKK were heroes. So saying that Britannica is racially discriminating is ridiculous. Wikipedia is no better, in fact, it's more inaccurate because anyone can post anything without any substantial evidence to have it backed up.

From now on, ladies and gentlemen, please just check the overall reliability of your sources, and discuss it here before actually deciding to add to the article. Remember, we're not about opinions of the contributors; we're about solid facts. Don't bash another Encyclopedia and try to compare it to Wikipedia - after all, I'm sure EVERYONE knows it exists by now. DiscardedDream (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As a fan of ancient Greek, I was thrilled to see your witty use of "oxymoron", a pointedly stupid person. Nice! :)

I agree that we're not here to advertise Wikipedia and we absolutely have to stick to the sources. However, some scholars—as described and cited in the text—have criticized the Britannica. I know that might be shocking, but I hope you agree that the Britannica is not perfect and never has been been, as its own editors have said. They grapple with many of the same problems that we and all encyclopedists do: trying to stay current, trying to simplify complex topics into simple formulations, trying to organize their writing into a coherent and flowing story, relying on sometimes biased and sometimes unreliable contributors, making editorial mistakes, etc. They also have the difficulty of staying afloat financially in these troubled times. I'm sympathetic to their difficulties and I foresee that Wikipedia might someday experience similar difficulties.

Nevertheless, we have an obligation to document the criticisms that the Britannica has weathered. Published scholars have noted that it has been racist, unscientific, out of date by decades, etc. and the article records that. When a published scholar does the same to Wikipedia in print, we'll have the same responsibility to document their criticisms and the evidence for it.

The Alexa thing is relatively unimportant, and there I'm sure that we can work out some compromise wording. Whatever the exact numbers, probably no one denies that the Britannica web traffic is tens of times smaller than Wikipedia's. To me, that fact seems notable, although the interpretation of that fact may be ambiguous. Willow (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Willow, but I've decided to be bold and remove the Alexa-sourced traffic comparison. The reported ratio might be accurate, but there is no way that Alexa is a reliable indicator, because Alexa toolbar users are a self-selected audience, which probably excludes many people using school and institutional terminals (source of 85% of Britannica's online subscription revenue) because of locked-down configurations etc. It is out of date anyway ( as predicted) and carries just the faintest whiff of original research. As you said it is relatively unimportant, I hope this is OK with you. - Pointillist (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Alexa can be useful for getting an idea of how popular a site is, but if we went by that for notability that would mean that most porn sites would be notable. You also have to consider quality traffic versus quantity which is something that can't be measured. A site might have low visits compared to another site, but that does not mean the traffic is less of value. I would think that professionals in the academic community would visit Britannica before visiting a number of other options that are available even if those alternatives are more "popular" based on traffic. Artblogs (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

We need to either rename or otherwise deal with this. We need to integrate criticism throughout the article and/or mix positive and negative reactions to Brittanica in this section. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

EB to have online editing by anyone!

EB Wikinews story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Squares (talk • contribs) 14:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. All edits are only "suggested edits". They can post your change up as is, they can outright deny it, or they can use the information and write their own original update. So really, it's not overly that different to their original "email us when we have a problematic article" method, except for a much greater commitment to turnaround time. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism Misinterpreted?

I undid this edit but I wonder if the IP editor might be correct, since this criticism doesn't seem to have been published in any mainstream source that I can discover. Possible self-published material? Tim Vickers (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the material for now, since I'm very doubtful as to if it should remain. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tim Vickers, Dhawan's article about misinterpretation of Hinduism in Encyclopeadia Britannica[3] is very authentic and excellently satisfies academic standards. You can verify the claims from Britannica Home and Student Edition 2009. As a result of this article, Britannica has promised to revise its article on Hinduism [4]. For further details, you can contact Brian Duignan, Senior Editor of Philosophy and Religion, Encyclopaedia Britannica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by All knowledge is free for all (talk • contribs) 13:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Where was Dhawan's critique published? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I had read about Dhawan's critique from a major Hindu website [5]. His article is available for free on the internet; I have read it thoroughly and confirmed his claims with EB's online article on Hinduism [6]. I am not aware of any journal publication but can't a self-published material be of excellent quality? Wikipedia is also an example of this. When EB has agreed to change its article after reading and praising Dhawan's critique then who can question the quality of his work. Do you think reputed media [7], [8], etc. would talk about it without substance. Don't they have the fear to be sued by EB? All knowledge is free for all 20:20 (GMT), June 1, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by All knowledge is free for all (talk • contribs)

It says in one of those sources that this was a letter that was sent to EB, which they replied to with a letter to the author. That doesn't strike me as a particularly good source. The letter has been picked up by a few websites, including a mention in Hinduism Today Magazine, but I'm still not convinced that the letter is a reliable source. I'll ask about this on the RS noticeboard. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

See noticeboard question. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Call EB +1800323-1229 or write to Brian Duignan, Senior Editor, Philosophy and Religion Encyclopædia Britannica (BDuignan@eb.com) to confirm it. I have done it. All knowledge is free for all (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The source does not appear to be acceptable, since it is a self-published letter written by a person who is not known as an expert in the field. I have removed it from this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as presented by people like Tim Vickers, is biased. Why is it so that news from Hinduism Today Magazine is not reliable, not even when it is about Hinduism? What authority does Tim Vickers, a biochemist, possess to judge religious critiques and magazines? If anybody takes the little pain of reading Dhawan's critique [9], confirms its claims with EB's online article on Hinduism [10], and consults it with scholars like Prof. Arvind Sharma, there remains no doubt. And the nature of his critique does not require a PhD in Hinduism; the argument presented there speaks for itself, and to such an extent that EB has decided to change its article on Hinduism. If a topic is not covered by The BBC or The Washington Post, it does not mean that it is not true. If HPI [11] requests for news, it does not mean that they do not do their research on the received news before publishing it -- even The BBC, The Washington Post, etc. accept letters to the editor, where people can send news and other matters.

My contribution in Wiki's article on Britannica ends here questioning the depth of research shown by Wikipedia. A story for you:

A doctor and a mathematician meet. The doctor says: 2+2 = 4, but the mathematician contradicts saying: 2+2 = 1. We say the mathematician is correct! Where is our common sense? One doesn't need to be a mathematician to claim: 2+2 = 4!All knowledge is free for all (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read our verifiability policy. I'm making no comment on if this argument is true or not, since I'm not an expert on the topic. All I'm saying is that it has not been published in a reliable source. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Forget specifically mentioning any critique. Why does "our" Wikipedia think that HPI [12], which is 30 years old with its magazine distribution in more than 60 countries, is not a reliable source? I don't see any point in HPI lying on a serious matter like EB's article on Hinduism. The website of Hinduism Today was not launched yesterday -- HPI archives take you back to December, 2000.All knowledge is free for all (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping verifiability policy and the above mentioned discussion in mind, I have edited the article.All knowledge is free for all (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The article includes the following "Online alternatives to the Britannica include Wikipedia, a freely available Web-based free-content encyclopedia." I love that fact the author felt the need to tell us what Wikipedia was! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.145.140 (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Running the numbers

Encyclopedia Britannica is said to have about 65,000 articles. It is also said to have about 100 full-time editors and 4,000 expert contributors. Contributors are said typically to contribute only one article, or maybe a small handful. This does not compute. Wikipedia needs to change its numbers, or to say more about where all those articles come from. Lou Sander (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Any use for this link?

It's old, but an interesting read.----occono (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

16th edition?

Is there any information whether a 16th edition is in the works? The present one dates back to 1974 and it would seem that it's life-span is nearing it's end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.252.5.66 (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Which EB editions are in the public domain and available for inclusion?

As most of us already know, much of the public domain EB 11the Edition (1910-1911) has already been incorporated into Wikipedia (as noted in this previous discussion topic). However, looking at this article's edition listing shows that all others editions up the 14th, which was published from 1929–1933, are already over 77 years of age, and may also be in the public domain in the U.S. Are any copyright experts able to elaborate on this? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

"Although publication has been based in the United States since 1901, the Britannica has maintained its traditional British spelling."

It hasn't really maintained British spellings; it has maintained enough British spellings to give it a somewhat British flavor. I see somebody has made a to-do list above which includes "Find official spelling policy at the Britannica." If that isn't done, we should make a list of examples; even if the source cited for the statement above actually puts it that way, the facts will show otherwise.

Maybe this has already been discussed in the archived talk pages; I didn't check. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What are the original sale prices?

What was the original price for any of the 19th or 20th century editions? Ideally, I'd like to know as many as possible, but at least once per 20 years (ideally).

Hoping to see what "Britannica Price / median income" over time looks like. CreedShandor (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Competition section" leading to unbalance?

I've noticed that this article has a section on the EB's competition, both print and digital. I worry that this is an example of skewing towards points of view. The Digital competition section, for example, discusses Wikipedia vs. EB. However, there is no such 'competition' section on the Wikipedia page, or on the pages of any of the other articles that this section links to.

Is this a bias? Shouldn't all of the various articles on the various encyclopedias have such a section? The section here comes off as just another subset of the 'criticism' section. Can they be merged? Sevey13 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This article claims to be of higher quality (FA) that the others you mention, so perhaps the other articles should follow this as a standard. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

racism accusation

The criticism article features a section about criticisms of the eleventh edition being racist stating that "[the eleventh edition was]citing the need to "control the negro", to "prevent any intermingling of the races" and "the frequent occurrence of the crime of rape by negro men upon white women."" This implies, or outright states, that the encyclopedia was citing a need to prevent said "intermingling of the races." However, when one reads the eleventh editions article on the Ku Klux Klan, the context of that phrase was a paragraph stating "The constitutions and rituals of these secret orders [the KKK and the like] have declarations of principles, of which the following are characteristic:...to prevent any intermingling of the races." I fail to see how this somehow means the encyclopedia was citing that this needed to be done; it was merely explaining the beliefs of the KKK, right or wrong. That paragraph also lists among these declarations and principles: emancipate the whites, and law of God. I do not see any accusations of EB saying the whites had to emancipated.

To take this to the extreme, it would be like accusing an article that explained what the principle tenants of the NAZIs were of being NAZI propaganda itself. Nitpicky perhaps, but I feel it is a valid contention. Fhqwgads (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not at all nitpicky but actually a serious problem, if you're right. If your reading of the primary source is correct, please make the necessary corrections to the article. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The sexism claim as to not mentioning the female editorial staff has to be treated cautiously as well: No member of the editorial staff is mentioned in any of the 29 volumes (yes I checked). From the sleve notes of reference 27 (Gillian Thomas, 1992, A Position to Command Respect: Women and the Eleventh Britannica.) we learn:

That 34 of the 1,500 contributors were women was widely perceived as signaling a significant breakthrough into the world of learning.

Hardly the sexist bias claimed in the lemma and sourced with this book. It looks more like the beginning of the liberation at the end of the Victorian and Edwardian Era. DrJunge (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The A and the E

Yeah I don't know if anybody noticed this but there something screwy going on with the "A," and the "E," in this title...even if this is done on purpose it should probably be removed as on Wikipedia we spell words in the correct english way. I'm just saying I'm against the way its being spelled out here.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.18.254 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It is called a ligature and it is done on purpose. It is archaic, not necessarily incorrect, and it is the way Britannica continues to spell the word in the title of the publication in 2011. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Although the Encyclopaedia spelling has common usage, the æ typoface doesn't. In fact, most common usage is just Britannica. Marcus Qwertyus 20:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts? Marcus Qwertyus 19:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the above IP was yanking your chains. Of course "Encyclopædia" is the original and standard spelling although in most of the world "encyclopaedia" is more common nowadays and in the USA simply encyclopedia. It's a shame that Wikipedia chose to use the American spelling.--ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 21:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That was so stupid

That goes down in history as the most dumbest complaint I have ever written. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that down. Yes I agree completely with you the way it's written down is fine please don't change it. I withdraw my earlier objection completely.I'm not going to remove the comment just on the wild chance that someone does agree with me but really I seriously doubt it. How could I have been so stupid. I apologize. -James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.18.254 (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Quote Incorrect?

"Robert McHenry stated that Wikipedia cannot hope to rival the Britannica in accuracy.[111]"

I don't think he actually states this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.64.150 (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR

An editor has suggested that this article be nominated for a featured article review. I am copying his statement below to allow editors a chance to address his concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails criteria 2c (inadequate in-line referencing). Snowman (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As explained in the FAR talk page header, a special sup-page for this discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Encyclopædia Britannica/archive1, where relevant comments should be written. Snowman (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The nomination is on hold pending discussion here. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that you could have been more helpful and more commutative. There has been a maintenance template on the article for over a year and I think that FAR should preceded without delay. Editors have had about a year to do the relevant maintenance to the poorly referenced section. I have provided User:Raul654 (the director for FAR) with a short report on his talk page. Snowman (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read and follow FAR instructions. [13] (Not sure why I was notified, since I did a bit of cleanup many years ago, but notifying article talk pre-FAR is a consensus part of the FAR instructions, so we don't just ignore it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User Sandy Georgia is one of the top dozen contributors to this articles by edit count, so I included her in the list for notification on their talk pages. The FAR project recommendation is to notify key contributors on their talk pages. Snowman (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I had not listed an article for FAR for over a year and I was not aware that the policy had changed. I think that a better explanation from User Nikkimaria could have avoided confusing me. I had notified lots of people on their talk pages and I wondered what talk page nomination I could possibly have missed. I wondered if I had inadvertently excluded someone from the list and I even re-checked to see if the person who nominated the article for FAC was included. Nevertheless, I think that an maintenance banner indicating that a section is out-of-date being on a FA article for a long time is adequate notification that can be seen by anyone watching the page, and any interested editors could have made improvements if they were minded to. I think that the current FAR guidelines/rules insisting on talk page discussion prior to FAR are being applied too dogmatically here. Snowman (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Out-of-date maintenance template was recently removed with this edit having been on the page for more than one year. Snowman (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The FAR is currently active at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Encyclopædia Britannica/archive1. Snowman (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge EB staff stub here

I didn't see a merge discussion started yet for merging Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica to this article. Just wanted to say that I would support such a merge. Gobonobo ^{T C} 23:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Do we really need all of those different criticial subheadings (bias etc.)? Particularily when most of those comments are about the 1911 set, I do not think we really need any references to issues with the 1911 since after all we already have a seperate article dedicated to that set. The criticism section ought to be primarily for the more modern sets with less of an overemphasis on just one old set in my opinion. Threadnecromancer (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer