The past few years have seen the rise of user-contributed content, with Wikipedia being a high-profile example of this phenomenon. The appearance of Wikipedia entries atop the list of sites returned by search engines, and the corresponding appearance of these entries in places like term papers, has triggered a debate regarding the reliability of its content. Leading the charge against Wikipedia has been The Encyclopedia Britannica, which relies on expert, edited contributions for its content. Last week, however, Britannica announced what might be viewed as the unthinkable: it's implementing a tightly controlled system that just might allow users to generate some of its content.
The new policy was announced via a set of two posts in the Britannica blog. The posts make it very clear that Britannica is not embracing the wiki model to any significant degree. The role of the Britannica staff in policing its content will remain: "We are not abdicating our responsibility as publishers or burying it under the now-fashionable 'wisdom of the crowds.'" The majority of its content will continue to be generated by experts and subjected to editing. The experts and editors, in Britannica's view, "can make astute judgments that cut through the cacophony of competing and often confusing viewpoints." This willingness to interject expert judgement is what will ostensibly continue to separate it from Wikipedia, which is accused of settling, "for something bland and less informative, what is sometimes termed a 'neutral point of view.'"
What's new in the system being announced is that Britannica's experts will come a bit closer to the scrum. Contributors to the Encyclopedia are being encouraged to create non-anonymous profiles on Britannica's site, in which they describe their qualifications and list their other works on the topics. These experts will get unidentified incentives to generate new content there; comments on Britannica entries, updated versions of their own, or possible new content all seem fair game.
Regular users can also get involved, provided they too are willing to provide a full identity. Users can comment on the work done by experts, or may simply create mashups of Britannica content and their own writing (and, possibly, the writing of other users). The experts can choose to incorporate any of the commentary they find useful and accurate. Britannica's editors will be on the watch for any relevant updates to their material, and have the option of incorporating user-generated content if they feel it's of sufficient quality and importance. The user will be fully credited for their contribution.
Britannica has a beta of its new site online, and will be rolling its new user-focused features out slowly; it warns readers to expect some glitches.
For this system, which Britannica describes as "collaborative-but-not-democratic," to work, it will have to overcome a couple of challenges. The expert community will have to engage a variety of contributors, many of whom will not be providing valuable insight. Users will be expected to contribute knowing their work will face a lot of hurdles before their work can ever reach the wider public prominence provided by incorporation into an encyclopedia entry. The pull that draws people to donate user-contributed content is going to be pretty low if that material never makes it to the content stage.