Aabhas Sharma’s article “Britannica to give Wikipedia a run for its money” (December 13) has been written without verifying the facts. The access is limited and not available for the majority of cross-referenced articles. Even the limited access to featured write-ups does not provide full access to the sidebar notations. This website has a specific pay-for-access model because “free access” would invalidate and hurt its print sales. Wikipedia, on the other hand, does not charge or run any advertisements on its page. Also, it is dependent solely on contributions from users worldwide. It can be argued that the content lacks “maturity” and cannot be “reliable”, which is acknowledged as a shortcoming on a dedicated entry (https://bsmedia.business-standard.comen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia).
Knowledge (like software) should be free. Yes, it needs money but as the open source model has clearly shown, it is possible to make up for the shortfall through donations. More importantly, if the product is compelling and offers value for money, there is no need for protectionist noises. Further, the article doesn’t mention the terms of “engagement” — how Airtel Broadband can be leveraged to access and how it would benefit users.
Abhishek Puri, on email
Aabhas Sharma replies:
First, nowhere does the article say that Britannica offers free content to all its users.
Second, the article doesn’t compare the pros and cons of Britannica and Wikipedia. The idea is not to “promote” Britannica over Wikipedia. Wikipedia remains a source of information but there will be issues of reliability