Even at this late hour in getting to this post, I can certainly agree with what you say here. Young learners need to learn to be critical of everything they read, listen to or see. This applies equally well to radio as TV, newspapers, local government circulars etc.

Wikipedia is written by people who belong to the same species that write articles for newspapers and magazines, produce programs for TV and publish YouTube videos. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is no more of an authentic source of information than Wikipedia. Some of its articles are flawed and exhibit bias. Yet I let my children use it all the time.

Catchya later

“The big lesson of our wikipedia-era is not that amateur information is potentially false, but rather that all information must be questioned. The last week as produced one of those lessons that information literacy educators will be using a case studies for years: Elsevier admits to producing a fake journal that looked like it was peer reviewed, but was sponsored by Merck. And then, only a few days later, it’s revealed that Elsevier published at least six journals in a similar “sponsored by” method. “

What this highlights is not ‘We can’t believe anything on the Internet’, nor, ‘We can’t believe anything at all’; rather that we and our learners need questioning minds with the ability to discern failures of logic, as well as not accepting the Emperor’s new clothes just because the words come from someone we think knows better / more than us.

Encyclopaedia Britannica did not think that an open source product like Wikipedia would significantly challenge the credibility of its brand. They were dead wrong and Encyclopaedia Britannica’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 significant 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 & 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 much more comprehensive.

Over the next year or so we will see the continued demise of Britannica as it becomes ever less relevant in a Wikipedia-dominated landscape.