which will you choose - OPEN source or PROPRIETARY?

For me, I will choose proprietary encyclopaedia.

The information privodeed by proprietary encyclopaeida should be more accurate and reliable than open source. The proprietary encyclopaedia should be published by different related scholars and experts, so, actually, the information there are supported by strong scholarship. For example, professional editors of Brittanica keep revising and correcting the information published on the encyclopaedia. that kind of information have a higher credibility. However, open-source encyclopaedia is up to the public which mean everybody to provide and edit the information. So, who are the editors? And how reliable are the information? No one can guarantee the quality indeed! It is opened to public, yes, there maybe some elitists editing articles, but who can guarantee the qualification and the professionalism of that "elitist"? He just claims himself elitist on the internet.  And the thing is, Wikipedia allows him to edit the article not because he is proved that he is the export, is just because he is one of the public.  "Wikipedia in fact had a third more inaccuracies than Britannica." (from http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf)  That's why university students are not supposed to use information from, for example, wikipedia as their supporting document in thesis. The accuarcy of data is especially important when we need some factal figures.

Of course, to set up a proprietary encyclopaedia is more expensive than an open-source encyclopaedia, for example, to hire those qualified exports and scholars.  I know it sounds like very attractive that the open-source encyclopedia is free. As setting up a  proprietary encyclopaedia costs certain amount, so proprietary encyclopedia won't be free for access. Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, charges $70 a year for full access, actually, if it can be the only encyclopaedia in the world, then people should pay it anyway if they need it.  It can compensate the running costs of the proprietary encyclopaedia and it is affordable to general public in fact.  And proprietary encyclopaedia provides articles in good quality which is ethical to the society, so it is still worth.

You may say that open-source encyclopaedia is having open-editing approach, so different people from different countries or cultures can edit articles, it can satisfy any needs of particular cultures, so it is better than proprietary.  But, as Dale Hoiberg, the senior vice president of Encyclopaedia Britannica, said that they have more than 4000 scholars and exports around the world, so I think they can manage different cultural needs as well.

My another concern is the ethical matter.  As the articles on proprietary encyclopaedia are based on trained editors, fact-checkers and more than 4000 experts and scholars, so the quality can be guaranteed and should be higher.  Let's imagine, Wikipedia becomes the only encyclopaedia in the world which we are not sure if their articles or information are true or not, then a big question here: WHAT IS THE TRUTH? We do not know the truth forever.  It will become information flooding in the whole world but we never know if they are true or false.  It will not be happened if proprietary encyclopaedia is the only one can be remained.  Also, even feedbacks from readers will be checked by qualified editors before they are released,(from [Will Wikipedia Mean the End of Traditional Encyclopedias?] ) it can ensure the interaction, discussion and debate healthy, in good quality and meaningful.


This all my opinion, so please feel free to give me comments, cheers :)