Editing Wikipedia (section)

=== Publishing ===
[[File:WikiMedia DC 2013 Annual Meeting 08.JPG|right|thumb|A group of Wikimedians of the [[Wikimedia DC]] chapter at the 2013 DC Wikimedia annual meeting standing in front of the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' ''(back left)'' at the US National Archives]]
The most obvious economic effect of Wikipedia has been the death of commercial encyclopedias, especially the printed versions, e.g. ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', which were unable to compete with a product that is essentially free.<ref>{{cite web |last1 = Bosman |first1 = Julie |title = After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses |url=https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com//2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/ |website = The New York Times |access-date = January 26, 2015 |date = March 13, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.gizmocrazed.com/2012/03/encyclopedia-britannica-dies-at-the-hands-of-wikipedia-infographic/ |title = ''Encyclopedia Britannica Dies At The Hands Of Wikipedia'', Gizmocrazed.com (with ''statista'' infographic from NYTimes.com) |publisher = Gizmocrazed.com |date = March 20, 2012 |access-date = June 14, 2014}}</ref><ref name="FT impact on traditional media">{{cite news |author = Christopher Caldwell (journalist) |author-link = Christopher Caldwell (journalist) |date = June 14, 2013 |title = A chapter in the Enlightenment closes |url=https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae22314a-d383-11e2-b3ff-00144feab7de.html |newspaper = [[Financial Times|ft.com]] |access-date = June 15, 2013 |quote = Bertelsmann did not resort to euphemism this week when it announced the end of the Brockhaus encyclopedia brand. Brockhaus had been publishing reference books for two centuries when the media group bought it in 2008. [...] The internet has finished off Brockhaus altogether. [...] What Germans like is Wikipedia.}}</ref> [[Nicholas G. Carr|Nicholas Carr]] wrote a 2005 essay, "The amorality of [[Web 2.0]]", that criticized websites with [[user-generated content]], like Wikipedia, for possibly leading to professional (and, in his view, superior) content producers' going out of business, because "free trumps quality all the time". Carr wrote: "Implicit in the ecstatic visions of Web 2.0 is the hegemony of the amateur. I for one can't imagine anything more frightening."<ref name="RType WP traditional media impact 1">{{cite web |title = The amorality of Web 2.0 |url=https://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/the_amorality_o.php |date = October 3, 2005 |website = Rough Type |access-date = July 15, 2006}}</ref> Others dispute the notion that Wikipedia, or similar efforts, will entirely displace traditional publications. For instance, [[Chris Anderson (writer)|Chris Anderson]], the editor-in-chief of ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired Magazine]]'', wrote in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' that the "[[wisdom of the crowd|wisdom of crowds]]" approach of Wikipedia will not displace top [[scientific journal]]s, with their rigorous [[peer review]] process.<ref name="nature.com crowds wisdom" />

There is also an ongoing debate about the influence of Wikipedia on the biography publishing business. "The worry is that, if you can get all that information from Wikipedia, what's left for biography?" said [[Kathryn Hughes]], professor of life writing at the University of East Anglia and author of ''The Short Life and Long Times of Mrs Beeton'' and ''George Eliot: the Last Victorian''.<ref>{{cite news |first = Alison |last = Flood |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2013/feb/07/traditional-biography-shakespeare-breakfast |title = Alison Flood: ''Should traditional biography be buried alongside Shakespeare's breakfast?'' |journal = The Guardian |date = February 7, 2013|access-date = June 14, 2014}}</ref>