Britannica is going paperless

A recent article explains Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc's change to go completely digital. The printed set has been around for almost 250 years--a venerable collection of the knowledge of the ages, and I'm sure a very interesting record of how information changed over the course of its printed history (perhaps an enlightening study could be made of this?). Just seeing what someone 200 years ago thought was important to know would be fascinating. The social changes that have come about during its existence--and all being documented to some effect simply by what is included and how it's discussed--are staggering in number.

But enough reminiscing. The company's decision is certainly keeping up with the times. It joins many other well-known and well-respected subscription services that are available only online (many research databases come to mind). And I can understand why Britannica made the decision: the print version is not in high demand and could be seen as an "outdated" mode of information. The article mentioned above states that the vast majority of the company's sales are through its digital version. Good business dictates that the company "give the people what they want," which their sales show is, by and large, the online encyclopedia. And I do have to say that I like the online version and see it as a valuable resource that libraries should try to provide.

And yet such a decision bothers me somewhat. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is a great source of information, and with the death of the print version the "have-nots" in our society will be left without an alternative. Many people accept that online sources are the new reality and assume that everyone is "plugged in," when in actuality we are not in a time when the Internet is accessible to all. So how do we serve them? Libraries do their part to provide Internet services as much as they can to as many patrons as they can, but there are many the Internet still does not reach. Patrons from low-income families and libraries serving low-income populations may lose out here. Libraries that can't afford an annual subscription (but could afford to purchase the set every 3-4 years) will soon be left with outdated material they will need to find a substitution for--which may not be as well-written or as comprehensive.

In addition, I would like to humbly point out the inherent problem of relying too much on digital sources. A printed source has a permanence in its physicality that digital sources will never have; they can be too easily changed--or lost. (Think about this for a moment--who owns a digital copy of The Hunger Games on a Kindle or Nook? The person who purchased it? The company that provided it? The publisher? The author? Consider that Amazon can remove any book you purchase for a Kindle with no more compensation that a refund, regardless if you wanted to keep that book. This has happened to Kindle owners on a number of occasions and has helped to create a debate about digital ownership and access to controversial materials.) Aside from digital ownership issues, there another issue to consider. Computers are not perfect, and access can be affected by faulty devices trying to access the resource or the server used by the resource going down or experiencing functionality issues. What happens when everything is digital and the servers go down? Does that mean we won't be able to access anything?

As much as I like the possibilities that digital and online services provide (and I use them on a daily basis), I hope that print resources stick around for many more years.