In late 2002, millennia after its inspiration was destroyed by fire, the Bibliotheca Alexandrina opened its doors near the original site of ancient Egypt's Library of Alexandria. The new institution launched with the heady goal of matching its predecessor's standing as the ultimate source of knowledge in its time. The project came with controversy, both for its $220-million price tag and relatively modest collection of 500,000 volumes.

It's ironic, then, that Wikipedia, another contender to be the ancient library's modern-day successor, debuted almost two years earlier, on January 15, 2001, with no controversy and only a paltry 600 articles generated in its first month. But while the Bibliotheca Alexandrina's collection continues to hover around the half-million mark, by this year Wikipedia has amassed more than nine million articles across 250 languages.

On parent Wikimedia Foundation's Web site, the online encyclopedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, speaks in utopian terms: “Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.” What makes Wikipedia unique isn't this ambition, however, but how it works in practice.

While encyclopedias have traditionally been the province of expert contributors and venerable brand names like Encyclopaedia Britannica, the online juggernaut relies solely on volunteer labor—anyone with an Internet connection can contribute—to the tune of more than 300 million edits so far. Writing in the New York Times last year, Jonathan Dee summed it up: “Love it or hate it, though, its success is past denying....”

That success has brought shockwaves to reference publishing, helping reshape the category.

John Broughton, author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, a recent addition to O'Reilly's popular Missing Manual series, says that publishers can't ignore Wikipedia's influence: “I don't see a way out for content that competes directly with Wikipedia at this point. They can't compete with an infinite talent pool. And it's current.”

Growing Pains

The segments of the category hit hardest by the increasing availability of information online are the core staples of reference.

The implications are obvious for multi-volume encyclopedias, which everyone concedes have largely seen their day. Take Encyclopedia Americana, produced by Scholastic Library Publishing since it acquired Grolier in 2000. Until 2007, the 30-volume set was updated each year. The publisher has said that there likely won't be a multi-volume print version when the encyclopedia is updated in 2009, with focus instead shifting to the online version.

That's not surprising, given that the constraints of print mean limitations on size. But even among online efforts, Wikipedia dwarfs its competition. The English-language Wikipedia surpassed 2.3 million entries last month; Britannica Online claims 120,000 articles.

Encyclopedias aren't the only place publishers are feeling pain, though. At the National Geographic Society, head of book publishing Nina Hoffman says cartography is another category hit hard by the Internet. “Maps and pocket atlases have been severely hurt,” she says.

But Hoffman emphasizes that more in-depth offerings still do well. “Big atlases haven't been dramatically affected in the same way,” she says. In fact, National Geographic will release its first $100 atlas, The National Geographic Visual Atlas of the World, in October.

The availability of online dictionaries has also had a big impact on the print market, says Tom Russell, Random House publisher who oversees Princeton Review, Living Language, RH Reference and Sylvan Publishing lists. “Much of the content on dictionary.com is based on our Random House dictionary. And while the Random House name does enjoy great respect and popularity in the print dictionary area, it's imperative for us to broaden our reach beyond print,” he says.

While reference houses certainly aren't denying the influence of Wikipedia and other sources of online information, most maintain that these upstarts can't compete with the depth, context and authority that traditional publishers can offer.

Jonathan Metcalf, reference publisher at DK, points out, “When there is so much unmediated information out there, there's a really compelling case for the authority and focus of a rigorously researched, expertly authenticated and clearly designed book.”

Of course, competition can be a good thing for stimulating new approaches and demonstrating relevance to customers. “Wikipedia, or any free information resources, challenge reference publishers to be better than free,” says Random House's Russell. “It isn't enough for a publisher to simply provide information, we have to add value. Yes, you can find free information anywhere online, but reference publishers still have plenty to add to the conversation.”

The issue of accuracy is at the crux of endless and passionate debates, online and off, about whether Wikipedia's offer of easy access to the most massive compendium of knowledge in human history really is making us smarter, or is simply another symptom of the decline of Western civilization. Even the site's most vocal supporters admit that exponential growth has brought serious growing pains.

Wikipedia's defenders cite a 2005 study by the journal Nature that examined 42 science articles and found that Wikipedia's contained about four errors per entry, compared to Britannica's three. Editors for the Web site were quick to point out that the articles in question were actually twice as long as those from Britannica on average, effectively reducing the error rate by comparison.

Still, plagued not only by innocent mistakes but sometimes by malicious, self-promotional or comedic vandalism, quality and consistency are undoubtedly the biggest challenges facing Wikipedia—and an area where traditional publishers can legitimately claim an edge.

Author Broughton started editing entries on Wikipedia in 2006, during a period of unemployment after his wife took a new job in Washington, D.C., and was quickly sucked into the site's community. (Editors fit a wide profile. Wikipedia:The Missing Manual was the subject of a lengthy March piece in the New York Review of Books, written almost as confessional by a Wikipedia editor, the acclaimed novelist Nicholson Baker.) Broughton's book is exactly what the title says—an instruction manual designed to assist would-be Wikipedia editors in becoming valued contributors, emphasizing the need to cite outside sources of information whenever possible. He agrees that increasing accuracy is an uphill battle.

“I don't know if English [-language] Wikipedia will get a handle on quality or not,” says Broughton. “Part of the problem is expanding by a couple thousand articles a day. The volume keeps increasing and, in that sense, Wikipedia is not gaining ground in overall quality.”

Broughton notes that Wikipedia's “cowboy mentality” comes with the wide-open territory, and that experienced editors and administrators are still trying to improve on the status quo. He also expresses strong confidence that print publishers are right—they offer many things Wikipedia doesn't, and doesn't claim to.

“Some things Wikipedia doesn't do. It's not a 'how to'; it doesn't offer judgment. By and large, it can't have image-heavy articles. It's an overview,” he explains.

Recently questions have bubbled up from the L.A. Times and others about whether an operation the size of Wikipedia as a nonprofit with no advertising can sustain itself mainly on donations. For the moment, though, it remains just that. “Wikipedia has no interest in keeping people on the site. It has no need to be sticky,” Broughton says, referencing the fact that Wikipedia often functions as a gateway to other sources of information—such as newspapers—in the form of the citations used to document articles. “To the extent that publishers commit resources to content online, a link may actually drive users there. There is a synergy with some traditional media in that way.”

Contrast that with publishers, who are interested in actively pursuing customers and keeping them within the brand. A media giant like National Geographic is a perfect case in point: last year, National Geographic combined its units into the Global Media Group, a move designed to enhance collaboration within the company. Already the publisher has participated in two high-profile, multi-platform projects. Books Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet and Grave Secrets of Dinosaurs: Soft Tissues and Hard Science are tied into larger efforts involving magazine support, Web materials, films, videos and lectures.

“The power of a multimedia effort that National Geographic can give a project is unique in the publishing industry. We want to be wherever people are,” says Hoffman. “Wikipedia is not in-depth, it's a quick hit of information. We are known for quality, accuracy and aggregated in-depth material. Our brand is unparalleled.”

Creative Synergy

The approach National Geographic has taken to updating and integrating its publishing efforts is reflected across the field. Even outside the obvious encyclopedia and dictionary markets, publishers are increasingly promoting their reference efforts online and incorporating multimedia elements.

For National Geographic, that can mean elaborate online book trailers for upcoming titles, showcasing the beautiful photographs and video the brand is famous for.

At Random House, Russell says they are using the online world in a similar way. “The bigger strategic goal for us—moreso than having customers purchase dictionaries directly from us online—is increasing the overall findability of our books and electronic content.”

At the same time, publishers are also playing to the inherent strengths of print, using lessons they've learned online. “We've had to review everything we do in the light of what's now offered on the Web. For new books, we need a look and feel that takes the reader beyond just the straightforward presentation of data, because so much information is now readily available online,” says DK's Metcalf.

Something everyone seems to agree on is that reference books are here to stay. Bolstering that case, even Wikipedia is getting into the print publishing business—the German Wikipedia, anyway.

In April, Bertelsmann announced that a single-volume Wikipedia Encyclopedia would go on sale in September, distilling the 50,000 most popular entries from the German-language site. Print editors will summarize and fact-check the articles. The publisher will give $1 from each sale to the site in exchange for using its name. Russell says that Random House—owned by Bertelsmann—currently has no plans to conduct a similar experiment in the U.S., but the English-language Wikipedia has already done some limited capturing of entries for publication on CDs aimed at schools.

Wikimedia Germany board member Mathias Schindler sees the influence of Wikipedia on publishing as largely positive. “People working in traditional publishing houses tell us that Wikipedia somehow revived the idea of the encyclopedia,” he says.

One-Subject Strength

It's certainly true that even though conventional encyclopedias may be waning as an outgrowth of Wikipedia's popularity and other factors, the one-subject encyclopedia or in-depth exploration remains strong.

This fall DK plans two of what Metcalf calls “category killer” titles: Art is a 612-page, large-format encyclopedia offering a chronological history of painting and sculpture, containing more than 2,500 images; while Animal Life is an inventory of animal behavior produced in conjunction with the American Museum of Natural History, and filled with photographs.

“This one-stop-shop style of encyclopedia has worked extremely well for us,” says Metcalf. “They make great gifts, and they're brilliant to have as the definitive reference on your family bookshelf.”

Also strong are reference books that actively add context and commentary, like offerings from Barron's that provide ranked lists in various categories, such as the forthcoming 501 Great Writers, 1,001 Days That Shaped the World and 1,001 Movies to See Before You Die (Oct.).

At Barron's, editorial director Kevin Ryan notes that arguing about what deserves to make the list creates passionate discussion. “A book like our 1,001 Movies to See Before You Die is for the list, the fun. You buy it because you have a relationship with the movies, and you have a relationship with the book.”

And if you want more information, you can always cross-reference the movies or the actors on Wikipedia.

Author Information
Bond contributes frequently to PW.


Expanding Subjects
These days, reference publishing isn't just for multi-colored books with boring spines and tiny text inside. As parts of the category contract or go electronic, the range of books being published continues to grow. For instance, no one would argue that National Geographic's Ocean: An Illustrated History (Sept.) or The Science Book: Everything You Need to Know About the World and How It Works (Oct.) don't fit the definition of reference works, even though they aren't encyclopedias, dictionaries or almanacs.

“The category was defined in a very restricted way,” says Nina Hoffman, head of book publishing at National Geographic. “The definition needs to be expanded and, in turn, the way stores are designed needs to change. It's underrated as a category.”

Kevin Ryan, editorial director at Barron's, sees changes in how books are being merchandised, and sympathizes with the limitations of bricks-and-mortar stores. “It's become more appropriate to look at reference itself as a genre. Still, we have gardening books, but do they belong in the reference section? The bookseller has to pick one at the end of the day, and they know consumers.”

That likely means you can find 1,001 Gardens You Must See Before You Die from Barron's in the gardening aisle, and their staple language and test prep books in reference.

But while some types of books are new to the category's growth, others are updated versions of old successes. Random House's Tom Russell is excited about the upcoming revision of TheAmerican Sign Language Dictionary—the first in 10 years. “Our author, Dr. Elaine Costello, is a prominent authority in sign language education and we have worked with her to bring our ASL dictionary up to date with hundreds of new signs,” says Russell.

Even more basic than that, plain old words still hold wide appeal, according to Marge Berube, reference publisher at Houghton Mifflin. “We have found that people are still very interested in language and usage, and that the consumer responds very positively to smaller chunks of information when reading and learning about language,” she says.

To meet that interest, Houghton Mifflin developed a series of 100 Words books—including 100 Words Every High School Graduate Should Know, 100 Words to Make You Sound Smart and 100 Words Almost Everyone Confuses and Misuses—that have sold half a million copies so far.

DK reference publisher Jonathan Metcalf points out that even though the category must move forward, remembering its roots is important: “There's an older, more conservative demographic that will probably always want a print-based solution, and it's important for us to maintain and refresh titles that serve that market.” Metcalf points to photo-heavy gardening volumes like The American Horticultural Society Encyclopedia of Plants and Flowers. “They are still great for browsing in an armchair... We don't want to lose that.”

Ryan at Barron's concurs that books are where it's at for many of customers: “The book interface hasn't been improved on.”