Encyclopaedia Britannica is getting ready to release a new interactive site that will allow "participation by both...expert contributors and readers." The site will "become the hub of a new online community." The plan sounds interesting. It sounds like readers will be able to contribute to the site, even if that contributed content will be separate from the "core content" of Britannica:

Encyclopaedia Britannica will continue to form the core base of knowledge and information on the site, though the material created by contributors and the user community, which each member will control and be credited for, will be published alongside the encyclopedia. Encyclopaedia Britannica itself will continue to be edited according to the most rigorous standards and will bear the imprimatur “Britannica Checked” to distinguish it from material on the site for which Britannica editors are not responsible.

And then there's this:

Two things we believe distinguish this effort from other projects of online collaboration are (1) the active involvement of the expert contributors with whom we already have relationships; and (2) the fact that all contributions to Encyclopaedia Britannica’s core content will continue to be checked and vetted by our expert editorial staff before they’re published.

This is an obvious reference to Wikipedia, and I think Britannica has nailed the difference between Britannica Online and Wikipedia. Experts are still running the show here, and this can be a very good thing.

A lot of the trackback posts listed at the Britannica Blog are saying this is the "wiki-fying" of Britannica. I think I disagree. There's a big difference between a wiki and a site that is going to invite participation. The wiki model (as Wikipedia has employed it) puts up few filters when welcoming writers. Britannica's new site will keep the traditional filters in place by distinguishing between "experts" and "others." Is Britannica adjusting to the environment? Yes. And it seems like they're doing it the right way.