Editing Encyclopædia Britannica (section)

=== Other criticisms ===
The ''Britannica'' has received criticism, particularly as editions become outdated. It is expensive to produce a completely new edition of the ''Britannica'',{{efn|1=According to Kister, the initial 15th edition (1974) required over $32&nbsp;million to produce.<ref name="kister_1994" />}} and its editors delay for as long as fiscally sensible (usually about 25 years).<ref name="encyclopaedia_1954" />

For example, despite continuous revision, the 14th edition became outdated after 35 years (1929–1964). When American physicist [[Harvey Einbinder]] detailed its failings in his 1964 book, ''The Myth of the Britannica'',<ref name="brit-myth" /> the encyclopaedia was provoked to produce the 15th edition, which required 10 years of work.<ref name="kister_1994" /> Editors have struggled at times to keep the ''Britannica'' current: one 1994 critic writes, "It is not difficult to find articles that are out-of-date or in need of revision", noting that the longer {{lang|la|Macropædia}} articles are more likely to be outdated than the shorter {{lang|la|Micropædia}} articles.<ref name="kister_1994" /> Information in the {{lang|la|Micropædia}} is sometimes inconsistent with the corresponding {{lang|la|Macropædia}} article(s), mainly because of the failure to update one or the other.<ref name="library_association_1996" /><ref name="sader_1995" /> The bibliographies of the {{lang|la|Macropædia}} articles have been criticized for being more out-of-date than the articles themselves.<ref name="library_association_1996" /><ref name="kister_1994" /><ref name="sader_1995" />

In 2005, a 12-year-old schoolboy in Britain found several inaccuracies in the ''Britannica''{{'s}} entries on Poland and wildlife in Eastern Europe.<ref>{{Cite web|date=26 January 2005|title=Schoolboy spots errors in Encyclopaedia Britannica|url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/jan/26/schools.uk2|access-date=10 April 2021|website=[[The Guardian]] |archive-date=15 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210815161000/https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/jan/26/schools.uk2|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2010, an entry about the [[Irish Civil War]], which incorrectly described it as having been fought between the north and south of Ireland, was discussed in the Irish press following a decision by the [[Department of Education (Ireland)|Department of Education and Science]] to pay for online access.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.independent.ie/national-news/britannica-errors-spark-unholy-row-2045150.html |title=Britannica errors spark unholy row |work=[[Irish Independent]] |date=3 February 2010 |access-date=30 August 2010 |first=Grainne |last=Cunningham |archive-date=13 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100413151752/http://www.independent.ie/national-news/britannica-errors-spark-unholy-row-2045150.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Sheehy |first=Clodagh |date=4 February 2010 |url=https://www.herald.ie/news/are-they-taking-the-mick-its-the-encyclopedia-that-thinks-the-civil-war-was-between-the-north-and-south-27940930.html |title=Are they taking the Mick? It's the encyclopedia that thinks the Civil War was between the north and south |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112010448/https://www.herald.ie/news/are-they-taking-the-mick-its-the-encyclopedia-that-thinks-the-civil-war-was-between-the-north-and-south-27940930.html |archive-date=12 November 2020 |url-status=dead |work=[[The Herald (Ireland)|Evening Herald]] |location=Dublin}}</ref>

Writing about the 3rd edition (1788–1797), ''Britannica''{{'s}} chief editor George Gleig observed that "perfection seems to be incompatible with the nature of works constructed on such a plan and embracing such a variety of subjects."<ref>{{cite book|title=Supplement to the Encyclopædia or Dictionary of Arts, Sciences and Miscellaneous Literature|year=1803|pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=g3YBulnow6IC&pg=PR4 iv]}}</ref> In March 2006, the ''Britannica'' wrote, "we in no way mean to imply that ''Britannica'' is error-free; we have never made such a claim".<ref name="fatally_flawed" /> However, the ''Britannica'' sales department had previously made a well-known claim in 1962 regarding the 14th edition that "[i]t is truth. It is unquestionable fact."<ref>{{cite book |title=A History of Information Storage and Retrieval |first=Foster |last=Stockwell |page=116}}</ref> The sentiment of the 2006 statement was also reflected in the introduction to the first edition of the ''Britannica'', written by its original editor [[William Smellie (encyclopedist)|William Smellie]]:<ref>William Smellie in the [[s: Preface to the 1st edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica|Preface]] to the 1st edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica</ref>

{{blockquote|With regard to errors in general, whether falling under the denomination of mental, typographical or accidental, we are conscious of being able to point out a greater number than any critic whatever. Men who are acquainted with the innumerable difficulties attending the execution of a work of such an extensive nature will make proper allowances. To these we appeal, and shall rest satisfied with the judgment they pronounce.}}