Encyclopædia Britannica
The "Britannica" is the English-language encyclopaedia/encyclopedia that was in print for the longest time: it lasted 244 years. It was first published between 1768 and 1771 in the Scottish capital of Edinburgh, as three volumes. (This first edition is available in facsimile.) The encyclopaedia grew in size: the second edition was 10 volumes, and by its fourth edition (1801–1810) it had expanded to 20 volumes. Its rising stature as a scholarly work helped recruit eminent contributors, and the 9th (1875–1889) and 11th editions (1911) are landmark encyclopaedias for scholarship and literary style. Beginning with the 11th edition and following its acquisition by an American firm, the "Britannica" shortened and simplified articles to broaden its appeal to the North American market. In 1933, the "Britannica" became the first encyclopaedia to adopt "continuous revision", in which the encyclopaedia is continually reprinted, with every article updated on a schedule. In March 2012, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. announced it would no longer publish printed editions, and would focus instead on "Encyclopædia Britannica Online".
Encyclopædia Britannica
The "Britannica" has received criticism, especially as editions become outdated. It is expensive to produce a completely new edition of the "Britannica," and its editors delay for as long as fiscally sensible (usually about 25 years). For example, despite continuous revision, the 14th edition became outdated after 35 years (1929–1964).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", the encyclopaedia was provoked to produce the 15th edition, which required 10 years of work. It is still difficult to keep the "Britannica" current; one recent critic writes, "it is not difficult to find articles that are out-of-date or in need of revision", noting that the longer articles are more likely to be outdated than the shorter articles. Information in the is sometimes inconsistent with the corresponding article(s), mainly because of the failure to update one or the other. The bibliographies of the articles have been criticized for being more out-of-date than the articles themselves.