BoingBoing links to an article in Wikipedia written by Nikola Smolenski that shows just how much the free online encyclopedia's content would take up in print:

"Using volumes 25cm high and 5cm thick (some 400 leaves), each page having two columns, each columns having 80 rows, and each row having 50 characters, ≈ 6MB per volume. As English Wikipedia has 4.4GB of text (October 2006) ≈ 750 volumes."

750 volumes?! Taking a quick look at the Encyclopedia Britannica's website, the online complement for what is arguably the world's most well-respected traditional encyclopedia, this year's set includes 32 volumes with a charge of $1,395.00. Seeing as it has been shown that Wikipedia entries are "not markedly less accurate" than those found in Encyclopedia Brittanica, I would vie for Wikipedia's free information.

What does this mean for newspaper content and publishers? Well, since it has been shown that people often do not read long pieces on a screen, this doesn't necessarily mean that journalists should write longer pieces for the Web, leaving an abridged version for print. But even if the journalist has written a longer piece, why not post it to the website and have readers who prefer reading long pieces on paper print it out, ultimately saving the newspaper company money on printing and distribution costs?

On the other hand, journalists can decorate their reporting with all the bells and whistles that the Internet permits. Smolenski points out that the 750 volume calculation doesn't take into consideration the plethora of graphs, images, and the various visual elements found on Wikipedia, only the text. This means that newspapers and other traditional media can easily increase their newshole, adding value to their reporting with video, audio, interactive elements, etc.

Granted, many newspapers have already begun including such features on their websites. But are they using them to their full advantage, or are they just produced because they can be?

Source: BoingBoing, Wikipedia