We all know the problems Wikipedia had in the past over misinformation and their efforts to correct errors in their community-generated information. Now from Merriam-Webster, a fairly well-respected source of information comes what the company calls the Visual Dictionary Online. It reminds more of a great encyclopedia, albeit limited to the amount of topics it covers, more than just a dictionary. It is a great t We all know the problems Wikipedia had in the past over misinformation and their efforts to correct errors in their community-generated information. Now from Merriam-Webster, a fairly well-respected source of information comes what the company calls the Visual Dictionary Online.It reminds more of a great encyclopedia, albeit limited to the amount of topics it covers, more than just a dictionary. It is a great teaching source for those who just like learning new things or for those in some form of educational environment. My guess is the site will become extremely popular and its popularity will embolden not only Merriam-Webster and its partner, QA International, that creates the graphics, to expand its topics but other encyclopedia companies as well will follow.Yes, I know Britannica has a site but they charge $70 a year, for unlimited access to their 32 volumes. Not a bad price but if there are enough potential advertisers that could very well change to a free service.Wikipedia has the benefit of immediacy. This is what we now call being in real time. Traditionally a publisher of encyclopedias uses scores of editors and takes years to incorporate changes.Nevertheless shouldn’t there be a premium placed on accuracy over immediacy? I’m not naïve enough to believe everything I read, even from a so-called expert, but at the same time, I think being well-informed requires us to trust those experts who take the trouble to become informed to the nth degree in their specialized field. Technology Industry