View Full Version : Farewell Britannica, and thank you
Platapus
03-13-12, 07:18 PM
The 2010 printed edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica is the last one.
After 244 years, the publishers have decided not to print any more columns but will focus on electronic versions.
Clearly a logical decision, but somehow I am a little sad.
Books are more than just a source of data to me. There was an artistic quality about them.
I have fond memories of flipping through our family's encyclopedia. Learning stuff just because it was close in the alphabet.
With the advent of electronic searching, I doubt future generations will ever experience the intellectual joy of, while looking something up, finding something completely new on the page before it. :)
Crikey I am old.
Anyway, I fully understand their decision. It is the right decision to make... just a sad one.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/13/technology/encyclopedia-britannica-books/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3
I have fond memories of flipping through our family's encyclopedia.
...
With the advent of electronic searching, I doubt future generations will ever experience the intellectual joy of, while looking something up, finding something completely new on the page before it.
Here ya go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random)
Understandable, but I hope that there will always be a place in the world for the good old fashioned hard or paperback book. I know there will in my world. :yep:
Takeda Shingen
03-13-12, 07:39 PM
I am also sad to see it go. Britannica was a staple of my school-age report research. Sure it is online, but there is something said for going to the library and photocopying the pages you needed.
I regret the loss of serendipity afforded by encyclopedias. While you were looking up information on a subject, you would flip through the pages of the selected volume, and some other subject entry would catch your eye. There is a moment of "Hey, I didn't know that..." that stays with you even after you have found the subject you are seeking. This is lost when all you have to do is enter a keyword and you are taken directly to the subject, without passing "GO" and possibly collecting the odd bit of unexpected knowledge...
I have just brought my 1990 set of Britanica's out of storage, where they were kept safe whilst my house was being re-wired.
The Britanica's helped my girls with their school work and are always availible, even during power cuts, of which we get more than a few where I live :D
Cheers
Garion
AngusJS
03-14-12, 05:05 PM
I regret the loss of serendipity afforded by encyclopedias. While you were looking up information on a subject, you would flip through the pages of the selected volume, and some other subject entry would catch your eye. There is a moment of "Hey, I didn't know that..." that stays with you even after you have found the subject you are seeking. This is lost when all you have to do is enter a keyword and you are taken directly to the subject, without passing "GO" and possibly collecting the odd bit of unexpected knowledge...That still happens with Wikipedia. By following the chain of links to other articles, I often find myself learning new things that are almost completely unrelated to what I was searching.
That still happens with Wikipedia. By following the chain of links to other articles, I often find myself learning new things that are almost completely unrelated to what I was searching.
Granted. But, I still have qualms about Wikipedia; I am wary of using Wiki as a definitive source in my research since there have been so many questions about the accuracy of the entries and/or cites. I usually have to go to the hard copy of the cite in order to verify the data is accurate or in context. This is something you don't generally have to do with a respected source like Britannica. Also, there is quite a bit less of the spectre of "tainted" or "slanted" information placed by someone to advance their pet theory or cause...
Besides, there is something about holding a book in one's hands that is the continuing result of over 200 years of tradition and pride of scholarship. Somehow a mouse click on a hotlink just isn't the same...
...
Takeda Shingen
03-14-12, 06:08 PM
Granted. But, I still have qualms about Wikipedia; I am wary of using Wiki as a definitive source in my research since there have been so many questions about the accuracy of the entries and/or cites. I usually have to go to the hard copy of the cite in order to verify the data is accurate or in context. This is something you don't generally have to do with a respected source like Britannica. Also, there is quite a bit less of the spectre of "tainted" or "slanted" information placed by someone to advance their pet theory or cause...
In the case of current events or politics, perhaps. However, if you look up jellyfish on wikipedia you'll get just about the same content as you would in Britannica. You're not going to use either for your thesis, but both serve well enough for grade school-level general research or internet forum discussion. Odd how I always mentally group those together.
In the case of current events or politics, perhaps. However, if you look up jellyfish on wikipedia you'll get just about the same content as you would in Britannica. You're not going to use either for your thesis, but both serve well enough for grade school-level general research or internet forum discussion. Odd how I always mentally group those together.
The problem of accuracy also occurs in matters of history; there is sometimes the intent to re-write or manufacture history, hence the oft seen caveat a the beginning of many entries that some cite(s) or other in the entry must be verified or substantiated. And don't even get into the realms of religion or philosophy; the disparity there is off-putting. So, yes, for some "absolute" subjects ("a rock is arock is a rock"), it will do, but it is truly "Caveat Emptor" for other subjects...
Oh, and are you mentally grouping grade-school level with internet forum or Wikipedia with jellyfish? If it is the latter, I see what Freudian analysis I can find on Wiki to aid you... :D
...
Granted. But, I still have qualms about Wikipedia; I am wary of using Wiki as a definitive source in my research since there have been so many questions about the accuracy of the entries and/or cites.
I see Wikipedia as a place to start. Look up your subject, give the article a read through. It may bring to mind things that you may not have thought of. Then, start looking at the citations, follow the links, and find more definative sources.
Platapus
03-14-12, 07:22 PM
For my doctorate studies, I use Wikipedia all the time. At the bottom of the articles is usually the source data, which saves a lot of time. So I use Wikipedia as a form of reference librarian -- it tells me where to look first.
Torplexed
03-14-12, 07:35 PM
This thread is making me nostalgic for my old Funk & Wagnalls set.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/305894520_7b90a5ac11.jpg
krashkart
03-14-12, 08:02 PM
...but both serve well enough for grade school-level general research or internet forum discussion. Odd how I always mentally group those together.
:rotfl2:
That almost made me choke on my pizza! :stare:
:rotfl2:
Platapus
03-15-12, 04:30 PM
This thread is making me nostalgic for my old Funk & Wagnalls set.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/305894520_7b90a5ac11.jpg
Hence the expression "look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls
But then I am dating myself. :D
Jimbuna
03-16-12, 06:57 AM
Pretty sad IMO....there's nothing quite like a uniform looking collection of volumes on a bookshelf.
krashkart
03-16-12, 07:13 AM
When I was a kid, any chance I had to sit at the back of the classroom I took because I could sneak over to the Britannicas during lecture and snatch one off the shelf. I got a lot of light reading done that way at school. :D The sets that our school had dated back to the late fifties or early sixties.
There's nothing quite like having that pool of knowledge right in your hands. Wiki provides the same pool, but it's just not the same to sit in front of a screen and scroll through the information. Hard copy Britannicas will be sorely missed by this former 'D' student.
Razark said:
I see Wikipedia as a place to start. Look up your subject, give the article a read through. It may bring to mind things that you may not have thought of. Then, start looking at the citations, follow the links, and find more definative sources.
Definitive sources which usually are in the form of a good, hard copy book... :DL
Platapus
03-16-12, 06:18 PM
Razark said:
Definitive sources which usually are in the form of a good, hard copy book... :DL
I was actually surprised when during my doctoral studies books were not the optimum source. The reason is that you never know how much, or even if, the information was reviewed.
Refereed articles>Peer reviewed articles>>>>books.
I can see why. Any yahoo can get a book published (politicians do it all the time).
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.