Farewell Britannica, and thank you

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by vienna

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.

[vienna]

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]

Originally Posted by vienna

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.

[vienna]

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...

...

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

...but both serve well enough for grade school-level general research or internet forum discussion. Odd how I always mentally group those together.

That almost made me choke on my pizza!

[razark]

Originally Posted by vienna

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]

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]

This thread is making me nostalgic for my old Funk & Wagnalls set.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

This thread is making me nostalgic for my old Funk & Wagnalls set.

Hence the expression "look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls

But then I am dating myself.

[Jimbuna]

Pretty sad IMO....there's nothing quite like a uniform looking collection of volumes on a bookshelf.

[vienna]

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...