Dead tree encyclopedias

[When pigs fly]

I was at a 7th graders "graduation" ceremony and while we were waiting for stuff to get started I was poking around in the library. They had a 15-20 volume pedia (wish I thought to remember the name) from 2009.

Just randomly flipping through it I compared it to en.wikipedia on jazz (with a focus on bebop), the Panama Canal, and The Whiskey Rebellion.

Now admittedly physical encyclopeidas have space limitation, but the article on the Panma Canal was 5 times smaller. Which version did I prefer? The one that told the story in a quick and concise manner -- which is what a reference guide is supposed to do. I wonder how much it cost to publish, even if you take into account the original costs from previous volumes. I bet it cost just a fraction of the amount the WMF takes in during just one yest of begging.

Before I left I grabbed "W" off the shelf -- Wikipedia did not have an article.

[The Joy]

I was at a 7th graders "graduation" ceremony and while we were waiting for stuff to get started I was poking around in the library. They had a 15-20 volume pedia (wish I thought to remember the name) from 2009.

Just randomly flipping through it I compared it to en.wikipedia on jazz (with a focus on bebop), the Panama Canal, and The Whiskey Rebellion.

Now admittedly physical encyclopeidas have space limitation, but the article on the Panma Canal was 5 times smaller. Which version did I prefer? The one that told the story in a quick and concise manner -- which is what a reference guide is supposed to do. I wonder how much it cost to publish, even if you take into account the original costs from previous volumes. I bet it cost just a fraction of the amount the WMF takes in during just one yest of begging.

Before I left I grabbed "W" off the shelf -- Wikipedia did not have an article.

Print encyclopedias have limited space and editors have to consider what must stay and what must go. The advantage, though, is that only the most well-written and well-researched articles will be included.

I expect my thesis to be fully roasted when I arise my slumber.

[Poetlister]

Before I left I grabbed "W" off the shelf -- Wikipedia did not have an article.

I wonder if Wikipedia has an article on that encyclopaedia. It does on some, such as Britannica, Everyman's Encyclopaedia (T-H-L) and Chambers's Encyclopaedia (T-H-L).

[lilburne]

I was at a 7th graders "graduation" ceremony and while we were waiting for stuff to get started I was poking around in the library. They had a 15-20 volume pedia (wish I thought to remember the name) from 2009.

Just randomly flipping through it I compared it to en.wikipedia on jazz (with a focus on bebop), the Panama Canal, and The Whiskey Rebellion.

Now admittedly physical encyclopeidas have space limitation, but the article on the Panma Canal was 5 times smaller. Which version did I prefer? The one that told the story in a quick and concise manner -- which is what a reference guide is supposed to do. I wonder how much it cost to publish, even if you take into account the original costs from previous volumes. I bet it cost just a fraction of the amount the WMF takes in during just one yest of begging.

Before I left I grabbed "W" off the shelf -- Wikipedia did not have an article.

Print encyclopedias have limited space and editors have to consider what must stay and what must go. The advantage, though, is that only the most well-written and well-researched articles will be included.

Each time I go to Britannica I am astounded at the level of readability that it contains. The articles may be shorter but they are well presented and to the point. That is hardly ever so with wikipedia articles which have a tendency to wander into trivia, and are generally bolted together from incompatible sources which rarely do any of the editors there understand. If you ever come across a wikipedia article that has a narrative flow it is almost guaranteed to have been copied wholesale from somewhere else.

[Vigilant]

I was at a 7th graders "graduation" ceremony and while we were waiting for stuff to get started I was poking around in the library. They had a 15-20 volume pedia (wish I thought to remember the name) from 2009.

Just randomly flipping through it I compared it to en.wikipedia on jazz (with a focus on bebop), the Panama Canal, and The Whiskey Rebellion.

Now admittedly physical encyclopeidas have space limitation, but the article on the Panma Canal was 5 times smaller. Which version did I prefer? The one that told the story in a quick and concise manner -- which is what a reference guide is supposed to do. I wonder how much it cost to publish, even if you take into account the original costs from previous volumes. I bet it cost just a fraction of the amount the WMF takes in during just one yest of begging.

Before I left I grabbed "W" off the shelf -- Wikipedia did not have an article.

Print encyclopedias have limited space and editors have to consider what must stay and what must go. The advantage, though, is that only the most well-written and well-researched articles will be included.

Each time I go to Britannica I am astounded at the level of readability that it contains. The articles may be shorter but they are well presented and to the point. That is hardly ever so with wikipedia articles which have a tendency to wander into trivia, and are generally bolted together from incompatible sources which rarely do any of the editors there understand. If you ever come across a wikipedia article that has a narrative flow it is almost guaranteed to have been copied wholesale from somewhere else.

Which is why, regardless of the cultish flailing, wikipedia as it currently sits is a failure of epic proportions.

[Malleus]

If you ever come across a wikipedia article that has a narrative flow it is almost guaranteed to have been copied wholesale from somewhere else.

Really?

Are you not concerned about the errors propagated by the Encyclopedia Britannica, some of which are corrected in the corresponding WP articles? Same thing goes for other authoritative sources such as the ODNB for instance.

[Randy from Boise]

Well, if this is the new Wikipedia-bashing/I love EB thread, time to chime in...

Let's all agree on this from the top: the electronic version of EB is terrible, sort of a trite and fluffy cross between Wikipedia and some second string hardcopy EB wannabe. It is not a stylistic masterpiece, it is not oozing with expertise, it is............ Stuff. Stuff With Ads.

I prefer Wikipedia's More Stuff Without Ads. Your mileage may vary.

I'm not sure exactly when EB went off the tracks, at what point in the past the highest quality expert-generated content devolved, but devolved it has.

Carry on.

RfB

[Malleus]

Well, if this is the new Wikipedia-bashing/I love EB thread, time to chime in...

Let's all agree on this from the top: the electronic version of EB is terrible, sort of a trite and fluffy cross between Wikipedia and some second string hardcopy EB wannabe. It is not a stylistic masterpiece, it is not oozing with expertise, it is............ Stuff. Stuff With Ads.

I prefer Wikipedia's More Stuff Without Ads. Your mileage may vary.

I'm not sure exactly when EB went off the tracks, at what point in the past the highest quality expert-generated content devolved, but devolved it has.

Carry on.

RfB

Perhaps lilburne has access to a different online version of EB than we do?

[Poetlister]

If you ever come across a wikipedia article that has a narrative flow it is almost guaranteed to have been copied wholesale from somewhere else.

There are a few good contributors. If you can find an article that is virtually wholly written by one of them, or maybe two of them collaborating, it usually flows well. Of course, such articles do deteriorate over time as other people come along and add (or subtract) their tuppence worth.

[TungstenCarbide]

Well, if this is the new Wikipedia-bashing/I love EB thread, time to chime in...

Let's all agree on this from the top: the electronic version of EB is terrible, sort of a trite and fluffy cross between Wikipedia and some second string hardcopy EB wannabe. It is not a stylistic masterpiece, it is not oozing with expertise, it is............ Stuff. Stuff With Ads.

I prefer Wikipedia's More Stuff Without Ads. Your mileage may vary.

I'm not sure exactly when EB went off the tracks, at what point in the past the highest quality expert-generated content devolved, but devolved it has.

Carry on.

RfB

Perhaps lilburne has access to a different online version of EB than we do?

The online version of EB is thin. If you go to your local library an read the bound versions from the last century, it's a different story.

[Malleus]

Well, if this is the new Wikipedia-bashing/I love EB thread, time to chime in...

Let's all agree on this from the top: the electronic version of EB is terrible, sort of a trite and fluffy cross between Wikipedia and some second string hardcopy EB wannabe. It is not a stylistic masterpiece, it is not oozing with expertise, it is............ Stuff. Stuff With Ads.

I prefer Wikipedia's More Stuff Without Ads. Your mileage may vary.

I'm not sure exactly when EB went off the tracks, at what point in the past the highest quality expert-generated content devolved, but devolved it has.

Carry on.

RfB

Perhaps lilburne has access to a different online version of EB than we do?

The online version of EB is thin. If you go to your local library an read the bound versions from the last century, it's a different story.

... and one of course that's badly out of date.

[greybeard]

The online version of EB is thin. If you go to your local library an read the bound versions from the last century, it's a different story.

... and one of course that's badly out of date.

Many articles on science, history, geography, and other topics do not go out of date. I still use my bound, 32-volume Encyclopedia Britannica several times a month.

[lilburne]

The online version of EB is thin. If you go to your local library an read the bound versions from the last century, it's a different story.

... and one of course that's badly out of date.

As far as TV programs and obituaries are concerned. Much of the rest is still relevant. And I'm pretty sure that they've never had Richard II as King of England in 1345, or a copy editor who reckons that basic fact checking is not part of the remit. Which sort of accounts for the crap you see when the CEs mangle the facts into nonsense.

[The Garbage Scow]

Growing up, I never cared much for EB. I always reached for World Book. I preferred the layout, found it more readable and more useful in general. No idea if it even exists today.

[Zoloft]

I read the entire Encyclopedia Americana volume set in our library cover-to-cover one year back in the '70s. No idea which edition. I'm considering picking up a set on eBay.

[Poetlister]

Growing up, I never cared much for EB. I always reached for World Book. I preferred the layout, found it more readable and more useful in general. No idea if it even exists today.

You'll be pleased to hear that it does.

[Randy from Boise]

The online version of EB is thin. If you go to your local library an read the bound versions from the last century, it's a different story.

... and one of course that's badly out of date.

Many articles on science, history, geography, and other topics do not go out of date. I still use my bound, 32-volume Encyclopedia Britannica several times a month.

What's the publication date?

I remember the version when I was in high school, published in the middle 1970s or so, as being excellent. I saw a later version once and it was meh. I wasn't sure if my memory was bad or if the product had deteriorated.

The electronic version is very not good in an Encarta sort of way.

RfB

[greybeard]

The online version of EB is thin. If you go to your local library an read the bound versions from the last century, it's a different story.

... and one of course that's badly out of date.

Many articles on science, history, geography, and other topics do not go out of date. I still use my bound, 32-volume Encyclopedia Britannica several times a month.

What's the publication date?

I remember the version when I was in high school, published in the middle 1970s or so, as being excellent. I saw a later version once and it was meh. I wasn't sure if my memory was bad or if the product had deteriorated.

It's a 1997 or 1998. I got it on eBay some years ago. I wanted one from after the fall of the Soviet Union. I think it's very good, as well as being a lovely object to hold and read.

[TungstenCarbide]

The online version of EB is thin. If you go to your local library an read the bound versions from the last century, it's a different story.

... and one of course that's badly out of date.

Many articles on science, history, geography, and other topics do not go out of date. I still use my bound, 32-volume Encyclopedia Britannica several times a month.

What's the publication date?

I remember the version when I was in high school, published in the middle 1970s or so, as being excellent. I saw a later version once and it was meh. I wasn't sure if my memory was bad or if the product had deteriorated.

It's a 1997 or 1998. I got it on eBay some years ago. I wanted one from after the fall of the Soviet Union. I think it's very good, as well as being a lovely object to hold and read.

The one I grew up with was actually leatherbound, not quite sure how that happened, don't remember the year of publication, but probably in the '50s. It was the quality of writing that could bring even kids to spend hours of reading. I've yet to find anything better when it comes to basic introductions about diesel engines or biology, in a way that's fun to read and doesn't waste your time. The clarity of writing was extraordinary. Later, I think it was 1976 or so, I started using a version that was divided into a 'macropedia' and 'micropedia'. It wasn't nearly as much fun to read, but it might have been because of the writing instead of the reorganization. Now that I look back, I don't actually remember that it was written in British English.

[Johnny Au]

Growing up, I never cared much for EB. I always reached for World Book. I preferred the layout, found it more readable and more useful in general. No idea if it even exists today.

You'll be pleased to hear that it does.

That is good. It is very hard to find good dead tree encyclopedias that discuss topics such as dwarf planets, smartphones, the Obama administration (in a neutral way), and the crisis in the Ukraine (in a neutral way).

[greybeard]

1994 World Book 22 Volume Set @ eBay - $200, shipped.

Lots of older ones, including complete sets of 60s and 70s down to about $25 plus shipping.

I had a World Book growing up, too. I always envied the EB. I suppose the grass is always greener.

[The Joy]

http://www.retrospace.org/2015/06/schoo ... e-jan.html

[sparkzilla]

I grew up on the 10-volume 7000 page The_Children's_Encyclopædia (T-H-L)

http://www.ebay.co.uk/bhp/arthur-mee-ch ... cyclopedia