101–110 of 199 posts
It's great for stabilizing my freestanding Ikea bookshelf, though.
>Later, I introduced the encyclopedia to my kids. They had never used a print encyclopedia, and they looked at me like I was an alien, almost as if I were speaking a different language (such a trite expression, but man, is it accurate). I had hoped they could use the encyclopedia as an old-fashioned reference, but so far, they have completely and utterly rejected it, not even expressing interest or opening it once. T…
The limitations of the old style encyclopedia are immediately obvious when you go to actually use it. Thousands of articles that only barely scratch the surface on the topic. Even then if you're interested in something even mildly obscure it won't be in there at all. Of course you couldn't use it as a source when writing a paper, and worst of all they didn't even provide the sourcing information for the articles that…
We had the WorldBooks, but ran across Encyclopedia Britannica in the school libraries. The Macropaedia was _far_ more in depth than the Micropeadia, or WorldBook at its best.
I don't find modern encyclopedias interesting, but the older encyclopedias (and textbooks) are fascinating. Specifically I love reading entries before major changes to a field. Like cells in 1950, right before the double helix structure of DNA was discovered. Or Germany in the inter war period, when everyone knew it was unstable, but no one was quite sure what that meant.
I don't know what modern encyclopedias are like (assuming you're referring to physical ones), but I really do think I learned more from encyclopedias and textbooks than from class when I was in school. Some teachers were brilliant and could teach effectively, but in most cases I really was better off just reading through the books, which I actually enjoyed. If modern encyclopedias are like Wikipedia, then I can see h…
The problem with the writing in Wikipedia articles is that they are often extremely detailed in certain aspects, because more and more people kept adding specific bits to it. But then often the overall cohesiveness of the article is lost, and it becomes hard to read.
The problem is that Wikipedia articles usually don't have single authors which would ensure the article as a whole is compelling.
There is actually an encyclopedia which does much better in this regard: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's a free online source, like Wikipedia, and it is limited to topics of philosophy, but it reads so much better. Even though many of its articles are quite long. Each article is written by an expert in the field. It is the encyclopedia in analytic philosophy.
One problem is that sometimes articles are slightly biased because the author has certain views, and this isn't at all obvious unless you're already an expert in this topic. Still, most articles are great.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The kids' reaction makes perfect sense to me and I grew up with an encyclopedia set in the house. Same, and same, and I don't know why the author ever expected anything else. You can't give them a hoop&stick and then complain when they'd rather play with, I don't know, I'm old and childless, some modern toy.
> I'm [...] childless So it wouldn't be too presumptuous to treat the chances as being very high that you've never given a child the gift of a very large cardboard box.
The World Book has great articles and I learn plenty from it too. One unique thing is the authors of each article are listed. When I read an interesting article, I email the author and engage with them further, which often leads to more interesting insights.
Now I think I might need to look for something even older, if there is anything available for cheap.
>Later, I introduced the encyclopedia to my kids. They had never used a print encyclopedia, and they looked at me like I was an alien, almost as if I were speaking a different language (such a trite expression, but man, is it accurate). I had hoped they could use the encyclopedia as an old-fashioned reference, but so far, they have completely and utterly rejected it, not even expressing interest or opening it once. T…
I remember being incredulous at the low price. My dad: "Wait until you see what they charge for 'B', kiddo."
>When she saw the large photo of a shark spread across the spines of the 22 volumes, she frowned and said, "I don't want to see a big-ass shark every day when I walk in the room." I've got to be honest, reading this I went through a similar range of emotions as the author: Surprise that a print encyclopedia still exists, curiosity about it, and a nibbling desire to buy one. But I gotta agree with his wife: I don't wa…
There is some value in having physical references, but for adults I would gravitate toward academic handbooks and such for topics that interest me. Could be ones for freshmen depending on my background, and ones from some years back should be okay for many subjects.
My parents had Encyclopedia Britannica and I'm convinced that was a huge benefit to me that I'm still realizing today. I was born in 1965 and can remember even in elementary school any time I had a question my parents couldn't answer we'd look it up in the EB. Pretty soon I was habituated to just go there on my own and look up anything. When bored I'd pull out a random volume and just flip through it looking for anyt…