Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 199 posts

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#161

Post by manifoldgeo »

paulddraper wrote: post #150
jandrese wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Of course you couldn't use it as a source when writing a paper" Why not?

My college professors said that an encyclopedia article can't be cited because it's a tertiary source of information. That's considered too far abstracted from the original source of the info to be used as a citation. Primary sources are original documents like the U.S. Constitution; secondary sources are books about the U.S. Constitution that offer some kind of analysis by professionals; tertiary sources are aggregate articles citing multiple analyses, aggregating them together like a Reader's Digest but not contributing further to the discussion like a viewpoint or stance or new info.

All of the above is explained in this article[1] (I just lazily searched for one).

Sources: 1: https://crk.umn.edu/library/primary-secondary-and-tertiary-s...

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#162

Post by wtcactus »

For me, the idea of having it on paper, is also that the definition of words can't be changed to please modern sensibilities.

I reckon I don't have an encyclopaedia – my parents didn't have that much money growing up, and now, I don't have that much space available (not sure if they are even printed in my language anymore). But I do have a very prized (personally) big dictionary from the 80s, that my father used with his studies.

It's scary, to see how certain words totally changed their meaning in a few decades, and it's great to be able to go and look them out to get some context on a few themes. Be certain, that the Overton window, did move radically in one direction.

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#163

Post by jjtheblunt »

thanatos519 wrote: post #138
jjtheblunt wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funk & Wagnalls also had an English dictionary in the early 1970s with excellent etymologies, which seem absent from dictionaries when i've looked in a Barnes and Noble store.

I had that dictionary. So thorough that I did an entire research project just by reading definitions!

I've got it still and it's like 50 years old, and it seems it no longer can be ordered.

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#164

Post by zuminator »

vasco wrote: post #38
JKCalhoun wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except I don't flip to a random page on the internet. Like you, I am remembering the serendipity of the encyclopedia (and libraries for that matter).

There's a toplevel option called "random article" as well as the shortcut ctrl+option+x to go to a random article. If anything it's a way better serendipity generator.

There are way too many articles on Wikipedia for a completely random single article to be likely to be interesting. What would be better is if it generated a list of about 20 different random articles in a summarized list, like search engine results.

Perhaps even better would be if, instead is drawn from the entire Wikipedia, the list was generated from a pool of articles that are at most N links separated from your current page.

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#166

Post by heyoni »

gumby wrote: post #81
jandrese wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. This is a feature not a bug: encyclopedia articles are breadth-first introductions to topics. If you are just mildly curious about something you'll probably get what you need. If you want to know more you'll have a view of the "landscape" and…

I wonder if that’s wikipedias intent with their simple initiative. You can pull up articles by adding simple in the domain to get a less comprehensive article.

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#167

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

We had a printed encyclopedia growing up - I assume it was bought used, but don't know. My Dad was an academic which must be part of why he saw value in it. I forget which encyclopedia it was, but something pretty comprehensive occupying a couple of feet of shelf space.

As a kid I read the entire encyclopedia cover to cover from A-Z! Hard to say what I retained from that, but no doubt quite a bit, as well as the curiosities that were satisfied even if the content was later forgotten. I couldn't see doing the same with WikiPedia - there's something about the finite physicality of a set of encyclopedias that does seem to beckon for them to be read!

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#169

Post by njharman »

gumby wrote: post #81
jandrese wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. This is a feature not a bug: encyclopedia articles are breadth-first introductions to topics. If you are just mildly curious about something you'll probably get what you need. If you want to know more you'll have a view of the "landscape" and…

Those features are all much better provided by The Internet. Including finding and ordering a specialized physical book if you need.

Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print

#170

Post by somat »

Growing up in the 80's we had a set of 1960's world book encyclopedias. I would read them for fun. Sort of the same sort of thing as hitting random on wikipedia today, but in alphabetical order. Admittedly I suspect my love of reading is largely due to not having a tv growing up.

Some people say they read the dictionary for fun, which I never understood, dictionaries are boring. encyclopedias are much more interesting. (probably why I am unable to spell worth a damn today)

And if you were wondering C was the best volume, although I cant remember why.

Post reply on HN