I have tons of memories of reading my parents' World Book Encyclopedia growing up. Honestly, getting a print copy for my kids to browse through doesn't seem a bad idea.
Though the reports indicate that kids don't like them.
I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print
181–190 of 199 posts
Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print
#182Encyclopedia Americana was the thing to own and was IMHO better than the Brittainica. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_Americana . We owned the Encyclopedia Americana, The Book of Science (a 10-volume science encyclopedia), and a family medical guide.
Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print
#183>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…
Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print
#184>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…
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.
Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print
#185Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print
#186Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print
#187I 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.
Everything educational from 1895 to the end of WWI in the US is deeply, overtly racist - race is inserted into places where one wouldn't even expect it. I'm fascinated by reading the stuff. Especially geography textbooks.
Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print
#188Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
This takes me back. We had most of a set when I was a kid. I remember many times reading science articles over and over while eating cereal at the kitchen table. I guess not a lot has changed except I read wikipedia (or, let’s be honest, HN) instead. My oldest child is a voracious reader, but she mostly reads fiction/fantasy. I got her a Neil deGrasse Tyson book that she liked. This article reminds me that I need to…
I read all the scientific articles over-and-over and dipped into the other articles over time. Eventually I think I read much more than half of the full set. Not a bad thing. If we'd had smartphones back then I'm not sure I'd learnt anything useful.
Re: I bought the only physical encyclopedia still in print
#190>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…
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.
Now most dictionaries are online like encylopedias, again for obvious reasons, and the leading ones at least have etymologies:
The OED is the definitive historical dictionary of English, including its etymologies. Unfortunately it's not free, but you might be a member of an institution that subscribes.
The leading American dictionaries are Merriam-Webster, which has a free edition and a subscription-based unabridged edition (Merriam-Webster now is owned by Britannica, which was American last I knew), and American Heritage, which is free and which has a section on Indo-European and Semitic roots of words.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/
https://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/
Hope that helps!