Encyclopedia Britannica Ends Print Edition

[gedstrom]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/encyclopaedia-britannica-ends-print-run-005141357.html

I got my set 40 years ago while in the Navy stationed at Naval Air Station Alameda, California.

4,000 sets left in their warehouse. I sure would like to get one. I also have an 1885 edition that I purchased on Ebay.

I'm sorry to see it go. Let's face it: Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information.

GaryE

[alluvialfan]

Agreed.

I got a 1965 set of Funk and Wagnalls that parents bought for us.
I just looked at the Death Valley entry; interesting - there's both accurate and inaccurate information on the nearly one-page entry. 1965 is not 2012.

Wish I could get a 2010 set of Encyclopedia Britannica too.

We're stuck in a era where:
- a lot of old traditional stuff, like print, isn't selling due to new technology;
- the fee-based Internet alternative seems too pricey and too new, plus we 'cannot put our hands on it'; and
- the free Internet alternative is basically on par with supermarket tabloids.

These are definitely strange times, but every generation for the last 10,000 years has said the same thing.

[gedstrom]

There is a saying "You get what you pay for". I think that pretty much describes the quality of Wikipedia information today. Even mainstream news organizations have been caught getting false information from Wikipedia rather than doing real research. It is a shame because there are some VERY simple steps that Wikipedia could take to improve their reputation. First, I would prohibit editing of entries by anyone except registered, validated users. As it is now, any anonymous person can edit an article. 95+% of the vandalism that I see is done by unregistered users. For any article in any conventional encyclopedia, you can see who wrote the article and who the reviewers were. So why allow anonymous entries in Wikipedia? Second, I would implement some sort of review process for changes. Before being posted for the world to see, edited articles would be sent to a random group of 3 proofreaders from a group of volunteers among Wikipedia's established users. All 3 proofreaders would need to approve the changes before they would become public. Some of the vandalism is easy to spot, such as the insertion of their favorite profanities. But other vandalism, such as the subtle altering of statistics is much harder to spot. They need to demand references to support changes in facts.

[MojaveGeek]

I disagree with those who diss the Wiki. Though I hesitate to start a flame fest on what is obviously OT to this board.

When I moved in 1999, I insisted on bringing the fairly cheap encyclopedia I had owned and loved as a kid. After all, I was about to have another kid, and it seemed like a great resource. Truth: none of us have every opened any volume.

When I want info, I look online. For the vast majority of what I want, I first search the Wiki. For technical stuff, it is correct at least 95% of the time. For non-technical, I've seen some really scholarly work by people I know as experts in the field. For historical stuff, pretty darned good. For current political stuff, well everyone should know that any source on that, print or online, is going to show a bias, and pick accordingly. Hiking info? Go to the appropriate forum of course.

Now our model of this stuff is such that I wouldn't use what I find as evidence in court (which is sometimes why I am using the Wiki for research, legal stuff) - opposing counsel would try to convince the jury that it must be crap because the info was free and possibly unattributed - but that's just not correct.

Just my $.02 worth.
_________________
My Death Valley panoramas:
http://www.media.mit.edu/~geek/dv_panos.html

[bbb]

Wikipedia is usually very good for generally accepted facts and knowledge. My problem is that it has reduced the public lexicon on many subjects to the same 40-50 facts. We see this same set of facts repeated in common media and even some scholarly sources over and over. "In the old days," media drew from a much larger number of research sources so there was much more variety. That said, I don't think I've opened an encyclopedia in years.

[netllama]

Blaming wikipedia because the media has become lazy, seems like misdirected blame. If the media sources that you choose to rely upon are all spouting the same unverified drivel, then you owe it to yourself to select other news sources that meet your needs more effectively. Start by looking outside of the US, and you'll get different perspectives, as well as fewer AP or Reuters feeds. Some of it is also crap, but not all.

Also, just because something is free does not automatically imply that it is worthless. Keep in mind that a lot of the (best) software that many people use every day is free. Did you pay for your web browser, or to use this website?

Is everything on wikipedia high quality & accurate? Of course not, but claiming that Encyclopedia Britannica is automatically a higher standard simply because it cost a lot is also just an opinion. Also see:
"Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica (December, 2005)"
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Anyone who uses a single source of information is going to end up with errors in the long run. I'm pretty sure we all had to write papers in school, and rare was the teacher who didn't insist that we cited *multiple* sources. That was a lot more time consuming back when we had to physically go to a library, dig through the stacks, and find books to use as research sources. Today, there are often hundreds, if not thousands of varying quality sources of information online. If all your chosen sources are in agreement, odds are its accurate. Just make sure that all of your sources are not merely copying data from some other source.