Encyclopedias gather dust in Internet age

[DustMolecule]

<snip>
March 8, 2004 | SAN JOSE, Calif. -- These are lonely days for encyclopedias. At libraries, the volumes sit ignored for days on end as information-seeking patrons tap busily away at nearby computers.

Even in the warmth of a loving home, that set of hard-bound books that once represented the crown tool of a good education gets the cold shoulder.

In the age of the Internet, encyclopedias are gathering dust, and most families with young children don't even consider buying the space-hogging printed sets anymore. Even digital versions struggle for attention.

Voluminous sets are still printed, but mostly only for institutions. The encyclopedia companies are also targeting consumers with more concise and less expensive reference books.
<snip>
http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2004/03/08/encyclopedias/index.html

----------------

*sniff* I love and cherish my set of encyclopedia's. Our family didn't buy any 'big gifts' for each other for a year in order to buy our set a few years ago (and asked the relatives to send b-day money for the encyclopedia - instead of 'dumb stuff that gets quickly discarded'). It has well been worth it.

I'm a big internet user (and my kids are too), but there are many many times when the encyclopedia is the best and fastest way to get exactly what we want - and feel confident that it's accurate (it's still true that anybody can post anything on the internet w/o being responsible for accuracy).

Not to mention that on the internet, you have to pretty much 'know what you want to search for'. It's fun to pick up a volume of the encyclopedia and just browse through it and learn about things you 'didn't know you didn't know'.

I think that the demise of encyclopedia's (or the relinquishment to only the biggest learning libraries), instead of sitting in people's homes, further contributes to the 'dumbing down of America'. Call me old-fashioned if you want, I guess I'm 'guilty as charged'. But the interent can't replace good, responsible reference books and books can't do all that technology can. They should live in compliment to each other.


Mods - please move to the lounge (or elsewhere) if you think it's more appropriate.

[TinaTyson]

1. I disagree.

A printed set cannot compete with the amount of information or the ability for timely updates and additions that a place like http://wikipedia.org can supply.

[trotsky]

2. Very true.

And then there's encyclopedias on CD-ROM / DVD. Up-to-date, plus hyperlinked so you can jump around topics as you are browsing.

To be honest, as long as computers are available at the library with encyclopedia-on-CD, I don't know there is a reason to waste the paper printing them anymore.

[DustMolecule]

3. Well, I did say compliment, not compete....

It's still hard to curl up in bed with my laptop, and it just doesn't have the same "feel" as a book. Also, we're a two computer family (but there's four of us). We still use our books a lot.

[DustMolecule]

4. I think it was the word 'dust' that caught my attention

n/t

[Skittles]

5. yes but Tina

I think a child can learn by having to research with a computer AND without. I've seen studies showing, for example, students bombing math tests when they were given calculaters that were rigged to produce wrong results. The problem was, logic should have TOLD them something was wrong with some of the answers they were giving. But they simply behaved like robots because they are used to allowing computers to do their work and NOT QUESTIONING the results.

[mobuto]

6. Well, no

Wikipedia may be more timely, but it doesn't have anything like the depth of information the Britannica has. And even more importantly, its filled with factual mistakes.

[Nihil]

7. Very true

A printed Britannica will have been far more closely reviewed, checked
and proof-read than any on-line resource.

(Good grief ... I agreed with Mobuto! :hi:)

In addition, although some people may view "timely updates" as a major
benefit, bear in mind that this also equates to "timely revisions" and
so to "timely censorship".

It is far harder to retroactively adjust a distributed, hard-copy set of
cross-referenced books than a single, software-controlled dataset.
It is also far easier to ensure that your controlled dataset is the one
that gives out the information for the mass market (cf the Google rating
fiasco).

Nihil