Encyclopaedia Britannica ends print forever

[Joseph F]

Just remember... it's pronounced En-cy-clo-pA-dia. Ahh British and their unnecessary silent vowels.

That isn't a silent vowel. They just separated "a" and "e" from "æ" as the character became archaic.
(Which is pronounced like the "a" in "flat" in old English)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Æ#Old_English

 

[Sureshot324]

This might not be a bad investment they stop printing them forever. A mint condition set of 2012 Britannica Encyclopaedia could be worth a lot 20 years from now. Not really willing to risk $1400 though.

 

[PingSpike]

Where am I going to get me 20 year out of date information for my science report on bees now?

Seriously, at $1400 a set I'm surprised they were still selling any of them. Books are god damn pain in the ass. They take up a ton of space and are hard to find information in.

 

[SZLiao214]

I had no idea that those that set of encyclopedias started that long ago.

I don't see much use for them with how much information is readily available on the internet.

 

[BoberFett]

and nothing of value was lost...

 

[shortylickens]

and nothing of value was lost...

You know diddly. Its good stuff.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You know diddly. Its good stuff.

The guys in charge of the Encyclopædia Britannica obviously didn't find it to be of value. :hmm:

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

We had Compton's Encyclopedia growing up. I read the entire thing by age 12 or so. I shudder to think about the generation growing up with "Wiki."

 

[Skel]

I can’t say I see any value in a printed book set like these, but I do feel an odd nostalgic vibe when I learn they’re going out of print. Strange to see something I had and used as a child just not existing anymore.

 

[lxskllr]

I shudder to think about the generation growing up with "Wiki."

I'll take wide review over a golden pedestal every time.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I'll take wide review over a golden pedestal every time.

That's the problem with Wiki in a nutshell. Everyone is biased. With Wiki, you don't have a clue what their bias is. I like to know something about the writer presenting the "facts."

 

[lxskllr]

That's the problem with Wiki in a nutshell. Everyone is biased. With Wiki, you don't have a clue what their bias is. I like to know something about the writer presenting the "facts."

With Wikipedia, you can track down the editors if you care enough to do so. The ethereal nature of Wikipedia encourages skepticism, and further study. A printed book gives the perception of authority, and fosters trust. In neither case should the article be treated as authoritative, and incorrect information can be fixed in the case of Wikipedia. With a book, it's set in stone forever, or until the year book comes out if they actually care to fix it.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

With Wikipedia, you can track down the editors if you care enough to do so. The ethereal nature of Wikipedia encourages skepticism, and further study. A printed book gives the perception of authority, and fosters trust. In neither case should the article be treated as authoritative, and incorrect information can be fixed in the case of Wikipedia. With a book, it's set in stone forever, or until the year book comes out if they actually care to fix it.

You can track down editors but, you may or may not be able to determine their bias and, you have to do it with every entry. With printed encyclopedias you have a much smaller group of editors whose bias is well known. The 'devil you know' is always better than the devil you don't know. Plus, unless you have a set at home, reading the encyclopedia and using the library puts you light years ahead of the basement dwelling 'Wiki' users.

 

[SKORPI0]

Errors in the Encyclopedia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia

Reliability of Wikipedia :\

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Encyclopedias aren't random collections of "facts," they are a tapestry created at a specific time in history by specific editors/contributors who weave a history writ large of those things, people and, ideas that affect our "current" culture. 'Wiki' is limited by its ongoing creation versus the 'snapshot' given by written encyclopedias since little accessed pages may not be updated but, due to Wiki's immediate nature, they are taken as such. Wiki has no common thought, plan or, bias to give insight to it's articles. There is no such thing as the 'Truth' and presenting articles without context is Wiki's greatest failing.

 

[lxskllr]

Encyclopedias aren't random collections of "facts," they are a tapestry created at a specific time in history by specific editors/contributors who weave a history writ large of those things, people and, ideas that affect our "current" culture. 'Wiki' is limited by its ongoing creation versus the 'snapshot' given by written encyclopedias since little accessed pages may not be updated but, due to Wiki's immediate nature, they are taken as such. Wiki has no common thought, plan or, bias to give insight to it's articles. There is no such thing as the 'Truth' and presenting articles without context is Wiki's greatest failing.

I prefer the constant update method. General literature gives a deeper, and more varied impression of cultural perception than an encyclopedia, at a much lower cost. While it may be interesting to compare editorial styles of encyclopedias every couple decades or so, it isn't especially practical, or deep.

 

[Doppel]

I am surprised they are killing the print edition completely. I would think if they just made a fixed limited run each year they would probably sell out.

-KeithP

I think this IS the limited run and it still isn't selling very well.

A mint condition set of 2012 Britannica Encyclopaedia could be worth a lot 20 years from now.

A lot or maybe $200

Encyclopedias aren't random collections of "facts," they are a tapestry created at a specific time in history by specific editors/contributors who weave a history writ large of those things, people and, ideas that affect our "current" culture.

Oh come on, it is exactly a random collection of facts. I can go from apple on page 5 to asshole on the next, there's no tapestry there, it's just the next item in the alphabet (ok I assume there are some in between).

If I for some esoteric reason wanted to know what cellphone technology was in 2002 I could find that out on the internet.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I prefer the constant update method. General literature gives a deeper, and more varied impression of cultural perception than an encyclopedia, at a much lower cost. While it may be interesting to compare editorial styles of encyclopedias every couple decades or so, it isn't especially practical, or deep.

We're talking about Encyclopedias. I agree general literature provides a "more varied impression of cultural perception than an encyclopedia." Encyclopedias aren't intended as repositories of facts, they are a synopsis, outline, abstract or, summary of the world around us. The 'constant update' method sounds good but falls down in practice as previously mentioned. I also left out another huge problem with "Wiki" in that it doesn't mention, quote nor, attribute to the 80% or 90% of human knowledge not contained in the intarwebs. To be honest, many of the Encyclopedias don't either but, since you're already in the Library, it's somewhat self correcting and more importantly, the user's perception is that the Encyclopedia isn't the final answer.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I think this IS the limited run and it still isn't selling very well.A lot or maybe $200 Oh come on, it is exactly a random collection of facts. I can go from apple on page 5 to asshole on the next, there's no tapestry there, it's just the next item in the alphabet (ok I assume there are some in between).

If I for some esoteric reason wanted to know what cellphone technology was in 2002 I could find that out on the internet.

You need to do some more reading and, not on the internet. The fact that you think cellphone technology in 2002 is "esoteric" tends to reinforce my belief that you lack understanding of how we got to where we are. Encyclopedias are hardly inclusive and not meant to be except for the target audience.

 

[Sephire]

We had Compton's Encyclopedia growing up. I read the entire thing by age 12 or so. I shudder to think about the generation growing up with "Wiki."

Kids these days gets bored if the YouTube video is longer than 31 seconds.

 

[classy]

I remember these, my parents bought us these for school. I wrote a lot of book reports using these. I believe my mom still has them.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch

so ...it won't be missed

 

[Veliko]

We're talking about Encyclopedias. I agree general literature provides a "more varied impression of cultural perception than an encyclopedia." Encyclopedias aren't intended as repositories of facts, they are a synopsis, outline, abstract or, summary of the world around us. The 'constant update' method sounds good but falls down in practice as previously mentioned. I also left out another huge problem with "Wiki" in that it doesn't mention, quote nor, attribute to the 80% or 90% of human knowledge not contained in the intarwebs. To be honest, many of the Encyclopedias don't either but, since you're already in the Library, it's somewhat self correcting and more importantly, the user's perception is that the Encyclopedia isn't the final answer.

Who is already in the library? Wiki enables me to get a huge amount of information in seconds.

Anyone who believes everything on Wiki would believe everything a normal encyclopaedia as well.

 

[rchiu]

With Wikipedia, you can track down the editors if you care enough to do so. The ethereal nature of Wikipedia encourages skepticism, and further study. A printed book gives the perception of authority, and fosters trust. In neither case should the article be treated as authoritative, and incorrect information can be fixed in the case of Wikipedia. With a book, it's set in stone forever, or until the year book comes out if they actually care to fix it.

And because of that, a book is written in a more responsible manner. Something can't be said for the Internet info these days. Any Joe Shmoe can act as a authority on something and talk crap these days. Unlike in the past you actually need to be an authority before some publisher will publish something for you.

Grew up with a set of these on my bookself, was planning to get a set for my own kid. Sad to see it goes, but oh well I can always find it in ebay or local listings.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

And because of that, a book is written in a more responsible manner. Something can't be said for the Internet info these days. Any Joe Shmoe can act as a authority on something and talk crap these days. Unlike in the past you actually need to be an authority before some publisher will publish something for you.

Grew up with a set of these on my bookself, was planning to get a set for my own kid. Sad to see it goes, but oh well I can always find it in ebay or local listings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia