No more EB - Page 2

fjtorres · 03-14-2012, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elemenoP

My daughter is in first grade and studying Africa and we have done lots of research online. We just use plain old Google and see what we get. I really don't think there's anything the encyclopedia companies could have done differently, it's just a different world today.

eP

Oh, there's *lots* they could have done differently over the last 20 years.
For starters, they could have looked out their windows.
They could have listened to Bill Gates.
They could have listened to their editors.
They could have listened to their customers.
They could have listened to the stock market.
But instead, they looked to the past, looked to protect their existing distribution channels, looked to protect their price points, looked to protect their brand.
So they went from sales of 120,000 copies in 1990 to under 10,000 in 2010.

They frittered a decade and never caught up.
Nope. Nothing to do with ebooks, everything to do with neglecting digital distribution.
Definitely a cautionary tale.

elemenoP · 03-14-2012, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjtorres

They could have listened to Bill Gates.
They could have listened to their editors.
They could have listened to their customers.
They could have listened to the stock market.

But if the information they are offering is now available for free, any time on any computer, how would the above have helped keep them from going out of business?

eP

QuantumIguana · 03-14-2012, 09:40 AM

The Encyclopaedia Britannica was once a sign of wealth and education. It looked good on the shelf, and impressed people that you had it. People would assume that you had read it, and that may or may not have been true. But if you just want information, there are cheaper sources.

I use Wikipedia quite a lot, and take a "trust but verify" attitude toward it. There was a study in 2005 that found Wikipedia to be as accurate as EB http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

If the article is non-controversial, I'm less skeptical about it, if it is controversial, I pay closer attention to the primary sources.

ProfCrash · 03-14-2012, 09:43 AM

I would not accept Wikipedia as a source in a paper when I was teaching. My students were most annoyed with me when I required that at least half of their sources came from peer reviewed souorces and that they were limited to no more then 5 websites. It was kind of discouraging to have to plan a library day for Seniors in College because they have never been there and had no clue how to use the library.

I did allow them to use peer reviewed sources that could be found on the internet and in the library. So journal articles that they read online counted. Wikipedia did not count because it is not peer reviewed and it is far too easy to toss in crap information.

mbovenka · 03-14-2012, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phogg

Have you ever heard of standards of accuracy?

Sorry, won't wash: http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/...wikipedia.html (for instance)

Wikipedia is comparable to the EB, quality-wise, where both have articles on the subject. A direct comparison between Wikipedia and the online EB was made as early as 2005 (by Nature, no less) and found them so.

elemenoP · 03-14-2012, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I would not accept Wikipedia as a source in a paper when I was teaching. My students were most annoyed with me when I required that at least half of their sources came from peer reviewed souorces and that they were limited to no more then 5 websites. It was kind of discouraging to have to plan a library day for Seniors in College because they have never been there and had no clue how to use the library.

I did allow them to use peer reviewed sources that could be found on the internet and in the library. So journal articles that they read online counted. Wikipedia did not count because it is not peer reviewed and it is far too easy to toss in crap information.

Is EB peer-reviewed? Do college students use EB for reference? I thought it was more for grade school and casual reference. I went to college before the Internet (I mean... the Internet existed, I suppose... but we did not have access to it and anyway it wasn't what it is today!) and I don't think I ever used an encyclopedia as research or as a reference on a paper.

eP

ProfCrash · 03-14-2012, 10:00 AM

Given that the standard for a Senior level class term paper was peer reviewed articles, EB would not have been allowed as a source.

The problem is too many students think that Wikipedia is accurate, and it might be on some subjects but when teaching a class on international conflict you can guess that the entriess dealing with on going international conflicts are not exactly the most trust worthy. People are forgetting how to conduct basic research and are not being taught how to determine if a web site is a credible source or not. I would be fine with someone citing a wikipedia article on grapes but not on the on going conflict in just about any place in the world.

Just because something is on the internet does not make it a legitimate source.

EB had some form of editorial standards and hired professionals to handle updating entries. Wikipedia has radom people on the web who deem themselves to be experts and then people that are somehow or another trusted to review the entries. The standards are different. I would trust an encyclopedia over Wikipedia any day of the week for that reason.

That and I have seen what the Steven Colbert fans can do to entries when they decide to have some fun.

dwig · 03-14-2012, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony1988

...It was the internet and wiki that killed them. ...

Hardly. The Internet and wiki were hardly the last handful of soil tossed on the grave; much less the last nail in the coffin.

The CD-ROM killed the print encyclopedias across be board. By the time the Internet became commonly available print sales were already only a fraction of their peak; sales going to electronic versions instead. True, Wikipedia may well be a major reason why the EB publishers have chosen to stop beating a dead horse, but the horse has been dead for some time and died of other causes.

K. Molen · 03-14-2012, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elemenoP

But if the information they are offering is now available for free, any time on any computer, how would the above have helped keep them from going out of business?

For starters they could've allowed Microsoft to license their name and information, which may have prevented Encarta from springing up. Then, come the advent of the internet, they could've beaten Wikipedia to the punch by offering up their own encyclopedia online, free of use and supported by advertising.

Not saying this would've definitely worked, but it something they could have done differently rather than sticking their heads in the sand.

QuantumIguana · 03-14-2012, 10:48 AM

Wikipedia isn't a source you should use on a paper, but you can use it to get to acceptable source material.

tubemonkey · 03-14-2012, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcreative

Not really, wiki is often worth exactly what you pay for it...

Is MobileRead worth what you pay for it?

Annari · 03-14-2012, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I would not accept Wikipedia as a source in a paper when I was teaching. My students were most annoyed with me when I required that at least half of their sources came from peer reviewed souorces and that they were limited to no more then 5 websites. It was kind of discouraging to have to plan a library day for Seniors in College because they have never been there and had no clue how to use the library.

I did allow them to use peer reviewed sources that could be found on the internet and in the library. So journal articles that they read online counted. Wikipedia did not count because it is not peer reviewed and it is far too easy to toss in crap information.

As a teacher I do not allow Wikipedia as a source, it is not a reliable source of information as anyone can edit it to say whatever to some extent.

ucfgrad93 · 03-14-2012, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elemenoP

But if the information they are offering is now available for free, any time on any computer, how would the above have helped keep them from going out of business?

eP

Just to clarify, they are not going out of business. They are just not printing the actual books any more.

Kumabjorn · 03-14-2012, 11:30 AM

I guess a complete set of the last edition will become a collectors' item.
I wish it was available as an e-book.

MV64 · 03-14-2012, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phogg

Have you ever heard of standards of accuracy?

Studies have actually shown Wikipedia to be more accurate than other encyclopedias, including Britannica I think.

Also, as far as utilization as a source, Encyclopedias generally aren't considered great sources in general. Beyond middle and high school papers they aren't really all that great.

03-14-2012, 09:40 AM	#18
QuantumIguana Philosopher Posts: 2,034 Karma: 18736532 Join Date: Jan 2012 Device: Kindle Paperwhite 2 gen, Kindle Fire 1st Gen, Kindle Touch	The Encyclopaedia Britannica was once a sign of wealth and education. It looked good on the shelf, and impressed people that you had it. People would assume that you had read it, and that may or may not have been true. But if you just want information, there are cheaper sources. I use Wikipedia quite a lot, and take a "trust but verify" attitude toward it. There was a study in 2005 that found Wikipedia to be as accurate as EB http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html If the article is non-controversial, I'm less skeptical about it, if it is controversial, I pay closer attention to the primary sources.

03-14-2012, 09:43 AM	#19
ProfCrash Tea Enthusiast Posts: 8,554 Karma: 75384937 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Somewhere in the USA Device: Kindle1, Kindle DX Graphite, K3 3G, IPad 3, PW2	I would not accept Wikipedia as a source in a paper when I was teaching. My students were most annoyed with me when I required that at least half of their sources came from peer reviewed souorces and that they were limited to no more then 5 websites. It was kind of discouraging to have to plan a library day for Seniors in College because they have never been there and had no clue how to use the library. I did allow them to use peer reviewed sources that could be found on the internet and in the library. So journal articles that they read online counted. Wikipedia did not count because it is not peer reviewed and it is far too easy to toss in crap information.

03-14-2012, 10:00 AM	#22
ProfCrash Tea Enthusiast Posts: 8,554 Karma: 75384937 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Somewhere in the USA Device: Kindle1, Kindle DX Graphite, K3 3G, IPad 3, PW2	Given that the standard for a Senior level class term paper was peer reviewed articles, EB would not have been allowed as a source. The problem is too many students think that Wikipedia is accurate, and it might be on some subjects but when teaching a class on international conflict you can guess that the entriess dealing with on going international conflicts are not exactly the most trust worthy. People are forgetting how to conduct basic research and are not being taught how to determine if a web site is a credible source or not. I would be fine with someone citing a wikipedia article on grapes but not on the on going conflict in just about any place in the world. Just because something is on the internet does not make it a legitimate source. EB had some form of editorial standards and hired professionals to handle updating entries. Wikipedia has radom people on the web who deem themselves to be experts and then people that are somehow or another trusted to review the entries. The standards are different. I would trust an encyclopedia over Wikipedia any day of the week for that reason. That and I have seen what the Steven Colbert fans can do to entries when they decide to have some fun.

03-14-2012, 10:48 AM	#25
QuantumIguana Philosopher Posts: 2,034 Karma: 18736532 Join Date: Jan 2012 Device: Kindle Paperwhite 2 gen, Kindle Fire 1st Gen, Kindle Touch	Wikipedia isn't a source you should use on a paper, but you can use it to get to acceptable source material.

03-14-2012, 11:30 AM	#29
Kumabjorn Basculocolpic Posts: 4,356 Karma: 20181319 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Sweden Device: Kindle 3 WiFi, Kindle 4SO, Kindle for Android, Sony PRS-350 and PRS-T1	I guess a complete set of the last edition will become a collectors' item. I wish it was available as an e-book.

Advert

Advert