No more EB

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It may still end up that way; after somebody else buys the brand and resurrects it.
Which might be Google or Amazon or Facebook.

Amazonia Britannica ...has a nice ring to it

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

or this

Spoiler:

I feel dirty. I'm going to go wash my hands.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

I feel dirty. I'm going to go wash my hands.

That's what you get for helping

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by K. Molen

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.

They could've sold subscription access to their encyclopedia... $5/month, $50/year, $200 lifetime account, $2000 university account with multiple variable logins. Before Wikipedia, that would've gone over *incredibly* well; they'd've captured the early online academic market. They could've found ways to pitch the physical books... "want access when you're offline? Something you can hand to your children? All these pictures in glorious high-res?... just X monthly installments of $Y...."

Instead, they decided to believe that computers & the internet were a geek hobby instead of the future of business, education, and communication.

[Andrew H.]

I didn't actually realize that you could still buy the pbook EB. I guess I'm glad that it is still available online.

There were a lot of problems with the study claiming that EB and Wikipedia were roughly accurate: off the top of my head, the study only looked at a few scientific articles (30-40, I think); it didn't look at full EB articles, but only at excerpts (seriously!); and the errors it identified in Wikipedia tended to be the inclusion of wrong facts; the errors in EB were identified as omissions...which seems not to be as serious of an error.

Having said that, though, I think that Wikipedia is better now than it was in 2005. And I don't think that comparing it to EB was ever really useful...I know EB has gone through a few different cycles, but the EB I remember had 20 page (small print) articles on certain subjects, which it covered extensively; I've never seen a wikipedia article like that.

On the other hand, wikipedia is usually good enough to give you a basic orientation in an area, which is often all you need. And to some extent, I think we live in a post-encyclopedia world - when you bought an encyclopedia in the 20th century, it was basically the sole reference work you would have in your house on most topics. If you wanted to read about, say, the Napoleonic wars, this was probably the only place in your house where you could read about them. Nowadays, of course, you can look at wikipedia - but you can also look at 100's of other sites dealing with the same topic. Wikipedia is usually a lot more convenient than this, of course, and probably more accurate. But you aren't limited to one source.

(Of course, reading a book on any subject will give you much more information.)

[ApK]

Originally Posted by MV64

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

BUUULLLLL!!!!
Wikipedia is nice for overview and framing, garbage as a reference source.

Wikipedia is, at best 80% as accurate as a traditional encyclopedia (*this number from an NPR story a while back). Sounds good, until you try to guess which 2 out ten "facts" you need are the inaccurate ones.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by ApK

BUUULLLLL!!!!
Wikipedia is nice for overview and framing, garbage as a reference source.

I really take people seriously when there response is "BUUULLLLL!!!!"

It's true that professors won't allow students to use Wikipedia as a source, but they generally don't allow any encyclopedia as a source.

[Belfaborac]

To say that Wikipedia is garbage as a reference source is clearly BUUUULLL!!!! I have used Wikipedia as a basis for research, articles and lectures scores of times in the last few years. It's almost always my starting point of choice, because I know it will furnish me with a good selection of sources, from which I can begin to work outwards. It certainly wouldn't be appropriate to use it as one's sole source for serious research, but to claim that it is 'garbage' is just ignorant and plain silly. As stated by others, it also very much depends on the area of research: current affairs, on-going conflicts, politics and various religious issues are generally much less reliable than other subjects.

And I say this, by the way, as someone who has meters and meters of shelf space filled with Encyclopaedia Britannica volumes bound in Moroccan goat skin, as well as a full set of Great Books of the Western World and various other stuff. All of which I love dearly.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I really take people seriously when there response is "BUUULLLLL!!!!"

And I'm a Wikipedia contributor. QED.

It's true that professors won't allow students to use Wikipedia as a source, but they generally don't allow any encyclopedia as a source.

I could care less about allowed by professors, no longer being in school. I said "garbage as."

There is no professional standard, there is no documented fact checking, there is no integrity check or credential check of contributors or content of any kind except the crowd-sourced variety, and, I'm sorry to say, most crowds are mostly made up of idiots.

Wikipedia is very nice for getting an idea about a HUGELY broad array of subjects, but is not a substitute for a professional enterprise that values it's reputation and makes effort to check the credentials and ability of it's contributors, and the veracity of the facts they contribute, all of which EB, and other traditionally published encyclopedias do, and Wikipedia does not.

Comparing Wikipedia to the EB is like comparing the 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' to the EG. In fact, Douglas Adams was somewhat prescient in making that comparison.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

To say that Wikipedia is garbage as a reference source is clearly BUUUULLL!!!! I have used Wikipedia as a basis for research, articles and lectures scores of times in the last few years. It's almost always my starting point of choice, because I know it will furnish me with a good selection of sources

No, it will often furnish you with a WIDE selection of sources. You're on your own to find out if they are good or not. A real encyclopedia will have vetted this for you, saving time and effort. That's their job.

As stated by others, it also very much depends on the area of research: current affairs, on-going conflicts, politics and various religious issues are generally much less reliable than other subjects.

So you're on your own again to vet out which of the topics you want to research are reliably researched there. A real encyclopedia applies some journalistic and academic standards to ALL it's articles, again, saving you time and effort, as, again, that is their job.

How useful is a reference source when you have to do your own research before hnd to find out if the research in the reference source is reliable?

Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is an amazing effort, and I use it all the time. But to compare it to a traditional encyclopedia, especially to call it "more accurate," is laughable. That claim is made virtually self-contradictory by Wikipedia's very nature of dynamic public editing.
Wikipedia is great for what it is, but what it is is a quite different beast from the EB. Telling people they are the same kind of beast, and telling them that Wikipedia is a BETTER one of those beasts, is, well, contributing to the decline and fall of civilization.

[Belfaborac]

I largely agree with your last sentence, but what you said was that Wikipedia is "garbage as a reference source". Which it demonstrably isn't and which is what I took exception to.

[ApK]

Hmm. Well, I could agree to modifying the "garbage" position to something more moderate that recognized the value of what EB brings as different from what WP (W? Wiki?) brings.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by ApK

BUUULLLLL!!!!
Wikipedia is nice for overview and framing, garbage as a reference source.

Wikipedia is, at best 80% as accurate as a traditional encyclopedia (*this number from an NPR story a while back). Sounds good, until you try to guess which 2 out ten "facts" you need are the inaccurate ones.

Originally Posted by ApK

And I'm a Wikipedia contributor. QED.

From your previous post I can see that you are the person responsible for inaccurate "facts". Why wouldn't you just stop?

Originally Posted by ApK

How useful is a reference source when you have to do your own research before hnd to find out if the research in the reference source is reliable?

When doing any kind of research you are supposed to check the sources anyway, not blindly decide that someone said it so it must be true.

[JAcheson]

I've always viewed Wikipedia as a fan site, writ large. With all the benefits and perils that implies.

I have read that Wikipedia is more accurate than EB, but I flatly do not believe it. In particular, I don't think that Wikipedia is even close to being as professionally neutral as EB. It is updated more often, however.

I'm sorry to see EB go out of print, but in no way surprised.

[din155]

Was it then just me who saw the title of thread as "No more FB" in the first glance?

din