"enigma" <enigma@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Xns9ADD57F36F4FBenigmaempirenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Beliavsky <beliavsky@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> news:33c0d3b7-8b7f-46b8-b0e2-32cf04718293@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> oups.com:
>
>> When I was a kid about 30 years ago my parents bought for
>> me the World Book set of encyclopedias. It was fairly
>> common for the families we knew. I used to just browse
>> volumes of the encyclopedia sometimes. What do people think
>> now about making such an investment, where there are
>> alternatives such as Wikipedia and other online
>> encyclopedias (for a fee).
>
> yes, we had encyclopaedias in our house as well, both a
> children's set (Book of Knowledge) & the 'adult' set of
> Brittanica.
> i was a voracious reader, so i read both sets, covers to
> cover, as well as any dictionary i could get my hands on...
> but i don't think encyclopaedias are as common now. they are
> rather expensive & go out-of-date quickly.
>
>> Steve Sailer wrote an essay comparing Wikipedia and
>> Brittanica
>> http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/07/real-problem-with-wikiped
>> ia.html , asserting the former is dull.
>
> hmm. which would you prefer your child use for research? a
> "dull" Britannica or an error filled Wiki?
> lee
Even school libraries are often not purchasing encyclopedias now, although
they do tend to subscribe to Britannica Online and similar more reliable
services as opposed to trusting Wikipedia. I assume you could still buy
print encyclopedias for home, and I think that for self-led learning,
they're a great investment, but I suspect the price has gone up just due
to
lack of demand.
For my 3 yr old, we've subscribed to "Enchantedlearning.com" which isn't
as
comprehensive as an encyclopedia, but for most of the topics she's
interested in, has pretty good, accurate material which is at an
elementary
school level. But it's still not the same as just being able to pick up a
book, open to a random place, and find out new things.
|
