On Jul 16, 8:38=A0am, enigma <eni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Beliavsky <beliav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
innews:33c0d3b7-8b7f-46b8-b0e2-32cf04=
718293@[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.
> =A0i was a voracious reader, so i read both sets, covers to
> cover, as well as any dictionary i could get my hands on...
> =A0but 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 rather expensive & go out-of-date quickly.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?
The essay said that Brittanica articles were *more* interesting than
those of Wikipedia, because they were written by a single person, not
a committee. Some have said that textbooks, often written by
committees in order to satisfy committees in big states such as
California, Texas, and Florida that approve textbooks, are dull for
the same reason.
|
