The End of Encylopedia Britannica

[Bruce Wayne]

Effective immediately

 

[Shangas]

Wow...that was unexpected.

That said, I can't remember the last time I read one. Must've been years ago. I think we have a set of it around the house somewhere.

 

[sal]

How sad

 

[LizzieMaine]

My copy of the 14th Edition from 1938, dedicated to His Britannic Majesty King George VI, is still on the living room bookshelf, and I still enjoy pulling out a random volume and sitting on the porch reading it. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

 

[Gene]

My copy of the 14th Edition from 1938, dedicated to His Britannic Majesty King George VI, is still on the living room bookshelf, and I still enjoy pulling out a random volume and sitting on the porch reading it. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

So so many we were printed, so it's not like we will ever be without them!

Makes me nostalgic for this commercial!
[video=youtube_share;Hxwin9XFbnQ]http://youtu.be/Hxwin9XFbnQ[/video]

 

[sheeplady]

Awww. I can remember I used the 9th edition for a report on the Suez canal (which was great because I used that compared to more modern versions to see how they differed in terms of speaking about the canal). My tenth grade teacher gave me a zero for the assignment and reported me to the administration for making up sources. I had to bring in a volume to get my zero stricken. That was a fun week.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Awww. I can remember I used the 9th edition for a report on the Suez canal (which was great because I used that compared to more modern versions to see how they differed in terms of speaking about the canal). My tenth grade teacher gave me a zero for the assignment and reported me to the administration for making up sources. I had to bring in a volume to get my zero stricken. That was a fun week.

That. Is. Awesome!!!

 

[Espee]

Well we had World Book instead, but I enjoyed my older sister's 1955 version for the vintage items in it-- for example, the Mississippi River streamlined excursion boat ADMIRAL. But my mom insisted on replacing it in 1975 so the rest of my high school career wouldn't be hindered by obsolete information.

 

[dhermann1]

I grew up with the 1944 edition that my grandmother won on the old Information Please radio program. She stumped the panel with an esoteric question about Shakespeare. It got plenty of use over the decades. It wound up in a friend's basement that was WET, and now has a couple volumes that are rather mildewed. But I want to hold onto it forever. Many fond memories. When there was nothing good on TV, just grab a random volume and you're guaranteed to have fun learning about something you never even knew existed before.
Since it was printed in 1944, the atlas showed the Axis powers at their geographic height. There's still a coupon in the back saying you could send it in after the war and get a supplement with final post war national boundaries. That was never done, but in the 70's my brother fished a 1948 Britannica Atlas out of a discard bin, and it became a companion piece.
It always frustrated me the Britannica could never come up with a business model that worked, as compared to Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, faults notwithstanding. Couldn't live without it. But Britannica has a very special spot in my heart.

 

[Edward]

I remember reading that it took so long to put together a new edition of EB that by the time it hit print it was out of date. Web versions avoid that entirely. It'll be interesting to see how they stack up against Wikipedia. For what it may be worth, there was an academic study here in the UK which determined that for science subjects Wikipedia is at least as accurate. [huh]

 

[W.A.Mack]

It's the passing of an era. Reading the encyclopedia was what I did as a kid. I have a set of 1948 World Books.

 

[sheeplady]

That. Is. Awesome!!!

Thank you. I did think it was rather awesome when I dropped it on the teacher's desk to see the look on his face. After a stunned silence as I showed him the publication date, he asked, "Can I touch it? Your parents let you take it out of the house?" lol

 

[LizzieMaine]

I remember reading that it took so long to put together a new edition of EB that by the time it hit print it was out of date. Web versions avoid that entirely. It'll be interesting to see how they stack up against Wikipedia. For what it may be worth, there was an academic study here in the UK which determined that for science subjects Wikipedia is at least as accurate. [huh]

That survey, however, was done five years ago. It'd be interesting to see how well it stacks up today. Someone in one of the articles on the demise of Britannica suggested the longer Wilkipedia goes on the more unqualified people become involved with it -- "One qualified person alongside twenty teenage idiots is the same thing as twenty-one teenage idiots."

 

[ButteMT61]

OMG, this is shocking - please tell me Funk and Wagnalls is still OK? lol

 

[MisterCairo]

I am going to buy one of the last print copies. We are creating a library area in our home, and this will be a great addition.

Wikipedia has its uses, but as someone who can go in and "edit it" at will, I can tell you it's hardly authoritative. Try writing an academic paper using it as reference material. Your "source" will be out of date, literally, because it will have been edited by someone within hours of your using it.

 

[Angus Forbes]

We have the 9th edition, and two sets of the 11th (one compact and the other full sized, both leather bound) all of which have been in the family since new. I think that the 11th edition is sometimes called the "scholars edition" because of the unusually high quality of its articles. My newest one is a 1970 "Mortimer Adler" version, which seems like kind of an oddball to an old fogey like me. Although I hate to see EB cease publication I suppose that it was inevitable.

 

[camjr]

I grew up with the 1976 World Book series at the house. It's still sitting on my parent's bookshelf.

I'll grab the odd volume from the shelf when I go over there and it's all familiar. Amazing we could function and research things pre-interwebz. My kids (age 15 and 13) give me funny looks when I describe what we had to go through back in the day to research subjects for school projects back in the day. Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, anyone????

Cheers!

 

[Undertow]

Don't forget this important piece:

"Encyclopaedia Britannica will focus primarily on its online encyclopedias...About half a million households pay a $70 annual fee for the online subscription, which includes access to the full database of articles, videos, original documents and to the company’s mobile applications..."

Now I'm accused of being a Luddite about 6 days a week...and yeah, it's kinda true. But what happens when a an electromagnetic pulse knocks out all computer technology on a bad day? Or when a tyrannical government censors the internet? Or eletricity can't be easily obtained? Just sayin'...

 

[sheeplady]

That survey, however, was done five years ago. It'd be interesting to see how well it stacks up today. Someone in one of the articles on the demise of Britannica suggested the longer Wilkipedia goes on the more unqualified people become involved with it -- "One qualified person alongside twenty teenage idiots is the same thing as twenty-one teenage idiots."

If the experts on a subject are the ones that are contributing, it would make some sense that their expertise should crowd out random people who aren't as invested in the subject and are not going to continually revisit the page. (Should being the operative word.)

At least in the areas that I have used wikipedia for and based upon the people I know who are contributors, there is a lot of time and effort invested into those entries by experts. Many people who contribute either are subject matter experts or librarians. You can tell from the edit page how much work is put into those pages. On some entries, you can use the edit page to track differences and disagreements in the field in a way that someone outside of the inner circle could never do before. It's not about tracking drama- but understanding how different divisions and interpretations play out. Something we couldn't see before.

I'd still never recommend anyone use Wikipedia as anything but a starting place for their research. Nothing beats primary sources, wikipedia is just the path to the real deal, recognizing that everything does have bias.

 

[KayEn78]

My parents had the full set from 1976 (I think). The books are of a red binding. I believe they still have them. I remember looking at them as kid every now and then.

Those 1940s editions sound very cool--especially the 1944 set.
-Kristi