If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Sales soar for final print version of Encyclopaedia Britannica as students discover something to copy more reliable than Wikipedia   (bottomline.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 85
    More: Followup, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Wikipedia, CD-ROM  
•       •       •

4668 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2012 at 9:19 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-09 08:41:01 AM
I love the old ads for it.

i522.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-09 08:48:35 AM
How much?

/goes back to Wikipedia
 
2012-04-09 09:21:39 AM
Ah...the analog internet!
 
2012-04-09 09:23:12 AM
It's your last chance!
senseandreference.files.wordpress.com
 
Zel
2012-04-09 09:23:22 AM
But it isnt more reliable. Any time they tried to measure such things, Wiki came out slightly ahead in terms of errors per article (probably because wiki has 100x more articles)
 
2012-04-09 09:23:31 AM
The secret to using Wikipedia isn't to not use Wikipedia, but rather to use Wikipedia as a general reference. Consult the Wikipedia entry for general knowledge, but go to the cited source and quote that.

That's how I got A's on more than one grad school-level paper, thanks. (Note that Wikipedia is of little help when conducting original research. Also, the whole "I Shiat on Eggs" demotivator...)
 
2012-04-09 09:25:29 AM
Why the hell would you want it in print?

Ctrl + F doesn't work on a book, as much as I'd like it to.
 
2012-04-09 09:25:30 AM
I had the standard binding set growing up.

I always wish my parents loved me more and bought the leather bound set.
 
2012-04-09 09:26:47 AM
Word is a teacher's best friend, because it gives the laziest students just enough rope to hang themselves. Did you know that a depressing number of students don't even check the text they've copy/pasted to take the links out?

Not that students like this will go for Britannica. They'd still have to actually *gasp* type the text in by hand, and that's too haaaaaaaaaaard.
 
2012-04-09 09:26:58 AM
Come the apocalypse, one of these sets would be pretty sweet to have at your compound. I wonder if a bunch of end-timers are among those making sure to get the final copies.

It is a massive, incredible reference tool - and if the internet went down, or society took a tumble, this would be the only way to teach the next generation.
 
2012-04-09 09:28:35 AM

Zel: But it isnt more reliable. Any time they tried to measure such things, Wiki came out slightly ahead in terms of errors per article (probably because wiki has 100x more articles)


Did they also correct it for the *choice* of articles, based on the ones that (the human editors behind) a real encyclopedia make ? I mean, it's relatively easy to have an extremely low error rate when you have sixty-thousand articles about the mating particularities of some sub-species only known on StarTrek, all written by fanbois, now isn't it ?
 
2012-04-09 09:29:54 AM
$1,400?!?

I think I found why they are being discontinued.
 
2012-04-09 09:33:35 AM
You know, if people had given even a hundredeth of a shiat about the print version over the last decade as they do for the last two weeks, Britannica wouldn't be ending it

/Not to mention, the company is treating this as a non-issue, while every neo-Ludite in the world is rushing to defend its honor, despite it neither asking nor wanting said defending.
 
2012-04-09 09:34:05 AM

BurnShrike: Why the hell would you want it in print?

Ctrl + F doesn't work on a book, as much as I'd like it to.


Britannica entries are generally far more detailed than Wiki. There is also the benefit of being a tangible (and uneditable) resource. I bought a leather bound edition 'used' for $200 about ten years ago that is in flawless condition. I enjoy seeing it on my shelves and I use it several times a year - although nowhere close to what I use Wiki and other online sources. Of course I still prefer reading paper books and there are 21 bookshelves, all jammed, in my house.
 
2012-04-09 09:35:18 AM
I have a full 1911 set. It's awesome to read the articles remembering the perspectives of that time. The fold-out maps inside are, to me, priceless.

My kid told me a few years ago that they are worth nothing, money-wise. I guess that was one of the first years they mass-produced and sold door-to-door.

Don't think I'll be buying a new set.
 
2012-04-09 09:36:24 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: Zel: But it isnt more reliable. Any time they tried to measure such things, Wiki came out slightly ahead in terms of errors per article (probably because wiki has 100x more articles)

Did they also correct it for the *choice* of articles, based on the ones that (the human editors behind) a real encyclopedia make ? I mean, it's relatively easy to have an extremely low error rate when you have sixty-thousand articles about the mating particularities of some sub-species only known on StarTrek, all written by fanbois, now isn't it ?


Wiki is full of completely useless knowledge, like the episode list for "Days of Our Lives".
 
2012-04-09 09:39:58 AM
Reading a book is always a good thing. I read the entire set cover to cover over the years when I was a kid. Makes you good at Jeopardy as well.

Besides, shouldn't hippies be against using electricity to look up information?
 
2012-04-09 09:40:47 AM

Millennium: Word is a teacher's best friend, because it gives the laziest students just enough rope to hang themselves.


I am going to run with the assumption that you are a teacher...do you highlight certain phrases within a document that Google said phrase?
 
2012-04-09 09:41:14 AM

SisterMaryElephant: I have a full 1911 set. It's awesome to read the articles remembering the perspectives of that time. The fold-out maps inside are, to me, priceless.

My kid told me a few years ago that they are worth nothing, money-wise. I guess that was one of the first years they mass-produced and sold door-to-door.

Don't think I'll be buying a new set.


Actually, if it's a full set from 1911, it's probably worth quite a bit now, at least to a collector.

/Quick, get the guys from Pawn Stars on it.
//You know, it's worth about $2000; I'll pay you $15 for it.
 
2012-04-09 09:41:55 AM
How many of them are going to libraries?
 
2012-04-09 09:42:07 AM

Zel: But it isnt more reliable. Any time they tried to measure such things, Wiki came out slightly ahead in terms of errors per article (probably because wiki has 100x more articles)


Wrong. Wikipedia is rife with errors, though they have been doing a much better job with academic review of articles in the last couple of years. And who are these "they" of whom you speak? Any encyclopedia is is bound to have factual and typographical errors. Some articles become outdated almost as soon as they are published and this is where an on-line encyclopedia, such as Wiki, has an advantage over a printed edition: such articles are easy to keep up-to-date.

We must always remember that an encyclopedia is a reference source, not primary literature. It's a place to start, not finish.
 
2012-04-09 09:43:40 AM
So does Wikipedia have about 100x the info than Britannica?
Wikipedia hase continual up to the hour updates? Does Britannica?

Yesterday I looked up some onfo on Holst's Planets (The most famous classical music you don't know you know.)
It was on Wikipedia and took 3 minutes to read, and less than 1 cent to find. An came with reliable references.
 
2012-04-09 09:45:31 AM
They do have an online presence (new window).

Encyclopaedia Britannica is not going away.
They have just changed the way they are delivering their information.
 
2012-04-09 09:46:24 AM
When the Encyclopedia Britannica starts including the phrase "I Shiat on Eggs" within its article about deoxyribonucleic acid, then I will waste hours upon hours every night browsing it.
 
2012-04-09 09:47:50 AM
Before wikipedia, you got information online from usenet, and then somebody would try to sell you naked pictures of their wife.
 
2012-04-09 09:49:25 AM

Jake Havechek: Before wikipedia, you got information online from usenet, and then somebody would try to sell you naked pictures of their wife.


So did you buy any?
 
2012-04-09 09:50:03 AM

JackieRabbit: Wrong. Wikipedia is rife with errors, though they have been doing a much better job with academic review of articles in the last couple of years. And who are these "they" of whom you speak? Any encyclopedia is is bound to have factual and typographical errors. Some articles become outdated almost as soon as they are published and this is where an on-line encyclopedia, such as Wiki, has an advantage over a printed edition: such articles are easy to keep up-to-date.


It's funny to start a post with a definitive "Wrong." then follow it up with muddled conjecture and no evidence whatsoever.

"They" are Nature. Britannica was slightly more accurate over the selection of articles they picked.

Here's the study, which for some reason is refusing to be linked.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
 
2012-04-09 09:50:46 AM

Jake Havechek: Before wikipedia, you got information online from usenet, and then somebody would try to sell you naked pictures of their wife.


Who pays for that kind of stuff now-a-days? There are entire websites oriented around seeing pictures of people's wives.
 
2012-04-09 09:52:21 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Jake Havechek: Before wikipedia, you got information online from usenet, and then somebody would try to sell you naked pictures of their wife.

So did you buy any?


No.
 
2012-04-09 09:56:50 AM
There's something comforting about a printed Encyclopedia.

What was the famous edition of the Britannica that was supposed to be the largest or most comprehensive? I think it was late 1800s or early 1900s.
 
2012-04-09 09:57:01 AM

maram500: The secret to using Wikipedia isn't to not use Wikipedia, but rather to use Wikipedia as a general reference. Consult the Wikipedia entry for general knowledge, but go to the cited source and quote that.

That's how I got A's on more than one grad school-level paper, thanks. (Note that Wikipedia is of little help when conducting original research. Also, the whole "I Shiat on Eggs" demotivator...)


I find that more and more profs want "academic" sources, meaning that even the links from Wikipedia aren't good enough. Still is a good place to start though.

/from there Google Scholar becomes your bestest friend
 
2012-04-09 09:59:26 AM

maram500: The secret to using Wikipedia isn't to not use Wikipedia, but rather to use Wikipedia as a general reference. Consult the Wikipedia entry for general knowledge, but go to the cited source and quote that.

That's how I got A's on more than one grad school-level paper, thanks. (Note that Wikipedia is of little help when conducting original research. Also, the whole "I Shiat on Eggs" demotivator...)


My thesis has a few examples of:

1: Find item on Wikipedia

2: Search Google Books for work reliable enough to cite.

3: Enjoy diploma

/my thesis advisor had a strict no internet citation rule, for good reason
//made things a bit difficult when trying to find ways to cite news regarding warship museums
 
2012-04-09 10:00:38 AM

maram500: //You know, it's worth about $2000; I'll pay you $15 for it.


I got overhead costs in running the store and I got to make a profit at the end of the day. How about if I call a buddy of mine in to take a look at it?
 
2012-04-09 10:01:22 AM

Zel: But it isnt more reliable. Any time they tried to measure such things, Wiki came out slightly ahead in terms of errors per article (probably because wiki has 100x more articles)


Except that the journal of Nature, which did the study, did a shiat job on sending out articles. For one, [citation needed] on their data, which they didn't provide. They also didn't send out full articles, bumping up the number of '"omission" errors and let reviewers opinions get in the way of a real study. (new window)

It appears to have been a cheap shot by Nature to get their name in the newspapers and not a serious study. It also seems weird, as Nature isn't generally about the study of academics itself or the dissemination of information, but about Nature related science.
 
2012-04-09 10:02:11 AM

Electrify: maram500: The secret to using Wikipedia isn't to not use Wikipedia, but rather to use Wikipedia as a general reference. Consult the Wikipedia entry for general knowledge, but go to the cited source and quote that.

That's how I got A's on more than one grad school-level paper, thanks. (Note that Wikipedia is of little help when conducting original research. Also, the whole "I Shiat on Eggs" demotivator...)

I find that more and more profs want "academic" sources, meaning that even the links from Wikipedia aren't good enough. Still is a good place to start though.

/from there Google Scholar becomes your bestest friend


Most wikipedia articles in the sciences have academic references and primary sources, which is good. I know wikipedia has this thing for verifiability preferentially for sources but it isn't the norm for scientific articles anyway.
 
2012-04-09 10:02:15 AM

Private_Citizen: $1,400?!?

I think I found why they are being discontinued.


In 1982, they were $971, with a military discount. Adding in inflation, that's not so bad.

mcreadyblue: Wiki is full of completely useless knowledge, like the episode list for "Days of Our Lives".


My step-dad used to call me "The World's Largest Repository Of Superfluous Bullshiat". But even he would have to admit that Wikipedia has surpassed me.
 
2012-04-09 10:07:19 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: There's something comforting about a printed Encyclopedia.


I agree. Wouldn't mind having one myself, but the $1400 price tag is a bit outside my budget.
 
2012-04-09 10:07:58 AM

Endive Wombat: Millennium: Word is a teacher's best friend, because it gives the laziest students just enough rope to hang themselves.

I am going to run with the assumption that you are a teacher...


Actually, I'm not. I just know enough of them to hear some funny stories.
 
2012-04-09 10:08:17 AM

BurnShrike: There are entire websites oriented around seeing pictures of people's wives.


I don't think that's the preferred nomenclature used on swingingasianwives.com.
 
2012-04-09 10:11:49 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: I mean, it's relatively easy to have an extremely low error rate when you have sixty-thousand articles about the mating particularities of some sub-species only known on StarTrek, all written by fanbois, now isn't it ?


You do a lot of wikigroaning, don't you? I'm just glad that the article on lightsaber combat isn't longer and more detailed than the article on fencing anymore.
 
2012-04-09 10:12:22 AM
Can we blame the new sales on hipsters?
 
2012-04-09 10:13:11 AM

BurnShrike: Why the hell would you want it in print?

Ctrl + F doesn't work on a book, as much as I'd like it to.


There's this thing called the "alphabet" in which the letter appear in a certain order.
In encyclopedias, the words are arranged in "alphabetical order."
 
2012-04-09 10:18:31 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: There's this thing called the "alphabet" in which the letter appear in a certain order.
In encyclopedias, the words are arranged in "alphabetical order."


Yeah, thank God for the guy who wrote that song.
 
2012-04-09 10:19:01 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: BurnShrike: Why the hell would you want it in print?

Ctrl + F doesn't work on a book, as much as I'd like it to.

There's this thing called the "alphabet" in which the letter appear in a certain order.
In encyclopedias, the words are arranged in "alphabetical order."


Yeah, but cutting and pasting is a lot messier, you must admit.
 
2012-04-09 10:20:49 AM

Millennium: You do a lot of wikigroaning, don't you? I'm just glad that the article on lightsaber combat isn't longer and more detailed than the article on fencing anymore.


What's wrong with knowing the particulars of Soresu form?

/That's because fencing is boring
//[Trollgrin.jpg]
 
2012-04-09 10:25:43 AM

imashark: Millennium: You do a lot of wikigroaning, don't you? I'm just glad that the article on lightsaber combat isn't longer and more detailed than the article on fencing anymore.

What's wrong with knowing the particulars of Soresu form?

/That's because fencing is boring
//[Trollgrin.jpg]


I think I used that on my Sith Juggernaut in SWTOR. It was good to know. Game sucked though.
 
2012-04-09 10:29:31 AM

BurnShrike: Why the hell would you want it in print?


If you have to ask why some people prefer paper books to electronic ones, then you wouldn't understand the answer anyway.
 
2012-04-09 10:29:43 AM

BurnShrike: Jake Havechek: Before wikipedia, you got information online from usenet, and then somebody would try to sell you naked pictures of their wife.

Who pays for that kind of stuff now-a-days? There are entire websites oriented around seeing pictures of people's wives.


You both sound young.
 
2012-04-09 10:30:28 AM

Electrify: maram500: The secret to using Wikipedia isn't to not use Wikipedia, but rather to use Wikipedia as a general reference. Consult the Wikipedia entry for general knowledge, but go to the cited source and quote that.

That's how I got A's on more than one grad school-level paper, thanks. (Note that Wikipedia is of little help when conducting original research. Also, the whole "I Shiat on Eggs" demotivator...)

I find that more and more profs want "academic" sources, meaning that even the links from Wikipedia aren't good enough. Still is a good place to start though.

/from there Google Scholar becomes your bestest friend


pretty much this.

I relied on google scholar to write an essay for law school. a mother load of an essay on the world trade organization. It would have been impossible without google scholar. none of my other research resources could have gotten me the articles the google scholar got me.
 
2012-04-09 10:33:30 AM

Ed Willy:
It appears to have been a cheap shot by Nature to get their name in the newspapers and not a serious study. It also seems weird, as Nature isn't generally about the study of academics itself or the dissemination of information, but about Nature related science.


Maybe they're feeling a little defensive?
Hopefully the academic publishing industry is next...

So I have to pay $40 to read an article that a scientist paid to submit and other scientists peer-reviewed for free?
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report