> Britannica was purely a social signalling tool. The content was secondary. People bought it as evidence of middle class disposable income, not because they se

> Britannica was purely a social signalling tool. The content was secondary. People bought it as evidence of middle class disposable income, not because they seriously expected to learn anything from it. I'm not sure what basis you could have to say that. Have you seen a survey? Britannica was and I assume still is respected by academia as a serious, accurate reference tool.