5 ms·

When you say ‘encyclopedia’, are you referring to those old collections of books that we’re obsoleted 40 years ago?

by zepto 5y ago

pbhjpbhj 5y ago
I'm referring to a collection of introductory articles covering a wide range of concepts/objects/people, etc. Deep introductions to a subject are great, but to me they're not encyclopedic as they're not really introductory. Do you disagree about the purpose of an encyclopedia? There's clearly space with web media to include more comprehensive articles, but IMO this should be _as well_. It's kinda the "if I had more time I'd have written more briefly" concept writ large (at web scale, if you will).
- zepto 5y ago
  > Do you disagree about the purpose of an encyclopedia? Seems like it. As another commenter wrote: “Encyclopedia is not supposed to be an introductory learning material, it's supposed to be a reference work.”
The_Colonel 5y ago
@pbhjpbhj > but to me they're not encyclopedic as they're not really introductory. Encyclopedia is not supposed to be an introductory learning material, it's supposed to be a reference work. There's also a Wikimedia's project called Wikibooks which is aimed at producing learning material.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
No I don't think so because these kind of things https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Encyclopaedia_Britannica_15_with_2002.jpg/375px-Encyclopaedia_Britannica_15_with_2002.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/En... were not obsolete in 1982. They were not obsoleted until at least 10 years later (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta) but probably more like 20 if you consider those physical media things are basically digitized books and weren't obviously superior in terms of accessibility or content. What old collections of books obsoleted in the early 80s are you referring to?
- zepto 5y ago
  You’re right. I was off by 10 years.

When you say ‘encyclopedia’, are you referring to those old collections of books that we’re obsoleted 40 years ago?

by zepto 5y ago

When you say ‘encyclopedia’, are you referring to those old collections of books that we’re obsoleted 40 years ago?

I'm referring to a collection of introductory articles covering a wide range of concepts/objects/people, etc. Deep introductions to a subject are great, but to me they're not encyclopedic as they're not really introductory. Do you disagree about the purpose of an encyclopedia? There's clearly space with web media to include more comprehensive articles, but IMO this should be _as well_. It's kinda the "if I had more time I'd have written more briefly" concept writ large (at web scale, if you will).

zepto 5y ago
> Do you disagree about the purpose of an encyclopedia? Seems like it. As another commenter wrote: “Encyclopedia is not supposed to be an introductory learning material, it's supposed to be a reference work.”

The_Colonel 5y ago

@pbhjpbhj > but to me they're not encyclopedic as they're not really introductory. Encyclopedia is not supposed to be an introductory learning material, it's supposed to be a reference work. There's also a Wikimedia's project called Wikibooks which is aimed at producing learning material.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

No I don't think so because these kind of things https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Encyclopaedia_Britannica_15_with_2002.jpg/375px-Encyclopaedia_Britannica_15_with_2002.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/En... were not obsolete in 1982. They were not obsoleted until at least 10 years later (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta) but probably more like 20 if you consider those physical media things are basically digitized books and weren't obviously superior in terms of accessibility or content. What old collections of books obsoleted in the early 80s are you referring to?

zepto 5y ago
You’re right. I was off by 10 years.