5 ms·

Older encyclopaedias (even MS Encarta) were a joy to simply read. Each article was written with a flair, not just with an objective to dryly impart data. I used

Older encyclopaedias (even MS Encarta) were a joy to simply read. Each article was written with a flair, not just with an objective to dryly impart data. I used to spend hours just reading random articles and following links, getting deeper and deeper into a particular crevice. I really think I have read 90% of the entire 1997 edition. I feel sad for the kids today who have to make do with Wikipedia. It's amazing, no doubt, to have a free, editable, comprehensive source of information on everybody's fingertips. But the articles seem to lack the artistic touch, they are rarely a joy to read. I think the common advice not to cite Wikipedia is telling, because nobody had any problems with citing Britannica. Why's that?

forgotpwd16 4y ago
Each Britannica article is written in conjunction by editors and experts. There're no experts in Wikipedia, only editors. So you cannot assume that an article has at least been reviewed by an authority. (Although they may have since lots of scientists contribute on it.)
5555624 4y ago
>I think the common advice not to cite Wikipedia is telling, because nobody had any problems with citing Britannica. Why's that? Wikipedia has "editors" that throw things together and reference "sources." Some sources being better than others. Looking at the 13th edition of Encyclopædia Britannica: Niels Bohr (atom), Marie Curie (part of the radium article), Albert Einstein (space-time), Sigmund Freud (Freudian School of Psychoanalysis), Harry Houdini (conjuring). <https://www.britannica.com/topic/Encyclopaedia-Britannica-English-language-reference-work/Thirteenth-edition https://www.britannica.com/topic/Encyclopaedia-Britannica-En...>