3 ms·

I think you are drastically underestimating how absolutely bonkers the 1970 Britannica edition was in terms of (using your example) Social Sciences. I did this

I think you are drastically underestimating how absolutely bonkers the 1970 Britannica edition was in terms of (using your example) Social Sciences. I did this analysis long ago and i don't have the set in front of me, but there absolutely were hoaxes and nonsense which were believed to be true (or which fit the prevailing narrative) in 1970. Not being up to date isn't just about incorporating new information. Fields like social sciences have huge revisions and reversals because conclusions in those fields are so often rooted in opinion and inference rather than empirical observation. Yet, no teacher would complain about using an old copy of Britannica.

akolbe 4y ago
Perhaps so, but why choose the 1970 edition, rather than one from the 1990s, or the current online one? At any rate, here is a quote from a BBC journalist: "In the Wikipedia gullibility stakes, no one is infallible. That means any journalist in any newsroom will likely get a sharp slap across the head from an editor for treating Wikipedia with anything but total scepticism (you can imagine the kicking I've taken over this article)." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37523772 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37523772 I doubt any journalist ever got such a kicking because they cited Britannica.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  It's simply what my grandparents had in my home, back when I still cared about school and when Wikipedia was relatively new. I remember being astounded that this ancient crappy thing would be accepted, while wikipedia would not be. You know in the world of tech they have a similar saying: "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." This does not mean IBM is either a superior choice, or a wise choice.
  - akolbe 4y ago
    Yeah, it's a valid comparison. I will let you in on a secret: I have a full 1990s' Britannica set in my home, about three metres from my desk. I consult it maybe four or five times a year, and the Britannica website maybe another dozen times or so. Still, it's good to always be aware that the ways Wikipedia and Britannica are produced are very different and to factor that in (see my post below from just a couple of minutes ago, about the desert article).

akolbe 4y ago

Perhaps so, but why choose the 1970 edition, rather than one from the 1990s, or the current online one? At any rate, here is a quote from a BBC journalist: "In the Wikipedia gullibility stakes, no one is infallible. That means any journalist in any newsroom will likely get a sharp slap across the head from an editor for treating Wikipedia with anything but total scepticism (you can imagine the kicking I've taken over this article)." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37523772 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37523772 I doubt any journalist ever got such a kicking because they cited Britannica.

throwaway09223 4y ago
It's simply what my grandparents had in my home, back when I still cared about school and when Wikipedia was relatively new. I remember being astounded that this ancient crappy thing would be accepted, while wikipedia would not be. You know in the world of tech they have a similar saying: "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." This does not mean IBM is either a superior choice, or a wise choice.
- akolbe 4y ago
  Yeah, it's a valid comparison. I will let you in on a secret: I have a full 1990s' Britannica set in my home, about three metres from my desk. I consult it maybe four or five times a year, and the Britannica website maybe another dozen times or so. Still, it's good to always be aware that the ways Wikipedia and Britannica are produced are very different and to factor that in (see my post below from just a couple of minutes ago, about the desert article).