3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt'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 agoYeah, 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).