5 ms·
It is easy to disparage the Encyclopedia Britannica from a modern perspective - out-of-step, overpriced, outmaneuvered by competitors - but there is a great sad
by grellas 15y ago
It is easy to disparage the Encyclopedia Britannica from a modern perspective - out-of-step, overpriced, outmaneuvered by competitors - but there is a great sadness here at the demise of something that represented an effort by western scholars to "capture the world's knowledge." Imagine assembling a "A" team of scholars and scientists, getting them to make substantial, substantive contributions in each of their respective areas of expertise, and publishing the results under the guidance of a top editorial board. The results echoed in the western world at the highest levels for no less than two centuries, culminating in a famous 1911 edition that was widely regarded as the pinnacle in assembled human knowledge to that time - something to be marveled at. For years, collectors paid a great premium to buy the 1911 edition, just for that reason. Even in the period leading up to the 1960s, the EB was a staple in most every western home where parents valued education and academic achievement for their kids. Whole hordes of door-to-door salesmen supported their families very comfortably just by selling this particular product.
So, yes, the EB became kind of laughable with its clumsy marketing efforts and awkward efforts to adapt to modern technology in the past couple of decades, but be kind to its memory. It was one of the great attempts in all history to try to do what many dream of doing today through the internet and the advantages of the digital age: limited by the resources of that day, for sure, but an amazing achievement nonetheless. There is something special that has died here and, if only for old time's sake, we can mourn its passing.
- bcjordan 15y agoI like to think that you're trying to make the point that just as a startup team is more important than their idea, the quality of a thoughtful Encyclopedia Brittanica post is more important than its placement.
- michael_nielsen 15y agoI think you want another thread. If not, that's a very elliptical comment :-)
- amirmc 15y agoWrong thread perhaps? :) (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3700635 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3700635)
- why-el 15y agoIs this being upvoted?
- redthrowaway 15y agoPure entertainment value. Either that, or grellas is operating a voting ring...
- spindritf 15y agoWell, he is a part of tptacek's conspi^W must-read list https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=tptacek https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=tptacek
- jdpage 15y agoI would guess because it's a pretty good comment, and everyone knows where it is supposed to be.
- ww520 15y agoHaha, I vpvote you even it's for the wrong thread. Nice comment.
- Alex3917 15y ago> there is a great sadness here at the demise of something that represented an effort by western scholars to "capture the world's knowledge." Actually the original goal wasn't to capture the world's knowledge, it was to spread the enlightenment idea that man could learn about the world through reason. If anything deciding that they would be better off just generically capturing knowledge is what killed them.
- rickmb 15y agoI think you've just touched upon one the most fundamental of reasons why organisations fail to adapt to social and technological change: losing sight of the original mission. The same could be said about all those that are currently struggling with the changing times, from journalism, the music industry to democracy itself.
- rayhano 15y agoSpot on, but until the 'Facebook' classes engage with the established world (establishment), things will be built in a clumsy manner. Wikipedia is not a source of knowledge; it is collective wisdom, and we all know that you cannot make decisions by committee (hello Congress).
- bdg 15y agoIf there's a decision I want to die: I send it to committee for a slow, painful death. Sometimes it will take years of doing nothing before anyone notices we solved the prob elm the way the opposition wanted.
- agildehaus 15y agoLet's call it "The History Channel Effect".
- mcantelon 15y ago"Let's make a big book with all the stuff in it so people don't have to buy a whole bunch of books." Old people were hilarious.
- mnl 15y agoImagine how was it like googling in 1993... There was life before the internet, pal.
- rhplus 15y agoI think the most notable aspect of the 1911 edition - and every edition before and since - is that each is still around, distinct and readable. I don't yet know whether people will be able to reference a '2011 edition' of Wikipedia in a hundred years time. I'm aware of various archival projects, but unless they receive continued support, we could very easily be at risk of losing vast checkpoints in the history of humankind. The written word on paper and stone has been proven to last hundreds of years in general and thousands in rarer cases. Magnetic and electronic storage is yet to prove itself in that respect.
- nakkiel 15y agoWell, download a dump of Wikipedia and be done with it. When you say "still around", you should know that digital bits have the potential to be around forever while paper books require a lot of efforts to keep around just a couple of decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preservation_%28library_and_archival_science%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preservation_%28library_and_arc... I have an encyclopedia that's now 120 (or so) at home and I don't read it anymore because I'm too affraid to damage it. It's sad because it's gold mine of stereotypes and good words on blacks and gays. I think your point regarding "checkpoints" is more interesting but still falls moot because Wikipedia uses versionning. If you really cared that much about digital data you would do what you are doing with your book: keeping it.
- mnl 15y agoWell, they have that potential as long as the copyright holders won't go out of business, consumers stop viewing content as disposable goods and hence keep copies... and the FBI stops closing sharing sites. Now seriously, you're wrong. I've got a book from 1640 and looks fine: as long as they're printed on acid free paper they should last for centuries. Check your digital media after two decades... Hard drives/floppies from 1992 are mostly gone, CD/DVDs won't last that long because of decomposition of dye. Backup tapes, good luck with that. Now, go check which sites from the 90s keep their old files (thank God for the Internet Archive). People take for granted that every bit will stay forever, that's delusional. We have to keep moving them, if everybody stops copying a content it will be lost in less than 50 years. Now, if you think that every book with stereotypes should be discarded, that's sad. We have the responsibility to preserve history, and the moral duty to challenge what we consider wrong with our reason. To wipe it off, that's censorship and a recurrent disease of totalitarian mindsets.
- DilipJ 15y agoI doubt they were as altruistic as you describe. They probably viewed it as a good business investment. When you consider the elevated prices they pushed these books out at, and the fact that their online website is festered with ads, it's pretty clear that this is a firm that is primarily interested in the bottom line.
- kamjam 15y agoIt is sad indeed, especially since it was proper factual information properly researched by people paid to do so. But in reality, I, like most people, rarely pick up an encyclopaedia. It's easier when having an argument at the pub to just pull out my phone and check on Wikipedia. But, just as I was sad to hear that Kodak is filing for bankruptcy, this is more due to nostalgia. Businesses need to keep moving with the times and the way people consume products and services in these fast changing modern times. Unfortunately for Encyclopedia Britannica they do not have enough income unlike the Hollywood lobbyists to pay the protection money.