3 ms·
That would be _Encyclopædia Britannica_ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Encyclopaedia-Britannica-English-language-reference-work https://www.britannica.com/to
by WillAdams 3y ago
That would be _Encyclopædia Britannica_
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Encyclopaedia-Britannica-English-language-reference-work https://www.britannica.com/topic/Encyclopaedia-Britannica-En...
Also, _World Book_ is still in print:
https://arstechnica.com/culture/2023/06/rejoice-its-2023-and-you-can-still-buy-a-22-volume-paper-encyclopedia/ https://arstechnica.com/culture/2023/06/rejoice-its-2023-and...
- gosub100 3y agoI wonder if Wikipedia articles ever cite paid encyclopedias as sources? It's kind of a conundrum: many people who don't trust wikipedia would regard paid products as more "legitimate", but Britannica would presumably not want to be cited because that implicitly helps a free competitor.
- WillAdams 3y agoWikipedia started out as a copy of a public domain edition of EB. Since then, lots of folks have edited and contributed content. It was a pretty open secret that when Funk & Wagnalls (where Encarta got its content) was first starting that they would pay college students to write articles, the college students would crib from EB or some other similar source, and then submit that.