5 ms·

Encyclopedic Knowledge, Then vs. Now

28 points by robg 18y ago

ctkrohn 18y ago
It's probably been ten years since I even thought about looking something up in a CDROM encyclopedia, but even now it's kind of sad to think that Encarta is gone. When I was a kid, my dad bought a double-speed CDROM drive for our Digital Equipment Corporation 486-powered computer, and the 1994 edition of Encarta. At the time, Encarta was the best possible reference for a curious kid. If you just wanted to learn about something interesting, it was way easier than flipping through heavy encyclopedia volumes. I'm sure plenty of this site's readers have innocently gone to a Wikipedia page to look something up, only to find themselves reading a completely unrelated page a half hour later. Encarta was deep enough for a kid to do just that. Some time around 1994 or 1995 (just after we got a modem), I remember reading an article in a magazine comparing three CDROM encyclopedias: Encarta, World Book, and Compton's. There was a sidebar, entitled something like "What about the Web?" The conclusion was that while the Web was promising, it just wasn't comprehensive enough to replace a CDROM encyclopedia. It's funny to think how far we've come. Finally, it's interesting to see how irrelevant encyclopedias are for current schoolchildren. When I was in middle school and early high school, an encyclopedia was the first thing you went to if you needed to write a typical school paper. In eighth grade I had to write a research paper on a topic of my choice; I remember my teacher telling us that while we could start our research with an encyclopedia, we were forbidden to cite it as a source. My eighth-grade brother says he always starts a paper by reading up on Wikipedia -- he's never looked up anything in a traditional encyclopedia.
- likpok 18y ago
  I remember a story a friend of mine told me about high school. He was in US history, and was supposed to do an assignment on Andrew Jackson (or something similar), so he rot13'd the wiki article, so that everyone else would have to either know how to see history, or do real research. Admittedly, he did it to annoy rather than teach them, but an interesting side effect. In an unrelated node, I remember playing with Encarta as a small child as well. There were some games of some sort in it, I think (something interactive, anyway), and I spent long hours playing with it. It is almost my only recollection of it, in fact.
three14 18y ago
My recollection of Encarta was that it didn't have nearly enough information to satisfy my curiosity. If I wanted to get an explanation that was actually satisfying, I needed to turn to my grandparents' ancient Britannica. I suppose I'm part of a niche market, but if only they actually tried to have more information on the subjects they covered than Wikipedia, instead of just consistent quality...
dimitar 18y ago
I remember Encarta to be inaccurate and having few listed sources. I rather see a messy and full of controversy wikipedia article than a short and oversimplified - it gives you a wrong impression on sensitive and complex issues.
asciilifeform 18y ago
My first encyclopedia when I was young was a CD-ROM edition of Britannica. It had a superficially deep article on almost everything, and made for endless hours of joyful exploration. Then one day I found a complete 1958 paper edition of the Britannica in a dumpster - in perfect condition, no dirt or damage. It was an entirely different world. The degree to which it surpassed the digital edition defies description. The articles on various machines, chemical reactions, fortifications, etc. seemed detailed enough to replicate all of these wonders with my own hands, had I the time or resources. The coverage of most historical events seemed intellectually top-notch and well-researched. That was when I first understood that the transition to digital media is not an unmitigated good, and that much is being lost - without many people necessarily noticing. I still have the 1958 Britannica, and I intend to keep it for the rest of my days. Some of the articles inside (in particular, on mathematical concepts) are unmatched in their quality by Wikipedia or even Wolfram MathWorld.

28 points by robg 18y ago

It's probably been ten years since I even thought about looking something up in a CDROM encyclopedia, but even now it's kind of sad to think that Encarta is gone. When I was a kid, my dad bought a double-speed CDROM drive for our Digital Equipment Corporation 486-powered computer, and the 1994 edition of Encarta. At the time, Encarta was the best possible reference for a curious kid. If you just wanted to learn about something interesting, it was way easier than flipping through heavy encyclopedia volumes. I'm sure plenty of this site's readers have innocently gone to a Wikipedia page to look something up, only to find themselves reading a completely unrelated page a half hour later. Encarta was deep enough for a kid to do just that. Some time around 1994 or 1995 (just after we got a modem), I remember reading an article in a magazine comparing three CDROM encyclopedias: Encarta, World Book, and Compton's. There was a sidebar, entitled something like "What about the Web?" The conclusion was that while the Web was promising, it just wasn't comprehensive enough to replace a CDROM encyclopedia. It's funny to think how far we've come. Finally, it's interesting to see how irrelevant encyclopedias are for current schoolchildren. When I was in middle school and early high school, an encyclopedia was the first thing you went to if you needed to write a typical school paper. In eighth grade I had to write a research paper on a topic of my choice; I remember my teacher telling us that while we could start our research with an encyclopedia, we were forbidden to cite it as a source. My eighth-grade brother says he always starts a paper by reading up on Wikipedia -- he's never looked up anything in a traditional encyclopedia.

likpok 18y ago
I remember a story a friend of mine told me about high school. He was in US history, and was supposed to do an assignment on Andrew Jackson (or something similar), so he rot13'd the wiki article, so that everyone else would have to either know how to see history, or do real research. Admittedly, he did it to annoy rather than teach them, but an interesting side effect. In an unrelated node, I remember playing with Encarta as a small child as well. There were some games of some sort in it, I think (something interactive, anyway), and I spent long hours playing with it. It is almost my only recollection of it, in fact.

three14 18y ago

My recollection of Encarta was that it didn't have nearly enough information to satisfy my curiosity. If I wanted to get an explanation that was actually satisfying, I needed to turn to my grandparents' ancient Britannica. I suppose I'm part of a niche market, but if only they actually tried to have more information on the subjects they covered than Wikipedia, instead of just consistent quality...

dimitar 18y ago

I remember Encarta to be inaccurate and having few listed sources. I rather see a messy and full of controversy wikipedia article than a short and oversimplified - it gives you a wrong impression on sensitive and complex issues.

asciilifeform 18y ago

My first encyclopedia when I was young was a CD-ROM edition of Britannica. It had a superficially deep article on almost everything, and made for endless hours of joyful exploration. Then one day I found a complete 1958 paper edition of the Britannica in a dumpster - in perfect condition, no dirt or damage. It was an entirely different world. The degree to which it surpassed the digital edition defies description. The articles on various machines, chemical reactions, fortifications, etc. seemed detailed enough to replicate all of these wonders with my own hands, had I the time or resources. The coverage of most historical events seemed intellectually top-notch and well-researched. That was when I first understood that the transition to digital media is not an unmitigated good, and that much is being lost - without many people necessarily noticing. I still have the 1958 Britannica, and I intend to keep it for the rest of my days. Some of the articles inside (in particular, on mathematical concepts) are unmatched in their quality by Wikipedia or even Wolfram MathWorld.