Let's talk about the encyclopedia. . .

[ocean size]

The only question now is how much longer will that last?

Nice writeup. Correct answer is not very long- there is no way they keep the thing current with what I am a sure is a very much reduced demand relative to the glory days.

Wikipedia despite it's largely open source nature is already mo er e accurate on average than the ol print volumes.

 

[Guestx]

Nice writeup. Correct answer is not very long- there is no way they keep the thing current with what I am a sure is a very much reduced demand relative to the glory days.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think they can last much longer, and I really do consider that a shame. I mean, I understand the advantages of digital, but it just kind of sucks to see the end of a long-reigning institution.

I do have an idea that I think could keep print encyclopedias viable, at least for those people who prefer to read a book instead of a computer screen: Make it to where you can pay the full price one time, and then each year when the new sets come out you only have to pay a $99 upgrade fee to get the full set for the new year.

Is this viable in terms of them continuing to make a profit? I don't know. But if that was the deal, I might actually consider it. I still think it would be cool to have an encyclopedia set on the bookshelf.

In regard to the issue of keeping it current, yeah, it wouldn't be viable for current events (i.e. you couldn't go look up the results of last night's UFC event) but most topics really don't know move that fast. Information that's a year old is still current enough for most things.

Wikipedia despite it's largely open source nature is already mo er e accurate on average than the ol print volumes.

I haven't seen anything that says Wiki is MORE accurate. I have only seen some things that says it is AS accurate. Can you point me toward a source of some kind?

But even then, I think it is only as accurate for topics that are very mainstream. The farther away from the mainstream you get, the more error-filled, biased and incomplete the articles are.

 

[ralphc1]

My parents bought the World Book set in 1955 and I spent a lot of time reading them. We didn't have a telephone. There was only one television station and 3 am radio stations. We lived 7 blocks from the grade school and the public library branch. My dad worked road construction and was off work in the winter. We'd walk to the library many winter nights even some below zero nights to get books to read.

 

[FierceRedBelt]

I was an Encarta kid and I still consider that to be an amazing little piece of stand alone software.

I don't think there's a real market for yearly editions of these books at this point. Printed media needs to acknowledge that everyone is getting their fast paced and low density pieces online. What printed media can cover, however, is high quality pieces that explore topics that won't change even within years.

Maybe once a decade they could release a set and find a market for it there. It would just have to be really well made, extremely.

 

[Guestx]

My parents bought the World Book set in 1955 and I spent a lot of time reading them. We didn't have a telephone. There was only one television station and 3 am radio stations. We lived 7 blocks from the grade school and the public library branch. My dad worked road construction and was off work in the winter. We'd walk to the library many winter nights even some below zero nights to get books to read.

Damn, '55. That's old school right there. I'm not sure what year my families were. I was young, so my guess is sometime in the 70s.

It's also interesting that so many of us had World Book, when apparently World Book wasn't even considered one of the "Big 3." I wonder what's up with that?

That's an interesting story about trudging to the library. I have only recently re-discovered the library but it's a wonderful place. Why did you only have one television station? It seems that you'd have at least had ABC/CBS/NBC.

 

[Guestx]

I was an Encarta kid and I still consider that to be an amazing little piece of stand alone software.

I'm familiar with Encarta but never used it. Not sure why, really. I first started getting into computer shit around '98 when I got introduced to my dad's 486 so it seems like we'd have done the Encarta thing, but we just didn't. After World Book my next big encyclopedia was Wikipedia.

But now I'm coming full circle. I kind of want a legit encyclopedia again.

I don't think there's a real market for yearly editions of these books at this point. Printed media needs to acknowledge that everyone is getting their fast paced and low density pieces online. What printed media can cover, however, is high quality pieces that explore topics that won't change even within years.

As noted before, I don't think that a print encyclopedia can ever match an online version in terms of covering current events. Stipe KOs Werdum? Well it's going to be a while before that hits the print edition. That's what the Internet is for.

But where I think a print encyclopedia could excel--and I think this may be where you're going with your thoughts--is in DEPTH. Most topics are not current events. They're not changing every day. So for an encyclopedia like World Book, GO DEEP. If Wikipedia's article is 30,000 words, then do 60,000 words on the subject. Give us something that we're just not finding online.

 

[FierceRedBelt]

I'm familiar with Encarta but never used it. Not sure why, really. I first started getting into computer shit around '98 when I got introduced to my dad's 486 so it seems like we'd have done the Encarta thing, but we just didn't. After World Book my next big encyclopedia was Wikipedia.

As noted before, I don't think that a print encyclopedia can ever match an online version in terms of covering current events. Stipe KOs Werdum? Well it's going to be a while before that hits the print edition. That's what the Internet is for.

But where I think a print encyclopedia could excel--and I think this may be where you're going with your thoughts--is in DEPTH. Most topics are not current events. They're not changing every day. So for an encyclopedia like World Book, GO DEEP. If Wikipedia's article is 30,000 words, then do 60,000 words on the subject. Give us something that we're just not finding online.

Encarta was pretty cool and while it did have multimedia content I feel like wikipedia covers the best of it.

There's a balance that needs to be achieved while writing an encyclopedia between covering a huge amount of topics and the depth in which you cover those topics. If you decide you're just going to cover everything in twice the detail you double the size of your encyclopedia and you need someone to write it all as well. I think there's value in a once a decade snap shot of wikipedia in print too but then you must acknowledge that people aren't using your book as a research tool but as a nostalgia/browsing tool.

Where approaching things in a shocking amount of depth is appropriate is in single subject focused books. I think that's where magazines and books can make their final stands in daily media. Like you said cover things that wont change quickly and provide well constructed opinion pieces that aren't easily dismissed or debunked.

 

[Organic Damage]

The World Book along with the supplemental Childcraft set was my jam when I was a kid.

Great fuel for an inquisitive young mind.

Make and Do was the shit.

 

[Skip Reming]

My parents bought the World Book set in 1955 and I spent a lot of time reading them. We didn't have a telephone. There was only one television station and 3 am radio stations. We lived 7 blocks from the grade school and the public library branch. My dad worked road construction and was off work in the winter. We'd walk to the library many winter nights even some below zero nights to get books to read.

my grandma used to work at the army library. I think I found every book there that contained pictures of naked ladies.

 

[Guestx]

There's a balance that needs to be achieved while writing an encyclopedia between covering a huge amount of topics and the depth in which you cover those topics. If you decide you're just going to cover everything in twice the detail you double the size of your encyclopedia and you need someone to write it all as well. I think there's value in a once a decade snap shot of wikipedia in print too but then you must acknowledge that people aren't using your book as a research tool but as a nostalgia/browsing tool.

Where approaching things in a shocking amount of depth is appropriate is in single subject focused books. I think that's where magazines and books can make their final stands in daily media. Like you said cover things that wont change quickly and provide well constructed opinion pieces that aren't easily dismissed or debunked.

Yeah, well I guess it's true that print encyclopedias are more limited because of the constraints of actual physical printing. There's a point where you have to just stop, lest the size (and therefore cost) of the volume spirals out of control. So I guess in this respect digital encyclopedias have the advantage, as they can essentially be . . . however big they need to be.

Your idea about a once-a-decade memento is an interesting one, and it's funny that you bring it up because I know one of the articles I read about the cessation of the printed version contained a quote from a company official that said something exactly like that might be a possibility. They're already doing a Book of the Year, which is a review of the events of the year before:

http://store.britannica.com/collections/books/products/04121610wrld

So that's interesting.

However, call me sentimental, but I still feel like we're missing something without a yearly physical edition of these encyclopedias. There's just something about having a physical book to read . . . it's a different experience . . . and I'd also call it a time-honored tradition.

Personally, I like the idea I put forth earlier in the thread: Sell a full set of World Book (since it's the only one still being printed) for the regular price ($999) and then sell each new year's edition to these existing customers for a relatively small upgrade fee (no more than $199, preferably $99). If that was the deal, I think I might actually do it.

On topic, you might find this article interesting:

https://newrepublic.com/article/101795/encyclopedia-britannica-publish-information

 

[ralphc1]

Damn, '55. That's old school right there. I'm not sure what year my families were. I was young, so my guess is sometime in the 70s.

It's also interesting that so many of us had World Book, when apparently World Book wasn't even considered one of the "Big 3." I wonder what's up with that?

That's an interesting story about trudging to the library. I have only recently re-discovered the library but it's a wonderful place. Why did you only have one television station? It seems that you'd have at least had ABC/CBS/NBC.

I lived in a city of about 35,000 population that had a CBS station. The nearest NBC station was in a city 80 miles away with a 500 foot tower so the signal didn't go very far. ABC was a fledgling network that was only available in big cities like Chicago and Minneapolis. Early cable television would be from someone putting up a 500 foot tower to receive the more distant signals then boost them and distribute them via coaxial cable around residential areas in cities. It was about 1965 when cable was available and they slowly added areas. Only on air stations and local cable stations were included because that's all there were. Some local colleges had educational stations.

ABC television didn't really take off big until 1970 when they started broadcasting Monday Night Football. FOX was the same until they outbid CBS for NFL football.

The World Book I think came out of Chicago because it was widespread in the Midwest.

 

[FierceRedBelt]

Yeah, well I guess it's true that print encyclopedias are more limited because of the constraints of actual physical printing. There's a point where you have to just stop, lest the size (and therefore cost) of the volume spirals out of control. So I guess in this respect digital encyclopedias have the advantage, as they can essentially be . . . however big they need to be.

Your idea about a once-a-decade memento is an interesting one, and it's funny that you bring it up because I know one of the articles I read about the cessation of the printed version contained a quote from a company official that said something exactly like that might be a possibility. They're already doing a Book of the Year, which is a review of the events of the year before:

http://store.britannica.com/collections/books/products/04121610wrld

So that's interesting.

However, call me sentimental, but I still feel like we're missing something without a yearly physical edition of these encyclopedias. There's just something about having a physical book to read . . . it's a different experience . . . and I'd also call it a time-honored tradition.

Personally, I like the idea I put forth earlier in the thread: Sell a full set of World Book (since it's the only one still being printed) for the regular price ($999) and then sell each new year's edition to these existing customers for a relatively small upgrade fee (no more than $199, preferably $99). If that was the deal, I think I might actually do it.

On topic, you might find this article interesting:

https://newrepublic.com/article/101795/encyclopedia-britannica-publish-information

I guess they'd just have to look at whether or not they could make a profit by following the subscription method you're suggesting. I'm not sure it's possible.

I do like the idea of a yearly book that covers all the major events and how/when/why they effected the world. One day I'll have to get my hands on of those books. I feel like I've seen Time magazine do something similar or maybe that was for the century. It also grants us a current perspective which we wouldn't have in the future; i.e. I'm sure we wouldn't describe the revolutionary war in the same way someone who lived in 1776 would.

Honestly the road map to human knowledge proposed in the final link would have to be someone's passion project. You're never going to find two people who completely agree about what everyone should know but the basics should be easier to compromise on. The Frenchmen who linked communion with cannibalism was a bold man.

 

[The Clamburglar]

I had these as a kid. I loved them. I credit these books as part of the reason I did so well in school.

 

[ProBoxingInsidr]

i used to buy the funk and wagnall's every week or so at the grocery store to get a full set. on the one hand, the convenience of looking shit up on the net is great, but on the other it is hard not to get nostalgic about the good old days of the encyclopedia. you had to be a lot more creative to plagiarize the encyclopedia for reports

 

[Guestx]

I guess they'd just have to look at whether or not they could make a profit by following the subscription method you're suggesting. I'm not sure it's possible.

I do like the idea of a yearly book that covers all the major events and how/when/why they effected the world. One day I'll have to get my hands on of those books. I feel like I've seen Time magazine do something similar or maybe that was for the century. It also grants us a current perspective which we wouldn't have in the future; i.e. I'm sure we wouldn't describe the revolutionary war in the same way someone who lived in 1776 would.

Honestly the road map to human knowledge proposed in the final link would have to be someone's passion project. You're never going to find two people who completely agree about what everyone should know but the basics should be easier to compromise on. The Frenchmen who linked communion with cannibalism was a bold man.

Regarding the subscription idea, yeah, I don't know either. It all comes down to how much it costs to print those books. I'd like to know just what the cost of printing is.

Out of pure curiosity though, I actually e-mailed World Book and asked them what the solution is to the encyclopedia going out of date and what sort of upgrade path there is. Apparently they issue a new "yearbook" each year which provides updates for the articles. So if you buy a full encyclopedia set, and then purchase the subsequent yearbooks, in theory at least your information should never be more than a year old.

The Roadmap of Human Knowledge is a pretty interesting idea and it goes back to what I was saying in the OP about the very concept of the encyclopedia being faschinating to me. The idea that we would endeavor to provide a comprehensive summary of all human knowledge, and that if you have an encyclopedia then you should be able to gain at least an overview of nearly any topic, just fascinates me.

If I wasn't in the poor house and had a bit more discrectionary income I'd consider buying a World Book set. I think it would be cool to have and there would be something comforting in the fact that if somehow America's power grid got shut down that I wouldn't be without a wealth of information.

 

[Guestx]

I had these as a kid. I loved them. I credit these books as part of the reason I did so well in school.

It's funny you just posted that. Last night I was at the university library looking at their encyclopedia sets. They had all kinds of shit I had never heard of, and The New Book of Knowledge was one of them.

 

[Guestx]

i used to buy the funk and wagnall's every week or so at the grocery store to get a full set. on the one hand, the convenience of looking shit up on the net is great, but on the other it is hard not to get nostalgic about the good old days of the encyclopedia. you had to be a lot more creative to plagiarize the encyclopedia for reports

You get the whole set?

 

[ralphc1]

The Encyclopaedia Britannica online used to come with some computers that were sold online.

 

[Seano]

I had Funk and Wagnalls.

 

[Guestx]

The Encyclopaedia Britannica online used to come with some computers that were sold online.

I've considered signing up for the trial for their online service to see how it compares to Wikipedia. If it's much more full-featured it might be worth paying for.