
Encyclopedic Knowledge, Then vs. Now - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/business/03digi.html?hpw
======
ctkrohn
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
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.

------
asciilifeform
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.

------
three14
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
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.

