
I love my paper dictionary (2017) - bookofjoe
https://austinkleon.com/2017/08/17/why-i-love-my-paper-dictionary/
======
jackjeff
I’m old enough to have used paper dictionaries and yet I don’t miss them.

Today I have a dictionary of every language I speak in my pocket.

The serendipity of using paper dictionary exist online. Some dictionaries
(like Merriam Webster show neighboring words). Others shows random words. Many
offer to subscribe to a word of the day via email or an app.

If anything I find serendipity to be greatly improved by hyperlinks. The
dictionary is this flat shallow lexicographically ordered collection of word
definitions. It can’t compete with the depth of the internet.

Wikipedia is a lot better than any paper encyclopedia I have used. It is
updated with recent events. And following links you can go from rabbit hole to
rabbit hole effortless. I have spent countless hours on topics I did not even
know anything about in this fashion.

I think nostalgia gives people pink colored glasses that really distort
reality. I have not owned a paper dictionary I over a decade and I really
don’t miss it.

~~~
keiferski
Two points:

1\. The experience of flipping through a paper dictionary or book is more-or-
less impossible to replicate on a screen. Even the most hyperlink-heavy
Internet article is limited in comparison to a book that can be flipped
through instantaneously. With hyperlinks, you're necessarily limited to the
context of the article.

2\. Wikipedia articles are a mile wide and an inch deep and pale in comparison
to an actual encyclopedia. Furthermore, they are all written like
advertisements. This is easy to see on pages for cities and countries - the
introductory paragraph is nothing but accolades, rankings, and tourist
attractions. This is a far cry from an actual encyclopedia, which is about
data.

~~~
jacobolus
> _2\. Wikipedia articles are a mile wide and an inch deep and pale in
> comparison to an actual encyclopedia._

Do you have any examples? Or is this just a vague impression? There have been
studies done about this by neutral outside researchers which found that
generally Wikipedia was more comprehensive and more reliable than other
encyclopedias.

~~~
keiferski
Take the Vienna page as an example. In the introductory paragraphs, we have
the text below. While it isn't incorrect or false, it's quite obviously
included only facts that portray the city in the best possible light. If the
purpose of an encyclopedia is to present information in a neutral, objective
way, this doesn't seem to fit the bill.

I say this as someone who likes Vienna and thinks the quality-of-life studies
are correct. But this information belongs in a sub-header, not in the
introduction of the article.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna)

 _Vienna is known for its high quality of life. In a 2005 study of 127 world
cities, the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked the city first (in a tie with
Vancouver and San Francisco) for the world 's most liveable cities. Between
2011 and 2015, Vienna was ranked second, behind Melbourne.[20][21][22][23][24]
In 2018, it replaced Melbourne as the number one spot.[25] For ten consecutive
years (2009–2019), the human-resource-consulting firm Mercer ranked Vienna
first in its annual "Quality of Living" survey of hundreds of cities around
the world.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Monocle's 2015 "Quality of Life
Survey" ranked Vienna second on a list of the top 25 cities in the world "to
make a base within."[34][35][36][37][38]_

 _The UN-Habitat classified Vienna as the most prosperous city in the world in
2012 /2013.[39] The city was ranked 1st globally for its culture of innovation
in 2007 and 2008, and sixth globally (out of 256 cities) in the 2014
Innovation Cities Index, which analyzed 162 indicators in covering three
areas: culture, infrastructure, and markets.[40][41][42] Vienna regularly
hosts urban planning conferences and is often used as a case study by urban
planners.[43]_

 _Between 2005 and 2010, Vienna was the world 's number-one destination for
international congresses and conventions.[44] It attracts over 6.8 million
tourists a year._

~~~
ziddoap
And what does your favorite paper encyclopedia have to say in the first few
paragraphs?

~~~
keiferski
I don't have a printed encyclopedia in front of me at the moment, but for
comparison, here's the Encyclopedia Britannica online entry for Vienna. For
the most part, it is pretty neutral and objective and has far less marketing-
speak than Wikipedia.

[https://www.britannica.com/place/Vienna](https://www.britannica.com/place/Vienna)

~~~
WesleyLivesay
When I read this Vienna article, I agree that it has perhaps a bit less
marketing speak (although I don't think the two paragraphs from the Wiki Intro
you pulled are indicative of the whole article) but it is not any less
positive on the city.

In the linked article I think paragraphs 3 and 4 ("Vienna is among..." and
"Viennese Lebenskunst...") basically read like they are from a Travel
Guidebook on why you should add Vienna to your next itinerary.

I think it also showcases two of the major problems I have with Britannica and
most other "old school" encyclopedias:

1\. A general aversion to putting dates with facts. For instance the article
states that 2 million visitors comes to the city annually. The Wiki article
links to statistics from the city that put that number much higher. I
understand that the 2 million number may be from some time ago, but I have no
way of knowing. My assumption has always been that they do not put dates on
things to prevent appearing out of date. They are really good at putting dates
on "history" but seem to be much more hesitant on putting dates on "current"
information which makes me think that a lot of that "current" information is
already "history"

2\. Lack of any sort of citations. I do generally trust Britannica, but it
would be nice to get information about where they are getting their
information.

------
sgt101
This highlights one of the impacts that the internet has had on our society;
the tyranny of the search result.

Precise results to queries, or results wrapped with irrelevant out of context,
spam or just uninteresting near misses mean that our explorations are stymied.

The monopolies of knowledge provision (google, wikipedia) also mean that
narrow groups (either tacitly through algorithmic design or directly through
editorial decisions) control the associations of knowledge. The concerns of
the organisations offering the knowledge are also reflected in the structure
of the systems provided. Google is a money making operation, children do not
make it money, therefore Google does not offer a children's search engine (if
I worked for Google I would be _ashamed_ at how hard they make it for children
to find things on the internet).

There are intentional manipulations, but these are not the fault of the
internet providers (I believe, almost completely) and happened with
dictionaries, encyclopedias and text books in any case. But what is new is the
narrowness and exclusivity of information provision.

~~~
Simon_says
Can you give an example of how Google is failing kids' unique needs? I'm not
understanding.

~~~
sgt101
go to incongnito/private mode to get personalisation out of the way (I don't
think that this makes a difference, in this case, but who knows!)

Search for hybrid car, ignore the privacy reminder as that's just because of
private mode.

I get 4 ads. On the right there is an information bubble with images, a
wikipedia snippit and four alternative searches.

The highlighted result is off the page on my browser - I have to scroll for
it, it's a summary from "car magazine". Then there are four lines of "people
also ask" and then the organic results start.

Notice, I have missed out the icons on the search bar, the menu bar of search
controls and the report of the number of results and search engine performance
(does anyone really need to know that google can do this search in 0.85s?
Isn't that debate done?) And most confusingly the switch between the browser
bar and the search bubble - your search is mystically teleported from one
place on the screen to another, a violation of interface that floors children
instantly.

Now - imagine you are explaining this to a six year old (the layout of the
page). I have done this, and I was met (unsurprisingly) by blank
incomprehension. I have previously explained (conceptually!) Newtonian
Calculus to said six year old, and she got it (I'm not so sure I do, but there
you go). We (the informationartiieee) filter this out, screen these
complexities and dodge and weave through the spaghetti that modern google is
(do you remember geocities, old yahoo?)

Now, we are not even in the zone of how do we frame the queries, how do we
cross check, how do we explore further (although google is trying to prompt
us/me for that) but the fundamental is that google is trying to be many things
at once; it's trying to provide a console onto this topic, it's trying to
provide shopping advice, it's trying to summarise so that we don't click
further (is that good?) it's trying to prompt for other searches (which I
posit is a self fulfilling prophesy), what it is not doing is delivering a
kids encyclopedia or providing a diverse interface to a plurality of different
types of information sources.

I can contrast this with a tool that google provides that I know that six year
olds do and can use - google maps. They can find places and use "the little
red man" to locate themselves and see what's where they are exploring. Hardly
any explaining is needed.

Now there are a lot of queries where Google reverts to a more "information
only mode", for example "where do butterflies come from" but this is another
point - google's behaviour is wildly inconsistent, these variations are fine
for you and me and our friends, but they are not for six year olds, or nine
year olds (my experience is limited here).

I really find it interesting that it is a fact that the people at google
haven't even made a tool that their families might need or can use. I am a
technical person, and my family are pretty well smack in the google
demographic, so I don't know what that reveals about how useful the tool is
for people who are not like me an google people... but I suspect that it's
pretty indicative that it just isn't as useful for many, many people as it
really should be.

~~~
iamnotacrook
What is Google's competition like here? Sounds like Google should be worried.

~~~
sgt101
lol.

Sadly, it's me who's worried.

------
corodra
This is the same reason I like libraries and book stores. Especially used book
stores. You can find some interesting books at "random". Generally random of
course. But these are books that would, 9 out of 10 times, never be
recommended to you by an algorithm. Taliban by Ahmed Rashid was one such book.
I found it late last year by accident at the library. Totally changed my
perspective on the war on terror. A way better understanding on how 9/11 came
to be (the book was published in 2000). That led to the past year of reading
history books on various subjects. And I'm happy. While my amazon account only
ever recommends tech and business books to me. Which all generally sadden me.

Oh plus, this was a few years ago, I road tripped through the Oregon coast. I
went into used book stores and bought a metric fuckton of old school pulp
fiction crime noir books for like a buck each. All published in the 20s and
30s. Holy crap, so awesome. Again, never would have been suggested any of
those if I was walking around and picked random books to look at.

Random and physical is nice. Digital and "recommended" has its place. But the
real world can't really be replaced.

~~~
yepthatsreality
I have come to the conclusion that digital/algorithmic recommendations will
always be marketing influenced and lack the context to make an absolute
guaranteed recommend. Random-physical and friendly suggestions are more
accurate and reveal much more as they come from sources rather than a machine
"guessing" what will work. Algorithms are also subject to poisoning. Friendly
suggestions are subject to poisoning but the risk is of course much less.

TLDR; I enjoy the work required for discovery. For example, I'd rather cancel
Netflix streaming and returning to Netflix physical for missed releases,
hidden nuggets/gems, hard to find, and better consumption management.

~~~
corodra
I agree. But again, I'm not 100% against algorithmic recommendations. Same way
I'm not always 100% for human curated recommendations either. Both have pros
and cons.

What I liked back in the day was the original netflix recommendations when
they first started. From what I understand, they did it where they matched
movies you like/dislike compared to other people that roughly liked/disliked
the same. Then they recommend movies and guess how you might feel over a movie
you haven't seen. Those I have watched, but haven't rated yet, the ratings
were pretty close to how I felt about said movie. Then, it always seemed like
the end of the list of recommendations was an oddball film. I loved those odd
ball movies. Always out of my "known territory" of films. 70% of the time,
yea, never ventured to watch. But the 30% that I did end up watching were
always worth it and never regretted. That's the system I like. A decent mix of
the pros and cons from both worlds.

------
rtpg
Related: anyone on MacOS, try to use the dictionaries built into the OS. They
are extremely high quality and have surpassed sources I've seen elsewhere.
Even for words in my native language I'll pick up a lot of interesting details
and synonyms. And on top of that they have a lot of language-to-language
dictionaries for anyone who deals with foreign languages a lot.

It's actually on my short list of things that make me want to stick to MacOS
desppite everything

~~~
jonnycomputer
I didn't even know there was one. I thank you for that. Is there an API that I
can hook into (I'm thinking emacs here). Maybe a Swift script calling this:
[https://developer.apple.com/documentation/coreservices/14468...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/coreservices/1446842-dcscopytextdefinition)

~~~
rtpg
[https://josephg.com/blog/reverse-engineering-apple-
dictionar...](https://josephg.com/blog/reverse-engineering-apple-
dictionaries/) seems like there's someone who outright reverse engineered the
format as well.

Normally I would recommend going for something via Applescript but it seems
like Dictionary.app doesn't expose anything via Applescript (though it totally
should)

------
Shoop
Here's a great article covering why some dictionaries are great and why some
are just boring. It also goes into a more detailed discussion of John McPhee
(mentioned in OP) and what dictionary he uses.

"You're probably using the wrong dictionary" \-
[http://jsomers.net/blog/dictionary](http://jsomers.net/blog/dictionary)

~~~
atommclain
I stumbled across this article a bit over a month ago and it lead me to
discovering the mobile app Dictionary Universal which allows you to search the
definition of a word in multiple dictionaries at the same time. It's nice to
see different dictionaries definitions of the same word.

The only problem I have with it is that I can't seem to find any legal copies
of dictionaries to use with it in the supported Lingvo DSL and Stardict
formats.

That being said, there are a few websites that allow you to add all the big
names in dictionaries to the app. I just wish I could do it above board.

------
louhike
A paper dictionary has a massive advantage for me when reading: it's not a
source of distraction. There's no social media on it. I cannot check sport
results. I do not even think about being tempted because all my screens are
not close to me.

I also find it quicker than 1/unlocking my phone, 2/opening the app list,
3/opening the browser/app and 4/searching for the word and 5/clicking on the
appropriate result in the list available. But it's minor and I'm sure some
people have quicker ways. The main advantage is simply that I have no access
to the internet.

------
themodelplumber
I enjoy using my dictionary as well, though I purchased it new at a chain
store and it is somewhat lacking in cachet.

One thing I did do is develop a little script that puts 10 random dictionary
words into whatever text file I'm editing, which has been helpful for
brainstorming purposes. Several of my clients' ah-ha moments have been
directly attributable to questions I have asked them due to these dictionary
words. Plus: There's just something about coming across a neat word.

------
proc0
Information will always be better digitized, this is objectively the case.
Whether you grow up appreciating ink and paper or swiping up and down is
incidental.

This is just romanticizing paper/physical medium. Similar things happen when
you google, you might not type in the perfect keywords so you get other
results. This also happens when looking for images, you will see all kinds of
related ones, and I use this for inspiration as well (not to mention services
dedicated to this like Pinterest which serve this purpose specifically). I
really don't get the attachment to physical medium. It's clunky and 100% of
the information can be digitized. Now books as a decorative element in some
room... that's good interior design.

------
wyclif
My faves are the early Webster's Dictionaries (I have an 1828 first edition
reprint, and a New International Second Edition, Unabridged, that was
published in 1934 and lives on a library stand in my office).

I'm also a huge fan of the complete Oxford English Dictionary (the final
arbiter of the meaning of English words) and although I'd like to have the
full multivolume edition, because of space contraints I settle for the older
2-volume micrographically reduced edition that comes with a Bausch & Lomb
magnifying glass that lives in its own drawer at the top of the slipcase; I
won this as a spelling bee prize.

------
GSHF2J32nBpb
I think American Heritage is special case. I have had many dictionaries and
the only one that is "readable" is AHD. I have the fifth edition and every
time I look at it it just brings me joy.

------
AceyMan
This seems like a good time to endorse the "real" Roget's Thesaurus (currently
titled, 'Roget's International Thesaurus' with "The Original Roget's" on the
dust cover).

I'd wager many (?most) folks have only used a dictionary-style thesaurus or
some online version. But, kind of like RPN calculators <heh>, once you master
a real thesaurus it's a game-changer.

For those not familiar: all the 'target' words are fully indexed against the
main section where Platonic ideals, as it were, comprise fundamental language
constructs. Think: Dewey Decimal System, but for words.

Usage: locate the word you want to match in the index (which is about one-
quarter of the page count!); find the section ID for the matching concept(s);
flip forward into the body section to the numbered § where is listed _all the
words in that category_.

There you find not just a handful of synonyms as you get from a dictionary-
style but every word that is nuanced, colloquial, arcane, &. — they're all
there. It's frequently in the dozens and sometimes is more than a full-page
column. There is no comparison in the quality of choices between the two
formats.

NB: my college roommate turned me onto this as a freshman and it's been one of
my greatest research/writing tips ever since.

------
dcchambers
I'll admit I don't use a dictionary much when I am writing. Spellcheck has
spoiled me and I probably limit my vocabulary as a result.

When I am reading I pull out the dictionary all the time (most often on my
phone) to look things up. I prefer the digital dictionary while reading
because it's virtually instantaneous and doesn't impact my train-of-thought as
much as a paper dictionary would. I also write down at least 1 word a day that
is new to me or is notable and fun. Most recently I've written down
"autodidact," "epithet," "pithy," and, after reading this blog post,
"proprioception."

I can see the value in using a paper dictionary when writing. I think I'll
give it a try.

------
kieckerjan
Price is a factor too. Access to the online version of arguably the best Dutch
dictionary costs 75 euro's a year. The print version costs 180 euro's and
lasts you a lifetime. Granted, you don't have the monthly updates they claim
to do, but I personally hardly look up modern words so that adds little value
for me.

For the convenience of a quick search interface I would be willing to buy an
online version for a euro per month. For that price, the publisher would have
earned more money from me than he has until now, since my print version is
over thirty years old (and still going strong).

------
teddyh
I like paper book references because when I use them, there’s not a permanent
record made, belonging to some unknown group of companies, of the exact time
and manner of how I used them.

------
jedberg
I feel the same way about the encyclopedia. When I was a kid, I had to use a
book to look things up, and oftentimes I would read a bunch of articles on the
way to what I was looking up. The closest you could get today would be hitting
the "random" button on wikipedia a few times before reading the article you
were looking for.

------
jonjacky
In _The Autobiography of Malcolm X_ , he tells how he learned to read and
write by copying out, _by hand_ , the _entire dictionary_ he got from the
prison library, copying a page a day. (It's in chapter 11 of the
_Autobiography_ ).

------
meerita
> convenience always ends up replacing nostalgia

I used paper dictionaries so much when I was kid but I don't find them useful
today. I have so much information at one tap of my hand that, it is hard to
see the benefit or the convienience on something that lacks almost everything.

------
tuomosipola
A good paper dictionary usually has better usability than most Internet
dictionaries. That being said, I tend to use Wiktionary quite a lot, but then
usually use the sources it points to in order to verify the results.

------
benj111
The standard answer from my parents when I asked what something meant was to
"look it up in the dictionary". It annoyed child me, but I think it gave me
the habit of doing my own research.

I still have a dictionary now.

------
29athrowaway
And paper encyclopedias.

