On 03/13/12 5:22 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Samuel Klein<[email protected]> wrote:
2010's 32-volume set will be its last. (Now I want to get one, to
replace my old set!) Future versions will be digital only.
I don't use it in print, haven't for years, and have been expecting
something like this for a while, but am still surprisingly saddened by
it too; there's something about the shelf of volumes that encapsulates
the world's knowledge that sort of symbolizes the whole idea of a
library to me.
I've been asked to write a short editorial about this development from
a Wikipedian's perspective and am curious about (and would love to
include) other Wikimedian experiences -- did you use print
encyclopedias as a kid? Was a love of print encyclopedias part of your
motivation or interest in becoming a Wikipedian? Is there any value in
them still? Will you miss it?
cheers,
-- phoebe
I've always been a bookish person, even growing up in an environment
where books were not featured. I do remember having a two-volume
(perhaps the Columbia-Viking) when I was young, and still in primary
school. I cherished it, and looked up a lot of different things in it.
I don't think that my love of encyclopedias was a factor in becoming a
Wikipedian. I think it was mostly a feeling that with all the books
that I had already accumulated by 2002 I would be able to contribute
something. It was much easier to contribute then. It was fun.
I now have maybe a dozen encyclopedias, all acquired since 2002. My
latest such addition was 7 volumes from the first American edition of
The Edinburgh Encyclopædia from 1832. These older volumes remain
important because of the depth they give to knowledge. Fully grasping a
subject includes grasping its evolution unencumbered by the static
snapshot verified in Wikipedia. This is much as described in the
opening paragraphs of Thomas Mann's "Joseph and His Brothers". What
these older volumes say will often be obsolete, and sometimes absurd,
but that information remains a part of a subject's history. They include
the mistakes which enable us to measure our success.
The extent to which Wikipedia has burrowed into the modern psyche
carries a responsibility that is both awesome and awful. Britannica,
with all the faults we have acknowledged and through a couple
bankruptcies, remained the prima facie source of information for 10
English-speaking generations. We have unseated them, and not only in
English.
Ray
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
