[Progniusis]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012...nt-publication

Not really a surprise really. Who needs an unwieldy set of books when you can do it all (so much easier) digitally?

[Anaedilla]

Sad but true

[freevideom]

Well, that's a whole lot less deforestation right there. Shame, I wanted to own a set someday, but truth be told I'd never use it.

[Britfunclubs]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012...nt-publication

Not really a surprise really. Who needs an unwieldy set of books when you can do it all (so much easier) digitally?

Old people do. You'd be surprised how often the World Book set gets used at my local library.

[Clarissa]

I love the modern way of finding information, but I'll never forget the fun I had reading random parts of the World Book set that my parents got me as a child. I think kids will miss out on some of those experiences.

[Broker15015]

surely enclyapedia has lots of pics and captions

they should make an app or something that would look great on the ipad, kindle, and nook

[Gaxiciverfere]

I love the modern way of finding information, but I'll never forget the fun I had reading random parts of the World Book set that my parents got me as a child. I think kids will miss out on some of those experiences.

Same way we today end up reading pages and pages from Wikipedia randomly.

[Zjohkrbi]

Same way we today end up reading pages and pages from Wikipedia randomly.

Only the difference would be that with a book, the next entry will already be opened in front of the reader, while in wikipedia you'll have to click your way to see it, compared to just having to look right next to it, thus rendering it not as accessible as it would be with a book.

I think that this small detail does matter, so eventually some of the experience is getting lost...

Both have their pros and cons imo. I wouldn't rule any of them out, personally.

[QiuCIOdO]

Old people do. You'd be surprised how often the World Book set gets used at my local library.

You don't stop being able to use a PC once you get past 50. Haven't you ever heard of sliver surfers?

[spamkillerf]

Only the difference would be that with a book, the next entry will already be opened in front of the reader, while in wikipedia you'll have to click your way to see it, compared to just having to look right next to it, thus rendering it not as accessible as it would be with a book.

I think that this small detail does matter, so eventually some of the experience is getting lost...

Both have their pros and cons imo. I wouldn't rule any of them out, personally.

Yes, 'cos clicking another link is so hard right ?

I find myself reading more and more from online encyclopaedias, this coming from a guy who used to read Brittanica profusely as a kid.

And why not rule out a huge expensive collection of books which is rendered obsolete the next day after it's printed.

I used to love printed encyclopaedias but that was the 90's and we didn't even have proper pc's or internet back then.

I think that now it's better since I can not only read the articles but also check every source quoted in the said article.

[ådrrraj]

I love to have books in the house. Many of them. I'd never read an e-book in bed for example or on the couch, the "whatever"-pad is just too uncomfortable. And I dont like reading long texts from screens anyway.

But es far as encyclopedias go, its better to have them all in one file, than in 27 fat ass heavy books. And of course a printed lexicon is out of date right from the start.

[CAxrrAYN]

I much prefer books as you can have a bunch open at once and find information much more quickly in articles, tabbed searches are all very well, but I prefer paper - BUT the 'net can also be much easier to use for finding those unusual things you may have trouble finding in a library - and I don't mean pron

It also means students would need to read and write down what they find, rather than just cut and paste without neccessarily understanding, or even reading, what they've pasted.

[Corryikilelet]

You don't stop being able to use a PC once you get past 50. Haven't you ever heard of sliver surfers?

There is a significant population of non-pc users in the US. Before my grandparents passed a few years ago, they never put so much as a finger on a PC. I spend a good portion of my time at the library by my home and while there are some 70-80 year olds who will go up and use a PC, but there is still a sizable group that relies exclusively on paper multimedia.

[Rchzygnc]

SOmeone should program a "Wiki random page generator" that would be cool

[DenisLevvin]

There is a significant population of non-pc users in the US. Before my grandparents passed a few years ago, they never put so much as a finger on a PC. I spend a good portion of my time at the library by my home and while there are some 70-80 year olds who will go up and use a PC, but there is still a sizable group that relies exclusively on paper multimedia.

Things move on, otherwise we'd still be using the card index system in libraries. You have to use a PC just to do a book search these days; it's not a huge step from that to using a digital encyclopaedia.

A full set of the Encyclopedia Britannica costs nearly £2000! Over here libraries are short of funds and my personal opinion is that that money (and shelf space) is better used for other things. How many ordinary books could £2000 buy? A lot.

[StanWatts]

Yes, 'cos clicking another link is so hard right ?

You've completely missed my point, you could read the whole post next time... But I'll repeat myself in a different way.

One (not saying EVERYone) would be less intrigued by the option of clicking something, compared to having it already written right next to where he/she would be looking, and the option of reviewing it quickly without having to 'browse' a website. I know for fact that for me it would be this way, at least. It has nothing to do with clicking being so hard as you were suggesting.

[njfeedd3w]

Over here libraries are short of funds.

Then give the libraries more funds.

I can't do research in a library at a PC. I need all my reference books in front of me on a table where I can take notes and cross-reference. This would be impossible at a library computer where desk space is often negligible.

[Poll Pitt]

Then give the libraries more funds.

Where from? Perhaps you missed it but we're in a recession atm: the country's in debt (who to I have no idea), everything's being cut back, libraries are being closed, people are loosing their jobs.

[Kemapreedasse]

Where from? Perhaps you missed it but we're in a recession atm: the country's in debt (who to I have no idea), everything's being cut back, libraries are being closed, people are loosing their jobs.

Closing libraries is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Someone should tell your government that during a recession, you're supposed to increase spending to spur growth. All that horseshit about austerity and cutting deficits is Conservative cover to eliminate programs they've hated for decades and would cut regardless of the state of the economy.

[zabiqapara]

Closing libraries is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Someone should tell your government that during a recession, you're supposed to increase spending to spur growth. All that horseshit about austerity and cutting deficits is Conservative cover to eliminate programs they've hated for decades and would cut regardless of the state of the economy.

While I agree in principle, increasing spending in the UK's case was doomed to fail considering the existing level of debt. The UK is about to be downgraded despite austerity plans.

Sometimes you need to cut the costs before you can spend more. Even governments.