at least it can be updated more easily
Still will they charge the same as for the books and then put vat on it?
Encyclopaedia Britannica - Ah, the memories
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc has announced that after 250 years, it’s throwing in the towel on print editions and moving to all-digital delivery of alphabetised facts and figures. Encyclopaedia Britannica was a touchstone of my youth. You couldn’t go to a state fair or school event without seeing someone seated at a table …
-
Friday 16th March 2012 18:49 GMT James Marten
Your idea is too late
> My plan? I’m going to print off parts of Wikipedia, put them in binders, and sell them at state fairs and school events.
Already being done on a grand scale - just search for "Betascript" (publisher) on Amazon. First hit is for a £66 reprint of a few Wikipedia articles, and there are thousands of such titles available.
A serious ripoff, but unfortunately not illegal and neither against Wikipedia's T&Cs.
-
Friday 16th March 2012 20:38 GMT Mage
It's the endgame.
Even if it's inaccurate and sometimes dangerous how do you compete with Free?
Where is Encarta?
It is a shame really as not everyone has a tablet or PC and even less people have Internet. Fewer still have Broadband.
Mine's the one with smart phone in the pocket running "Don't Panic" as the screen saver.
-
Saturday 17th March 2012 08:13 GMT I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects
dumbass, we have the internet
It isn't free. You need a special machine a bit like a televion crossed with a typwriter and a telephone and we can sell you one for 1000 dollars and 99 cents.
If Bill Gates could do it and put IBM in the toilet, a multi-million pound, highly esteemed international company should have had no problem.
Computers cost, in those far off days, the same price as a complete set of encyclopaedias.
It should have been a no-brainer.
Once again proof is provided that money and experience multiplied by all the knowledge in the world aren't worth a good original idea and a pocket full of wisdom.
-
-
Saturday 17th March 2012 14:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
All because of the pre-Internet spammers!
"If you think Steamboat can beat me, Mean Gene, then you oughta go back to selling encyclopedia's my man!"
"I never sold an encyclopedia Jake Roberts!"
"So, you couldn't even do that either huh?"
That little snippet of a /very/ old 'Saturday Night's Main Event' says it all IMO :-)
-
Saturday 17th March 2012 15:16 GMT Andus McCoatover
It is, in a way, quite sad...
We once got hounded by one of their high-pressure door-to-door salesmen - a job he later told me he absolutely loathed.
The encyclopaedia is definitely worth owning, and I'm seriously considering shovelling £1200 to get the last version. (Thank God, even unemployment lets me keep a credit card or three...).
Encyclopaedia Britannica is one of the Icons of American Literature (don't let the name fool you).
It's a bit like translating Canterbury Tales to modern English, or releasing Samuel Pepys' diaries on CD.
She'll kill me, but Greek holiday - Britannica - Greek holiday - Britannica....Hmmmm....
-
-
Sunday 18th March 2012 07:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Most simple of facts"? "Socialist dogma"?
I guess it depends on what you're researching, but usually for the things I research, it's right on the money... and even when it is a bit light on content, there's the references down the bottom where you can go for more in-depth information.
Exactly where were Britannica's references again?
-
-
Sunday 18th March 2012 11:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: True dat,
Conservapedia might well be crap (in fact it is crap) but that does not change the fact that wikipedia has a distinct bias on any subject with even a hint of controversy.
When ever I look anything controversial up on wikipedia I always go to the talk pages. It is there that you find out what is being kept in or out of the article and what is being over or understated in the text.
-
Monday 19th March 2012 07:49 GMT beep54
Re: True dat,
Another poster had it right on the money though when said you can go to the links on the bottom. The wikipedia is pretty wild and wolly, but it is a great place to start as long as you are aware of the pitfalls inherent in this type of setup. One thing I have found that I dearly love is that when looking up 'classical' music (at least) there are often links to performances of the pieces and (Joy!) links to the sheet music!!!!
-
-
-
-
Saturday 17th March 2012 17:53 GMT Neil Barnes
I'm seriously considering it
that is, getting Granddaughter a copy of the last print. She doesn't even speak yet, let alone English (we expect that to be her third language after German and Portuguese) but it's a once-only chance. But the £1,200 is rather putting me off... still, as Andus M points out, I've still got a credit card.
-
Monday 19th March 2012 12:21 GMT Michael 28
End of an era, maybe....
Still have a copy of the Childrens Encyclopedia at my mums house (Arthur Mee)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Children's_Encyclop%C3%A6dia
I used to love the way it describes airships , biplanes, the "great war" (no mention of WW2) and the importance of the league of nations.
Encyclopedia Britannica may be right (wrt their business plan) in how they're proceeding....but just note a minute... who did I reference in this comment?
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
