Very refreshing article about the world"s seemingly last #encyclopedia.
There are a couple of noteworthy things, but I'll pick out just one:
"Although the term "encyclopedia" is now almost synonymous with Wikipedia, it's refreshing to see such a sizable reference printed on paper. So I bought one, and I'll tell you why."
...citing "Wikipedia " as a source for a paper is a methodological error.
For high-school students, I had initially thought that to be exaggerated.
Through my work as a blogger and commentator, I frequently need rapid information on new, unfamiliar topics, often even as a side note or just to have an illustration for a paragraph.
However, I've come to realize for years that simply by comparing the peer-reviewed versions in different language versions, at least one showed sloppier research than the other.
For instance, I recently wasn't to satisfied with the conclusions regarding a famous poem/prayer by a German author who emigrated to the #US. Therefore, I switched to the English version. That was way more accurate and reached a (correct) rather...
A week earlier, I saw this issue the other way round for entries of the Balkans.
These are just two examples.
Even before the singularity, I now agree that Wikipedia, at least using only one language version, is not a very reliable source. Alas, in the first months of the #InformationApocalypse, "doing your..
...own research" becomes harder every month. (I recently read that there seems to be a glut of poorly researched scientific papers by Chinese authors in particular. )
So, having a well-researched (print) version of an encyclopedia that no (fascist) government can tamper with without you knowing it, might be really worthwhile.