re: Encyclopædia Britannica

quote:

---

I loved those, when the print media pretty much threw in the towel I was still getting a newspaper, one of the first things to go under the budget cutting knife was the box/line scores, that's about the time I stopped renewing the subscription

---

Yep. We got the S'port TImes and Journal. We would fight over those too...lol.

quote:

---

I don't get over there much anymore now that most of my family is gone but my mom told me a few years ago that the Times was being printed in east Texas and trucked over to Shreveport, the paper was two days old by the time it got there

---

Yep, believe thats the norm. Ours is printed in Seattle and put on an Alaska Air freighter

Yep, I had a set of the world books. I spent hours and hours going through them as a kid.

quote:

---

Encyclopædia Britannica

---

quote:

---

Any of you or your families own all this shite?

---

Mom bought them. I inherited them.

quote:

---

I'm no fan of Wokepedia, particularly in light of their non-stop begging/poor-mouthing for user donations while it was recently leaked they gave $51 million to various left-wing political causes.

However, Wiki is pretty badass for instant updates for objective data for subjects like sports, historical figures/events, music, geography, math, (most) science & medicine, etc. Pretty much anything that isn't vunerable to a subjective political take, which will always lean left. Oh, and it's mobile, in your pocket, at your fingertips.

Encyclopedia Britannica (or any in-print comprehensive reference work) could/would technically be outdated on multiple subjects the very same day you spent multiple $100s or multiple $1000s on the latest version, that takes up half your bookcase.

---

Even one of the cofounders has criticized Wikipedia for becoming leftist, but like you mentioned I still enjoy for certain topics as well as keeping a continuous interface across various topics (though it often leads me multiple levels down into a completely different topic than I started). I just know whenever politics, race, sexuality, and trans stuff get brought up to just scroll through or if important to why I am looking at a particular topic find secondary sources of information.

The one thing I do like about Britannica being static or fixed is that I don’t think past events or a person’s past should be rewritten but just have any new data added to it. Stuff getting rewritten is usually more political by group running it than correcting inaccuracies, but even those inaccuracies are a part of the history of the events or person as well and shouldn’t be erased.

It’s concerning that before too long the entire population of the earth will have gotten and continue to get all its information over their entire lifetime from digital and editable online data controlled by the liberal to left Big Tech and Wikipedia. Google and Bing manipulate search results already, and their only check is having opposite views in the White House and Congress. That check still isn’t much, but we all saw how big tech reacted once the Georgia Senate runoffs were over in Jan 2021 and gave the Dems full control of Congress and the Presidency.

It would be nice if someone bought Britannica (printed works and current online data) or something similar and started an alternative and more neutral online competitor to Wikipedia with transparency of who is doing the edits.

We had World Book encyclopedias. I wore them out. Great for rainy days

quote:

---

Delchamps

---

Wow. We had one hear but it became Big Lots.

You can still buy the 2025 version on Amazon for $1300. It's live and in color right now.

I had a second hand set of world books from the early 70s that I used in the early to mid 90s in middle in high school. The Internet came about my senior year and that was all she wrote for physical encyclopedias. And really any type of reference book for that matter. I had a dictionary and thesaurus that were obsolete overnight.