It is easy to disparage the Encyclopedia Britannica from a modern perspective - out-of-step, overpriced, outmaneuvered by competitors - but there is a great sadness here at the demise of something that represented an effort by western scholars to "capture the world's knowledge." Imagine assembling a "A" team of scholars and scientists, getting them to make substantial, substantive contributions in each of their respective areas of expertise, and publishing the results under the guidance of a top editorial board. The results echoed in the western world at the highest levels for no less than two centuries, culminating in a famous 1911 edition that was widely regarded as the pinnacle in assembled human knowledge to that time - something to be marveled at. For years, collectors paid a great premium to buy the 1911 edition, just for that reason. Even in the period leading up to the 1960s, the EB was a staple in most every western home where parents valued education and academic achievement for their kids. Whole hordes of door-to-door salesmen supported their families very comfortably just by selling this particular product.
So, yes, the EB became kind of laughable with its clumsy marketing efforts and awkward efforts to adapt to modern technology in the past couple of decades, but be kind to its memory. It was one of the great attempts in all history to try to do what many dream of doing today through the internet and the advantages of the digital age: limited by the resources of that day, for sure, but an amazing achievement nonetheless. There is something special that has died here and, if only for old time's sake, we can mourn its passing.
> there is a great sadness here at the demise of something that represented an effort by western scholars to "capture the world's knowledge."
Actually the original goal wasn't to capture the world's knowledge, it was to spread the enlightenment idea that man could learn about the world through reason. If anything deciding that they would be better off just generically capturing knowledge is what killed them.
I think the most notable aspect of the 1911 edition - and every edition before and since - is that each is still around, distinct and readable. I don't yet know whether people will be able to reference a '2011 edition' of Wikipedia in a hundred years time. I'm aware of various archival projects, but unless they receive continued support, we could very easily be at risk of losing vast checkpoints in the history of humankind. The written word on paper and stone has been proven to last hundreds of years in general and thousands in rarer cases. Magnetic and electronic storage is yet to prove itself in that respect.
It is sad indeed, especially since it was proper factual information properly researched by people paid to do so. But in reality, I, like most people, rarely pick up an encyclopaedia. It's easier when having an argument at the pub to just pull out my phone and check on Wikipedia.
But, just as I was sad to hear that Kodak is filing for bankruptcy, this is more due to nostalgia. Businesses need to keep moving with the times and the way people consume products and services in these fast changing modern times.
Unfortunately for Encyclopedia Britannica they do not have enough income unlike the Hollywood lobbyists to pay the protection money.
I doubt they were as altruistic as you describe. They probably viewed it as a good business investment. When you consider the elevated prices they pushed these books out at, and the fact that their online website is festered with ads, it's pretty clear that this is a firm that is primarily interested in the bottom line.
It's interesting how gradual history can seem, even when we're in the middle of huge changes. Online sources of information just kept getting better, too slowly to really notice, and print encyclopedias seemed less and less relevant, but it wasn't until today that this really hit me. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is no longer being printed. That's kind of shocking, though in retrospect it seems almost inevitable.
Indeed history is gradual, but the thing that shocks me about this is that in 3,000 years when our successors look back, is this the period they're going to think our society ended?
Is their society going to be digging through the buried remains of silicon valley and saying "their civilization seemed to disappear when they started mass producing these 3.5" and 2.5" boxes containing sheets of metal.
It seems far fetched, but when all our data is digital, how long before we have a "burning of the library of Alexandria" moment. Thankfully all the companies ripping wikipedia articles and serving them with adverts are actually helping avoid a moment like this. Multiple-redundancy is likely the only method to prevent huge amounts of information from being lost.
Back in the day, it was a great product. My family had an edition endorsed (in the first pages) by Queen Elizabeth II and Richard Nixon, and I can't calculate how many hours I spent leafing through the pages. I guess that's been replaced by Wikipedia's "Random article" link, but with EB you never got crap about Pokemon.
There was huge value in thumbing through these as a child. We could never afford the set, but I had used copies of individual volumes and I spent many, many hours reading random topics. You just don't get that kind of discovery in an online version. Maybe you could, but you don't.
I agree - I have a lot of nostalgia over this, as we had a complete set of the 1921 edition - reading though that to see just how much the world had changed (and this would have been in the 80's) was fascinating.
I recall reading a story (couldn't find it just now) about how Bill Gates tried unsuccessfully to license the Britannica content to create his digital encyclopedia product. Instead, Microsoft cobbled together assets themselves and built Encarta (1993).
Microsoft proceeded to trounce the print Encyclopedia business by creating a better product that severely undercut the traditional players.
Here we are, 2012, finally Britannica is dead. That took longer than expected.
I used both products while growing up and I think that Encarta sucked. It was in no way a competitor to Encyclopedia Brittanica.
I read in a book ("Blown to Bits") that one of the reasons why Brittanica flopped was because the sales people did not understand what they were selling. They thought that what they were selling was knowledge.
But most of the customers bought the books to assuage parental guilt, that they were doing enough by their children. Once the computer came around people stopped buying encyclopedia's so that "Johnny would do well in school," and bought computers instead.
Encyclopedia Brittanica did end up becoming a victim of changing technology, but in the short term at least, not in the direct way as is assumed.
One thing I remember about Encarta back when the Pentium 75mHz was king, If you copied a passage of text and pasted it into MS word, it automatically generated a footnote entry. To this day I've never seen any other software do that. (Not saying there isn't any, I've just not seen it)
I think Wikipedia is what trounced Britannica (and, earlier, Encarta, which is no longer being sold even online), and that Wikipedia is much more a descendant of Britannica than it is of Encarta.
I recall Encarta as the first CD that came with my CD-ROM back then it was 2x read speed.
I was extremely amazed how entire encyclopedia full of content with pictures, sounds and charts that I could most likely never read from start to end can fit into one single disc of a palm size.
History goes on... can you actually imagine in next 250 years what will replace Wikipedia? Imagine this: "After 250 years, Wikipedia shuts down its remaining servers due to lack of traffic".
At least they had the good sense not to form the Encyclopaedia Industry Association of America (EIAA)--an organization whose charter would have been to sue random Wikipedia users.
Why not move to an on-demand printing model, I wonder? I can understand not devoting a large amounts of resources towards typesetting and storing new editions, but it does seem (at least from the comments here, and anecdotally elsewhere) that people enjoy older editions as objects d'art. There might very well be a market for selling, eg, "new" 1912 editions if you can avoid the warehousing overhead and ship them direct.
It's too bad Encyclopaedia Britannica won't collaborate with Wikipedia. The company could bring their authors, reviewers, content, and experience from a sinking ship to an information platform that is successful but could be even better.
"About half a million households pay a $70 annual fee that includes access to the full database of articles, videos, original documents and access to mobile applications." That's $35 million a year, which is not as good as the best year of the print version (which would have $150 million in sales if I'm figuring correctly), but is still not too shabby.
And who would pay for those authors, reviewers, content, and experience? Those Britannica contributors interested in contributing to Wikipedia can certainly do so--and I assume there are some who are. But I'm also sure that many contributed to Britannica because they were paid and, for better or worse, there's no model to monetizing Wikipedia contributions.
Well damn. Now I feel I need to go out and buy a copy, so I don't get sent all the way back to the stone age in the event of a massive solar flare or nuclear war or zombie apocalypse.
In the novel Lucifer's Hammer one of the main characters built his personal library around that sort of "whit if" scenario. Books like "Way Things Work" vol I and II. texts on primitive pharmacology, how to make insulin, etc. And he did use his stash of books (well hidden) to barter his way into joining a community that was trying to rebuild it's corner of the world.
Sad, but inevitable. I owned a copy growing up and it was an invaluable source of information. I remember flipping through the volumes and marveling at how much information I had at my fingertips. For whatever reason my computer has never given me that same feeling of awe and wonder. There's just something about staring at a bookshelf filled with those tomes of knowledge that triggers my thirst for information.
I recommend the 1968 or so, EB editions if you are looking for an older one. The 1972 or 1973 was the last of the classic style ones, after that they went with Micropedia/Macropedia etc. which is not what you want.
The articles are well written, and if covering pre-20th century history, literature, or other topics, should still be excellent introductions.
I think the copy at my parents' house is about 1968. I remember when I was young and we got it. I guess I'll have to duke it out with my sister for who gets it!
What a pity. I wonder if they'll return to publishing when it becomes cheaper to print iPad-like devices in the near future?
I personally believe that EB had a place in the world. For example, I'd happily pay a few thousand Euro's/$/Pounds for "the complete, historical Encyclopaedia Britannica" that contains every single release of EB back to the beginning. The context of historical discovery that would provide would be amazing.
Of course, it'd have to be digital.
(Disclaimer: I collect old dictionaries for the same reason: culture context as things change over the decades..)
I never really coveted EB but I promised myself that the moment I strike it rich with my startup I will order the print edition of the Oxford English Dictionary: the 20 volume 2nd edition set is just $995 (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/?view=usa&ci=01986...).
I'd just like to note that, as with the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary, the fact that the publisher is no longer going to print future editions does not accurately predict that future editions will be unobtainable in print format.
You just won't be able to get them on Amazon, for 4-figures.
If you don't feel or understand the sadness others express in regards to this announcement, pretend it's hundreds of years in the future and you hear that Wikipedia is finally shutting down, having become an irrelevant artifact of the past.
Yet $1400 is a reasonable price... There is a distinctive pleasure in reading a printed encyclopaedia that convenient on-line browsing can't fulfil. Old Macropaedia editions are still useful, I prefer their summaries about physics than those of Wikipedia for instance. I'd love that everything in this world were digitalized, but it's not yet and maybe it will never be. Despite the efforts of many people there are huge amounts of relevant knowledge available on paper only, it makes me sad to realise that this obvious fact -and all those sources- are almost forgotten now.
[+] [-] grellas|14 years ago|reply
So, yes, the EB became kind of laughable with its clumsy marketing efforts and awkward efforts to adapt to modern technology in the past couple of decades, but be kind to its memory. It was one of the great attempts in all history to try to do what many dream of doing today through the internet and the advantages of the digital age: limited by the resources of that day, for sure, but an amazing achievement nonetheless. There is something special that has died here and, if only for old time's sake, we can mourn its passing.
[+] [-] Alex3917|14 years ago|reply
Actually the original goal wasn't to capture the world's knowledge, it was to spread the enlightenment idea that man could learn about the world through reason. If anything deciding that they would be better off just generically capturing knowledge is what killed them.
[+] [-] rhplus|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kamjam|14 years ago|reply
But, just as I was sad to hear that Kodak is filing for bankruptcy, this is more due to nostalgia. Businesses need to keep moving with the times and the way people consume products and services in these fast changing modern times.
Unfortunately for Encyclopedia Britannica they do not have enough income unlike the Hollywood lobbyists to pay the protection money.
[+] [-] DilipJ|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michael_nielsen|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] amirmc|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bcjordan|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ww520|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] why-el|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mcantelon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 286c8cb04bda|14 years ago|reply
I suspect it won't take them very long to sell those copies after this announcement.
[+] [-] blahedo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pjscott|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] electromagnetic|14 years ago|reply
Is their society going to be digging through the buried remains of silicon valley and saying "their civilization seemed to disappear when they started mass producing these 3.5" and 2.5" boxes containing sheets of metal.
It seems far fetched, but when all our data is digital, how long before we have a "burning of the library of Alexandria" moment. Thankfully all the companies ripping wikipedia articles and serving them with adverts are actually helping avoid a moment like this. Multiple-redundancy is likely the only method to prevent huge amounts of information from being lost.
[+] [-] mynameishere|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hengli|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joejohnson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamroom|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yarone|14 years ago|reply
Microsoft proceeded to trounce the print Encyclopedia business by creating a better product that severely undercut the traditional players.
Here we are, 2012, finally Britannica is dead. That took longer than expected.
[+] [-] jayzee|14 years ago|reply
I read in a book ("Blown to Bits") that one of the reasons why Brittanica flopped was because the sales people did not understand what they were selling. They thought that what they were selling was knowledge.
But most of the customers bought the books to assuage parental guilt, that they were doing enough by their children. Once the computer came around people stopped buying encyclopedia's so that "Johnny would do well in school," and bought computers instead.
Encyclopedia Brittanica did end up becoming a victim of changing technology, but in the short term at least, not in the direct way as is assumed.
[+] [-] camiller|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kragen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joering2|14 years ago|reply
I was extremely amazed how entire encyclopedia full of content with pictures, sounds and charts that I could most likely never read from start to end can fit into one single disc of a palm size.
History goes on... can you actually imagine in next 250 years what will replace Wikipedia? Imagine this: "After 250 years, Wikipedia shuts down its remaining servers due to lack of traffic".
[+] [-] anamax|14 years ago|reply
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funk_%26_Wagnalls , Microsoft licensed Funk and Wagnalls.
[+] [-] ChristianMarks|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fiatmoney|14 years ago|reply
Licensing opportunity, perhaps?
[+] [-] cpeterso|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colomon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghaff|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philwelch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darrenkopp|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sev|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edwardy20|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukev|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] camiller|14 years ago|reply
So yeah, EB would be useful as well.
[+] [-] mojuba|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kpanghmc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickgzill|14 years ago|reply
The articles are well written, and if covering pre-20th century history, literature, or other topics, should still be excellent introductions.
[+] [-] rootbear|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joejohnson|14 years ago|reply
Edit: Typo.
[+] [-] Alex3917|14 years ago|reply
http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2004/11/the-faith-b...
[+] [-] seclorum|14 years ago|reply
I personally believe that EB had a place in the world. For example, I'd happily pay a few thousand Euro's/$/Pounds for "the complete, historical Encyclopaedia Britannica" that contains every single release of EB back to the beginning. The context of historical discovery that would provide would be amazing.
Of course, it'd have to be digital.
(Disclaimer: I collect old dictionaries for the same reason: culture context as things change over the decades..)
[+] [-] Jun8|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsyedidia|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] feralchimp|14 years ago|reply
You just won't be able to get them on Amazon, for 4-figures.
[+] [-] mef|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mnl|14 years ago|reply