On 14/03/2012, at 11:22 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been asked to write a short editorial about this development from
a Wikipedian's perspective and am curious about (and would love to
include) other Wikimedian experiences -- did you use print
encyclopedias as a kid?
On 03/13/12 5:22 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote:
2010's 32-volume set will be its last. (Now I want to get one, to
replace my old set!) Future versions will be digital only.
I don't use it in print, haven't for years, and have
On 14 March 2012 00:22, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't use it in print, haven't for years, and have been expecting
something like this for a while, but am still surprisingly saddened by
it too; there's something about the shelf of volumes that encapsulates
the world's
2010's 32-volume set will be its last. (Now I want to get one, to
replace my old set!) Future versions will be digital only.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/?smid=tw-nytimesseid=auto
2012/3/13 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com
Today our digital database is much larger than what we can fit in the
print set. And it is up to date because we can revise it within
minutes anytime we need to, and we do it many times each day.
Wow, they update the encyclopedia many times each day.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
2010's 32-volume set will be its last. (Now I want to get one, to
replace my old set!) Future versions will be digital only.
