After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses

[BooRadley]

After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...he-presses/?hp

After 244 years, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is going out of print.

Those coolly authoritative, gold-lettered reference books that were once sold door-to-door by a fleet of traveling salesmen and displayed as proud fixtures in American homes will be discontinued, company executives said.

In an acknowledgment of the realities of the digital age — and of competition from the Web site Wikipedia — Encyclopaedia Britannica will focus primarily on its online encyclopedias and educational curriculum for schools. The last print version is the 32-volume 2010 edition, which weighs 129 pounds and includes new entries on global warming and the Human Genome Project.

I had an Encyclopaedia Britannica when I was a kid. Dad left it behind when he split. I used to spend hours and hours digging through that thing. It was AWESOME!

Sad to see it go, but I guess it's time.

[Archaix]

Used to be the encyclopaedia not so long ago. I had an ancestor that edited it in the early 20th century, I believe.

[Zordar]

Good riddance.

[BooRadley]

Good riddance.

OUt of curiosity, why? Colliers was better, but there was nothing inherently evil about Britannica. I think the quality did start taking a dive in the 80's, though.

[Zordar]

OUt of curiosity, why? Colliers was better, but there was nothing inherently evil about Britannica. I think the quality did start taking a dive in the 80's, though.

Mostly out of working in a library and dealing with co-workers and bosses who go into spasms at the mention of replacing anything with an electronic version (even though the scholarly journals you can access at libraries are more often electronic than not... wha?). Meanwhile, as the tree versions lose money, they get cheaper and uglier with each iteration as they try to hang on for dear life. It had clearly been time to move on since at least the 1990s, but the resistance to change was fierce and dumb.

I do have an appreciation for the hardcopy. I like the feel, the weight. And the old-school encyclopedias are just amazing -- In particular, I remember some sturdy German collections from the early 20th century that still looked and felt new -- but they have lacked that level of craftsmanship and writing for a few decades now. The best scholarly writers spend all their time in journals, and publishers aren't willing to spend enough to produce at the same level as in the past.

Ideally, there'd be a limited run of well-made treecyclopedias, with all others electronic, but I'm being spiteful toward the industry for refusing to accept and adapt for so long.

[jwreck]

They should have gotten a government bailout to keep the doors open.

[BooRadley]

Mostly out of working in a library and dealing with co-workers and bosses who go into spasms at the mention of replacing anything with an electronic version (even though the scholarly journals you can access at libraries are more often electronic than not... wha?). Meanwhile, as the tree versions lose money, they get cheaper and uglier with each iteration as they try to hang on for dear life. It had clearly been time to move on since at least the 1990s, but the resistance to change was fierce and dumb.

Makes sense. My old encyclopedia was totally cool, and it was great to have growing up, and wikipedia (which I also love) just isn't a replacement. They do still have subscritptions to the e-copy. In fact, I had a CD version a long time ago, but it was teh sux. I don't remember which vendor it was. Like I said in the OP, I guess it's just time. sad, but true.

I also deeply lament the shrinking number of used book stores. Those were make of awesome, too. I still prefer to read a dead tree than an e-reader. Maybe not for an encyclopaedia, but for a paperback, yes.

[jwreck]

I really don't like e-books. Not the same. At all.

[Zordar]

Yeah, I'm with both you guys on the value of paper books. I can KIND of understand the appeal of audiobooks, because I'd rather listen to a good book than commercial music or political pundits when on a long drive, but the paper still beats all.

That said, I'm still glad about this decision. I do think hardcopies of encyclopedias have become unfeasible (plus, you can't check out from libraries, anyway), even if there will always be a place for the physical book.

[BooRadley]

I do think hardcopies of encyclopedias have become unfeasible (plus, you can't check out from libraries, anyway)

Plus, you can't copy/paste and the search feature is ass.

[Jim Colyer]

I never liked that encyclopedia. And I used to be a librarian. I'm glad it's gone.

[Mrmint]

You don't adapt, you die.

[SivVulk]

I think 244 years in existence merits at least this:



Speaking of encyclopaedias that have adapted... Grolier seems to have done pretty well.

[Xavier Tremely]

Give me a tablet with roaming access & a public library any day of the week.