- Thread starter
- #4,001
From The Cabin Coffee Table — An occasional look back at what the old Codgers saw and smoked (with a little detour and frolic, here and there):
The Codger Cabin
- Thread starter Columbo
- Start date
Yes, we had two sets, both from the A & P grocery store weekly release. One was grammar-school level, the Golden Book series, and the second was more adult, the Golden Home and High School Encyclopedia. I was still using the latter for information when I was an HS senior. There was also a Compton's Encyclopedia, I think?
I think they need an update on their Encyclopedia - the closest star to Earth is our sun.
Now, the closest star outside of our solar system...
Spent countless hours reading and studying the encyclopedia. Priceless gift from my parents.
- Thread starter
- #4,005
You are right. Many homes sometimes had more than one set, especially as time passed and new facts became existent or relevant.
I remember many of them. Golden had a wonderfully attractive and colorful line for youngsters, as did World Book. I recall Golden having some teaching Roman Catholic nuns on their editorial boards. I also remember some variation of the Globe Encyclopedia offered in the 1950s. And there was of course Funk & Wagnalls. I'm sure there were many others, too.
The kids who gravitated to these books, to read them for sheer pleasure and for the joy of knowledge, in my experience often went on as very inquisitive adults, unafraid to research more deeply, and would critically challenge bald conclusions.
And that is such a good character set to have, especially in today's lazy and hive-minded world.
I guess the closest we have today is Wikipedia, and a couple other online "encyclopedias". And that's a very poor substitution for what we had back in the day, IMO.
- Thread starter
- #4,006
Pluto isn't even a planet anymore! And before 1939, it didn't even exist!
I always tell the kids, as they are led around by their noses by their smartphones, and think it all 'settled science', never to be questioned:
Barely 120 years ago, you would likely be living without electricity, and reading by candlelight at night.
And if it's "fossil fuel", why is Titan awash in a frozen ocean of it as it circles Saturn?
As a species, we really know very little. Always question everything. That's how we learn new things.
I used to think the same thing, but I've heard arguments from encyclopedia experts that Wikipedia is vastly superior to any of the encyclopedias we had of yesteryear. In the traditional encyclopedias, they might hire one or two experts who might cover a number of different topics and entries. The reader had to assume that each entry had the right information. Generally, each entry was fairly basic, and not very in depth. Yes, Wikipedia can have some random, inaccurate entries, but it can also be cross referenced by virtually anyone. Many topics are incredibly thorough, and a lot of information is accompanied with citations. Plus, the fact that Wikipedia is free, and accessible to anyone with an internet connection is amazing.
I am a supporter of Wikipedia. I tend to take any information about politics or other sensitive topics as inherently biased, but that is the case with any source.
If you want to know about something there is a Wikipedia article about it that was written by someone who actually has an interest in it, not someone trying to make a word count so they can get paid. And other people who have an interest and personal knowledge are fact checking the articles. Which means gross errors tend to be corrected quickly.
If you want to know about something there is a Wikipedia article about it that was written by someone who actually has an interest in it, not someone trying to make a word count so they can get paid. And other people who have an interest and personal knowledge are fact checking the articles. Which means gross errors tend to be corrected quickly.
+1 on supporting Wikipedia. While I know the entries may contain incorrect information, I know that going in, so I keep an open mind. The benefit for me is I get a good jumping off place that leads to better sourced material in the footnote/reference section. I would agree that over time, Wikipedia information is distilled down to usually correct information; close enough for my routine needs.
I think that Wikipedia has value in restricted areas.
If there is a subject relatively free of the potential outbreak of bias it is quite useful.
If there is even the most remote chance that politics can be introduced, it is, and by the bucket.
If there is a subject relatively free of the potential outbreak of bias it is quite useful.
If there is even the most remote chance that politics can be introduced, it is, and by the bucket.
That's the age we are living in. It's true of everything from advertising to zoological displays.
This is very similar to the set growing up. Included the bookcase.
I would trust the information in these volumes. Wikipedia, not so much. The issue with Wikipedia like much of the internet is every Tom, Dick, and Harry with an opinion can write about subjects they are not qualified for. No vetting, no proof reading, no editorial review.
The quality of information on Wikipedia better than an Encyclopedia? Laughable.
I would trust the information in these volumes. Wikipedia, not so much. The issue with Wikipedia like much of the internet is every Tom, Dick, and Harry with an opinion can write about subjects they are not qualified for. No vetting, no proof reading, no editorial review.
The quality of information on Wikipedia better than an Encyclopedia? Laughable.
Well, they do have editorial review, and "vetting".
The problem is that it is the very vetting and editorial review that ensures that bias is in place in order to project an ideological perspective.
I have a set of the Britannica plus an Unabridged Webster's Dictionary in three volumes. Purchased in 1984, so somewhat out of date here and there, but still authoritative.
Wikipedia has the advantage that you can access it and get your biased answers almost instantly!
- Thread starter
- #4,016
Sometimes with the Internet sources, the information, on an area in which I am well-informed, can be reasonably thorough. There, it can be an enjoyable read.
But the bias can also be very thorough, at least where I encounter it. And my understanding is that the editorial structure there has shifted strongly in one direction in recent years. It becomes very one-sided.
The problem I have is for innocent people who are unable to discern it, where it becomes an indoctrination tool.
Everything has become very politicized today. I'm not so sure that if printed encyclopedias were offered today, they would not be politicized and indoctrinating as well.
That's why I was very careful to say, "back in the day". I'm sure there was a little bias then, too. But nothing like now. People can't even get a cup of coffee today without a lecture.
- Thread starter
- #4,017
From The Cabin Coffee Table — An occasional look back at what the old Codgers saw and smoked (with a little detour and frolic, here and there):
Speaking of biases ... how about some guns and tobacco with your fine footwear!
Speaking of biases ... how about some guns and tobacco with your fine footwear!
- Thread starter
- #4,018
From The Cabin Coffee Table — An occasional look back at what the old Codgers saw and smoked (with a little detour and frolic, here and there):
And a little repeat, for those who might need one after that last detour ...
And a little repeat, for those who might need one after that last detour ...
Thanks man. Now I have to find shoe trees like that!
The guy with the rifle, in the checked red shirt, looks a little like the young Walt Disney. And the woman resembles Gene Tierney.
