Wikipedia, bound
People have been squabbling about the pleasures and pitfalls of Wikipedia since its creation: Sure it's completely democratic and the knowledge of the ages can be at your fingertips. At the same time, you're never quite sure who's writing and editing those entries, and what their motives are.
But here's a new take: Printing out the entirety of Wikipedia proves that is a bad resource.
I'm assuming the author of this post is talking about aesthetics alone, and sure, printing out and binding all those entries into one book looks ridiculous. As would the Encyclopedia Britannica. That's why it's published in volumes.
With all of the credibility issues this site already has, do we really have to make up new, silly ones?
Comments
That is wonderfully silly. You don't find information in Wikipedia in the same manner as a print source. You use a search engine. There is not an order to Wikipedia like there is in a book, nor is there an index in a physical sense. Tell me how you are going to search that stack of paper.
Posted by: Book Calendar | June 10, 2009 10:52 PM