Idiot's Guides

[M]

In general, Wikipedia is a great resource for finding information about practically anything and most often delivered in a way I can understand. One of the beauties of it, is it lists and links to associated resources (some online, some not) from each article, and another is that it is reviewable and editable by anyone which means information is continually corrected and updated.

^^^ What she said.

Some people malign Wikipedia, saying it is unreliable because it can be edited literally by anybody with an internet connection, and indeed, every now and again some people pushing a particular barrow make concerted efforts to colour a particular topic to reflect their point of view. At other times 'edit wars' break out resulting in a temporary locking of an entry. Neither is problematic, though. In fact, the very fact that the Wikipedia is basically run from the bottom up, it makes even those features part of a suite of the encyclopaedia's self-correcting features in the long run. It is an excellent first port of call for pretty much anything you wish to find out about, both, for being concise and for providing plenty of pointers for further information.

I use it Wiki almost daily (just so I have a clue what people are on about ). The one problem if have with it is that it often gives me a bout of tangent-itis. I'll start off with one topic, find an interesting link, then another, then another, until I eventually forget what i was looking up in the first place. Short attention span I guess. I know though, if I sit down with a simple book, I'll read it in one sitting and absorb a a lot more.

[Bella Fortuna]

I do the exact same thing. An hour later I can't remember what in hell I had started off looking for...

[Hermit]

Stop whinging, kids. In the days of consulting a hard copy of the Encyclopædia Britannica the same thing happened, but it used to be much more time consuming. You'd start with the index volume and finish with six or eight others spread out, opened on the carpet with additional bookmarks everywhere. Two hours later you would have read all sorts of fascinating things, but nothing concerning the topic I set out to learn about.

[klr]

Stop whinging, kids. In the days of consulting a hard copy of the Encyclopædia Britannica the same thing happened, but it used to be much more time consuming. You'd start with the index volume and finish with six or eight others spread out, opened on the carpet with additional bookmarks everywhere. Two hours later you would have read all sorts of fascinating things, but nothing concerning the topic I set out to learn about.

The man speaks the truth. It was even worse when the encyclopaedias were stored in someone else's room, and you got stick if someone noticed some volumes were missing.

World Book 1976 edition

[twattybanjo]

No. There is no easy way and I'm just at the beginning of that journey myself but what a wonderful journey and so well worth embarking upon.

The very best of luck with it.

[Hermit]

World Book 1976 edition

In Germany we had Der Große Brockhaus (1952-1957). I also spent hours pouring over Stein's Kulturfahrplan (1961) and the dtv-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte (1964, 1966). In Australia I moved from the Brockhaus to its equivalent, the Encyclopædia Britannica (I found the 1961 edition plus yearbooks from 1961 to 197something in a second hand bookshop for sale at $120 . At that time the current edition sold for $2400 and the first digital version was offered on a set of three CD-ROMs for $2100 :pissed: . Fucking highway robbers! I have not yet found an adequate English translation or equivalent product for the other two - neither hard copy nor digital. The English translation of the Kulturfahrplan is severely condensed and excessively US-centric, and last time I checked there was no software equivalent of it at all. The historical world atlas software packages are woefully inadequate as well as kludgey. So I still keep using my well thumbed copies from childhood.

Incidentally, I had to google for much of the detail above. Most of it turned via the Wikipedia.

Long live the Wikipedia!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

As long as the founders (and their successors) don't sell out, Wiki is only ever going to get better. There is more information every time you go back to a page - and it tends to be more accurate as well.

I have even added one or two items myself...

[Hermit]

As long as the founders (and their successors) don't sell out, Wiki is only ever going to get better. There is more information every time you go back to a page - and it tends to be more accurate as well.

I have even added one or two items myself...

...and I am responsible for the permanent removal of some others, which enhanced the Wikipedia's quality.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

As long as the founders (and their successors) don't sell out, Wiki is only ever going to get better. There is more information every time you go back to a page - and it tends to be more accurate as well.

I have even added one or two items myself...

...and I am responsible for the permanent removal of some others, which enhanced the Wikipedia's quality.

I done that a couple of times too - and reported others as inaccurate.

[Bella Fortuna]

And you can find out all about Cali there.

Not that I have.

[Hermit]

And you can find out all about Cali there.

Not that I have.

Oh!

I haven't either. Honest.


For some unknown reason I suddenly feel the urge to mention that whereas Google is not in itself an idiot's guide, it is sufficiently adept at sniffing them out for me to make it my browser's home page.