I like the idea of making two headlines. I can never decide which one will be the one that draws the reader in. Mass appeal marketing. No focus groups and wasting people’s time, and I don’t have to share my beer. Win-win for everyone.
Well, okay, so I didn’t oulast wisdom, but I sure seem to be doing better than it is! As this year, the Encyclopedia Britannica has announced that they will no longer be selling the print editions.
Of course, this brings out all of the collectors and hoarders who want to buy a few editions and sell them for ridiculous prices on Ebay, or will want to bring them to a pawn shop in 30 years and declare, “This is valuable! It’s the last editions on the planet, anywhere!!1!!11!!!111!!!11111!!!1111!!”. And good for them, although I reckon that counting on the pawn shop for a good investment is like shopping at Tiffany’s for a toddler. It could work, but you’re definitely not going to get return on investment. I’m just saying it.
Besides, we have Wikipedia. Why have stupid paper and book format when we can just go in and update history?
What could possibly go wrong? Oh, how about this?
Isn’t that nice! Seems that “anyone just adding anything” anywhere isn’t the best idea. Now don’t get me wrong. Wikipedia is pretty cool, but if you get enough people to agree on something, you’ve successfully revised history. And not always accurately and always for the best, either. Jimmy Wales, the founder, being a leftist, athiest and libertarian certainly has the ability – and accusations – of fudging with some of the facts and contributors. While I don’t think necessarily that Wiki is a bastion of leftist ideology, you can’t rule out the fact that there are heirarchies who have political motivations – like we all do – and may look the other way when a position they agree with is presented.
Which really makes Wikipedia a “popular, centrist, sorta-kinda-but-not-the-whole-story” reference for the rest of us.
So let’s go all tin-foil hat here and consider that over time, pertinent history gets removed, and injected history replaces it. Isn’t this straight out of 1984, when Winston took orders, changed the history, and then burned the former original? Sure it is. That’s why many teachers are discounting it, and rightfully so. Citing Wikipedia is like citing the town drunk when he’s just getting started. It’s not a great source, and you have question the accuracy while wondering who supports this madness and keeping in mind that, ‘this can only get worse”.
But you can’t do that with a set of encyclopedias. Maybe that $1400.00 investment on the last run might be a good investment for my family, and future generations.
I wonder sometimes. Then you can’t change history. You can burn it, but you can’t alter it without someone knowing.