On 14 March 2012 00:22, phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've been asked to write a short editorial about this development from > a Wikipedian's perspective and am curious about (and would love to > include) other Wikimedian experiences -- did you use print > encyclopedias as a kid? Was a love of print encyclopedias part of your > motivation or interest in becoming a Wikipedian? Is there any value in > them still? Will you miss it?
Big time. I used to read encyclopedias all the time as a kid. I picture my audience as a Wikipedia writer as a bright ten- to twelve-year-old kid who knows nothing about anything yet but wants to - writing for my past self. My grandmother bought them for me - various mediocre encyclopedias sold in newsagents at one volume a week in the late '70s. Doing this pretty much wrecked her attempts to make me religious ... amazing what the power to be allowed to know things can do. The problem with Britannica as a print encyclopedia is that ... pretty much no-one read or used it. People compare Wikipedia to Britannica, but I think they're comparing the real Wikipedia in front of them with a fantasy ideal Britannica they don't actually use and won't have looked at since they were in school. If they were lucky enough to be at a school with a copy. Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia ever that's actually popular. I suspect a lot of us started as huge encyclopedia nerds and still think of Britannica as the gold standard we aspire to. Even if we haven't looked at it in years either. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
