Talk:Encyclopedia/Archive 1

Reasonable remarks

The anonymous is correct, AFAICT. It is true that Croatia was not an independent country at the time, but it is also true it was a country, and it is true that the Croats did exist at the time (perhaps not as a modern nation that they are today, but certainly in some form). This kind of confusion in old encylopedias when it comes to assigning origin to people has been known to happen - for a time, the adjective "Hungarian" was bluntly applied to all citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary regardless of whether they were Magyars, Croats, Slovaks, Romanians or other. In this case, thankfully, the etymology of the surname is fairly clear. --Joy [shallot] 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (Also same case with the countries ruled by the Germans, or with people of smaller nationalities/ ethnic groups!)

That's what Joy thinks about this matter. As far as I'm concerned, this argument that four modern encyclopedias have same information doesn't give any credibility to it (false informations should be corrected no matter where and how many times published)! Formerly in many encyclopedias there was a lot of informations in relation to the ex Soviet block and about many countries which were a part of it, with a numerous false informations, all in that and similar prestige encyclopedias. Same case was with Yugoslavia and many republics (today independent countries) which were parts of it. How much accurate can be, for instance Encarta, shows perfectly one exampe; it is said there ( don't know which edition exactly) that Josip Broz Tito was born in a Zagreb which is unbelivable nonsense since he was born in Kumrovec- village near Zagreb, in Zagorje region. In that village you'll find a memorial museum dedicated to him in his family house where he was born. Another example of false informations; in one of that encyclopedias you'll still maybe find one absourd geographical information- that Croatia has only as 129 square miles (!) of a sea ( true fact: more than 11600 square miles, around 3100 miles of seaside and over 1000 islands). :In fact Croatia is a country of a numerous beautifool beaches with very high income out of tourism annually.There are many other examples of a inaccurate informations regarding Croatia, but also about many other countries, esp. smaller ones.

For JOY to handle and answer

Sve što navodiš već sam jučer učinio. Argumentirao sam s njima preko 3 SATA, pružao im razumne argumente, lingvističke dokaze, činjenice, web stranice kao izvore, ali oni su se i dalje držali slijepo svojih "svetih" enciklopedija, umjesto da su pokušali barem malo razmisliti logikom zdravog razuma. Dakle, dok smo došli do toga da se ja zestim protekli su sati i sati uzaludnog debatiranja- objašnjavanja nekoga tko je upučeniji, ali nije bilo dobre volje da se malo razmisli i revidira očito krive informacije. Što mi ostaje drugo, nego pretpostaviti da je opet riječ o tipičnoj zapadnjačkoj aroganciji i egocentrizmu. Nadalje, ukoliko želiš, možeš im ti ponovno pokušati objasniti neke stvari, ali se ne nadaj puno u to da ćeš pronaći nekoga tko tamo zdravorazumski rezonira!

Ali, mislim da u svakom slučaju treba ukloniti podnaslov "Nationality" jer je čitava ta kontroverza utemeljena na gluposti i netoćnim podacima nekih Anglo-saksonskih i zapadnjačkih enciklopedija. Umjesto toga bi bolje bilo da se navede da u istim enciklopedijama (navesti ih) postoje netočni i zastarjeli podatci o nacionalnosti Paula Pavla Skalića i argumentirati zbog čega su netočni!

Pavao Skalić

I'll bring back the old version with Skalic (Skalić), because it is the most reasonable thing to do. And if someone has to say something, he can do it after he read all arguments for this version...if he want to comment.

Rens

---

Concerning citation,you can find this fact about Skalić in any edition of any Croatian encyclopedia (including Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Skali%C4%87). Why question? It's simple- to make this article much more fluent and interesting for any reader.

Here's another source for those that aren't sure yet, this one from Croatian MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY and Science site which shows you directly that Skalić was Croat. On this page you can also find one scientific project concerning Skalić.

Page: http://www.mzos.hr/svibor/6/01/334/proj_e.htm

---

For anyone who has problems about who was Skalić; he was born in todays Croatia and was ethnical Croat. His surname Skalić (Skalic) is of old croatian origin. Any other version of this surname is due to his work for many years internationally.

There are similar misunderstandings with some other Croatian scientists, authors etc., like, for instance, with Ruđer Bošković (R. Boskovic), famous scientist which is very often considered as a Italian, English ... ( because of one of redactions of his original name Ruđer as a Rogero- which was only italian redaction of Ruđer).

Also for those who believe in a absolute accuracy of Britannica- this encyclopedia is full of mistakes and ignorance, especially about smaller european nations and countries (about history, basic facts, names, misunderstanding of terms, culture, ...).

So, it is very necesarry to check any information you believe is truth in many comparations before publish anything- it's the only way things should be done.

Regards

Rens

via Pula, Croatia

I don't know Rens, I just read in Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia the following:

Had it not been for the German writer Paul Scalich, the term encyclopedia might never have been firmly established. Scalich's Encyclopaedia, seu Orbis disciplinarum (Encyclopedia, or Knowledge of the World of Disciplines, 1559) brought the term back into prominence.

I also read this in Encyclopedia Americana:

The first work known to contain the word in the title was Encyclopaedia, seu orbis disciplinarum, tum sacrarum quam prophanum epitome (1559), which was compiled by Paul Scalich (also known as Paul Skalich or Paul Scaliger).

Now that's Britannica (see below), GME, and Americana. Finally, see this book: [1]. I'm afraid we may need to see a source for this. In the meantime, I have changed the statement from "Croatian" to "German".--Primetime 23:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• OK. Rens and I have been discussing this issue on my talk page, and it appears as if his heritage is uncertain. The three sources given above and below say he's German, while the Croatian Ministry of Science and technology says he's Croatian.^[2] Older sources, like the Spanish Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol. 19, (1930) page 1166, and say he's Hungarian. The Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition (1911) page 169 says he's "an Hungarian count".^[3] (You'll have to download AlternaTIFF here first to view the page, though.) So, I will change the footnote to note that his heritage is uncertain. If anyone objects, please let me know.--Primetime 19:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If applicable, make it a different note from the very first one which deals primarily with (usage of) the ligature, æ. E Pluribus Anthony | [[User talk:E Pluribus An

thony|talk]] | 19:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and done.--Primetime 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Given the content, though, I'm wondering if at least some of this worthwhile information should be restructured and added to the article proper, perhaps as part of an Etymology or History section or the like upfront? It seems that there's no dispute per se regarding the importance of Skalić (sp.), only of his nationality. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Yes, I do object! He's heritage is absolutely certain:

1. He was born in Croatia- there are original municipal documents to confirm that,

2. His surname Skalić, Shalich or any other redaction is Croatian slavic construction- any linguist, slavist or croatist would confirm that,

3. That surname is of old croatian heritage, and there's many people with that surname even today in Croatia ( on a contrary there was/is no Germans or Hungarians with such a surname and that surname construction isn't present in any of that languages!),

4. With his name, he had an adwerb "de Lika"- Lika is Croatian region (you will not find that name nowhere in Germany and Hungary!),

5. In all croatian encyclopedias you'll find he's Croat, noone of scientists - slavists, croatists and linguists don't think he is German or Hungarian,

You can insist on a same false ( also very absurd!) informations of Skalić, which is shame for such a encyclopedias, and go on with a spread of forgery of history- intentional or not, but always destructive from the prospective of truth!

Regards, Rens

The facts provided aren't in dispute per se, but your placement of them in the article is: there is much more to the topic of encyclopedias than the origin of Mr. Skalić or the rendition of his name. All of this, I believe, is rendered equitably and impartially in the current edition with footnote, and there's little reason for contentions about his origin to be so prominent in this article – that's more appropriate for the article about Paul Skalić.

As well, please be more judicious in your editing: there's NO reason to create/re-create three sections in a talk page (e.g.,) when one will suffice. Thank you for your co-operation. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not obsessed with a "heritage controversy"- I didn't started that, but it is not inconvenience in any way just to point that he was Croat, after all why should someone mind that when it's the true fact!? Only, if someone is anxious about that simple "Croat"...

Also, there are no contentions about his origin- it's you and Primetime that created a artificial controversy about his origin inspite of excellent arguments I have presented about him and his origin in start, but it seems that anyone has it's nasty habit to believe blindly in a false informations from some encyclopedias, and to ignore it's own common sense!

Regards, Rens

No problem; thanks. Also, I'll add said content to the article about Paul Skalić. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed "Croat" to "Croatian scientist"--other important figures whose nationalities are identified in the article are identified in this manner, with the nationality as a modifier of some other noun, indicating the person's role, occupation, or title. I've no problem with mentioning his nationality; and have no reason to suspect he wasn't originally Croatian (other sources indicating that he's German may not be contradictory--after all, Skalic appears to be a well-travelled fellow, who may have acquired other nationalities at various times). The article as it stands looks fine to me.--EngineerScotty 00:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted it. Where did you read that? Until I see something other than that Croatian government site, I'm going to take the word of those five other encyclopedias that say he isn't Croatian. The fact that many of these sources contradict each other proves that the origin is uncertain. Thus we should take a neutral stand on the matter. The evidence is stronger against him being Croatian, but I'm willing to compromise and take the neutral wording.--Primetime 00:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Conducive to all of this, I've moved details regarding Mr. S. to his dedicated biographical article. Though I can be compelled otherwise, including detailed heritage information regarding this one individual is misplaced given that this is an overview article about encyclopedias.

As well, considering the contentious/conflicting information regarding his heritage, I think the current notation/qualifier (or, properly, lack of same) is sufficient. And noting him as a "scientist" seems both conflated and unsourced. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edit by Anon

the edit by Anon added "But who was the first one to use this term in this meaning in a history? Unfortunately, it is rarely known fact that this word was firstly used by Paul Skalic (cro. Pavao Skalić ), croatian encyclopedist, humanist and adventurer from Zagreb in his book Encyclopaedia seu orbis disciplinarum tam sacrarum quam prophanarum epistemon (Encyclopaedia, or Knowledge of the World of Disciplines . . .) (Basel, 1559) . Later this word came into daily use thanks to the works of french encyclopedists." I don't think encyclopedia's should ask questions. Plus needs a source. Anyone have a problem with it If I revert this? Agonizing Fury 19:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is from the Encyclopaedia Britannica article "encyclopedia",

It was Paul Scalich, a German writer and compiler, who was the first to use the word to describe a book in the title of his Encyclopaedia; seu, orbis disciplinarum, tam sacrarum quam prophanum epistemon . . . (“Encyclopaedia; or Knowledge of the World of Disciplines, Not Only Sacred but Profane . . . ”), issued at Basel in 1559.^[4]

Thus, it appears to be correct. I'm not sure about the question thing, though.--Primetime 20:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Content Experts

2000 Hours 1 April 2006 Historically, encyclopedias and their predecessors, dictionaries, have been researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content experts. This practice is responsible for the overall reliability of modern encyclopedias. An encyclopedia written by a large number of people who are not exceptionally conversant in the particulars of each given subject will, by its very nature be less reliable than one written by content experts.

Regards, Philippsbourg

Other recent discussion

It is worth mentioning who invented the current meaning of the term especially when it comes from a small or less known culture such as Croatian, having more than 13 century old its own history in Europe. 83.131.3.15 04:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [moved from article itself flux.books]

List of encyclopedias

The list in this article should be moved to / merged with the separate List of encyclopedias. – Kpalion (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I definately agree.--Carabinieri 15:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Disagree (except perhaps with respect to the last section of the list), the historical elements of this list would be very out of place there and not much use. And the structure illustrating the development and diffusion of the encyclopedia would be lost. The list of encyclopedias is / should be primarily current, to illustrate various subject, national, etc. encyclopedias and to serve as a current reference page. The list in encyclopedia is largely historical encyclopedias. I will look for ways to reformat the list in encyclopedia - take the headings out to shorten the excessively long TOC, for starters. And perhaps move fictional. flux.books 10:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've revised this page and the lists page to reflect those ideas. Given that, I'd suggest removing the merge notice here in the next couple of weeks (and leave it there until some later point) subject to further discussion in the meantime. flux.books 13:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that the question of whether "history of encyclopedias" should be a separate page is a far more fruitful topic for discussion. flux.books 16:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Difference between Encyclopedia and Dictionary

I think this is a subject that's not very well clarified. The main question to ask would be: why there is wikipedia and wikitionary? Why make two different "libraries" that has the same purpose of giving information about words?

Isn't the definition of "words have their own definitions" getting obsolete with fast information era? I mean, of course they have some kind of definition, but it's not static anymore. You'll always find different definitions for words, why keep trying to define them differently if you can just inform, give history and data. Old definitions have years to sustain them. Trying to create new definitions is just about gathering old definitions and associating it with things around you.

Both "word library" could get together, get a new name and stop trying to make two different things that have the exact same purpose of explaining a word. It looks to me this would work much better, in theory, if there were just the disambiguation for every word that is ambiguous followed by each word's meaning data accumulated. Maybe there will also be words with plain simple definitions. Why bother creating a "dictionary" for them, if you can just put the definition and add any other information that might be relevant in the same screen (not even page)? Why bother adding more information as in a encyclopedia if a simple definition (as in "brand new words" or maybe some abbreviations) is all that's needed? Why separating that if a word without definition is just as weird to think of as a word without history?

While that's my thoughts right now, I think just an explanation on the difference and links from wikipedia to wikitionary even for words that are in both places would be a good beginning. Because words that don't exist in one are already linking to the other one automatically.

A good explanation for the difference between the terms could prevent a lot of missunderstanding and be also a good guide for both Wikipedia and Wikitionary on how we should be taking care of them.

As a side note, the confusion on that can bring to a complex chain of reactions as you can see on my talk with Quuxplusone.

--Cawas 16:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Revised the definition to contrast with dictionary, this should help resolve the issue you raised. There are lots of good reasons why they are two different things, the most important being there are times when one or the other is the most useful tool for a particular need. That is, it works - it's a distinction that is useful, not theoretical. Conceivably the two could be mergeable electronically (a user could decide whether to have both, or just one or the other, show up on a page) and that would eliminate the issue. For now, this works as is. flux.books 14:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Early history

Removed the libraries comment in early history, irrelevant or even misleading to the theme. flux.books 14:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Systematica

The passage beginning with 'Newest encyclopedia-making strategies' entered to the 29.5.05-version in section 'Encyclopedia making' was deleted within 2 hours phrased "orginal research". It could be reasonable to give it access to the public-reader and other administrators for critical revision.This would prevent administrators to come into the image of being censors.See also the acceptance of Encyclopedia Systematica-passages on the Internet and [5].

Other

I think this entry deserves to be developed much further, as it pretty much sets the compass for the entire project. --Seb

Making progress, substantial revisions in the past week. flux.books 14:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody else think that we should maybe make a CD-ROM edition of Wikipedia sometime? (for libraries, etc.)-- Anon

Not for a few years -- but that is one of the ideas we are kicking around. --mav

Etymology

The OED says enkuklopaideia was the erroneous form that led to encyclopædia. I don't know Greek, so my transliterations may be in error. Ortolan88

This is puzzling. Greek enkuklopaideia becomes Latin encyclopaedia in the standard, correct transliteration. Greek ai = Latin ae; they had the same pronunciation in classical times so that's the most direct way of writing it. The change from ae to e is post-classical, when Latin ae shifted in pronunciation to become the same as long e. So if anything, e is less etymologically correct. Gritchka

As I understand currently, enkuklos paidiea (two words) was misread by c. 1500s authors as one word and Latinized by them. Ie, it's something of a bastardization. flux.books 12:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in ancient greek but shouldn't the correct greek spelling of enkyklios be something like ενκύκλιος? The transliteration of the current word εγκύκλιος would be egkyklios.

tobulax

The Greek spelling is with the gamma; it is the romanization which is irregular (having to do with the pronunciation of the gamma-kappa combination in some dialects); angelus (angel) is similar in that the Greek spelling is with double-gamma. --Tkinias 02:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the transliteration "enkyklios" to "engkyklios" since the γκ-diphthong produces an [ŋ]-sound. See Greek Alphabet. Hymyly 00:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Cyclopedia is the old form of the word encyclopedia.

We sure? M-W lists the word as coming from the Greek enkyklios meaning something along the lines of course and paedeia meaning education or child-rearing. Btw, that would also make LMS wrong when he says encyclopedias aren't for educating. ;)

Er, no, it wouldn't. It would say something about the etymology of the word.

Ah, but etymology itself comes from the Greek etymos meaning true and logos meaning meaning, so clearly the etymology tells us the definition, by applying the logical technique of affirming the consequent (proof by assertion to mathematicians). Oh, and a smiley frequently means I'm kidding. :)

No, it's an alternative form, introduced more or less at the same time, and not much used. An "archaic" form would be more or less a good description. flux.books 12:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the bit about encyclopædia being an "incorrect" spelling; despite what was claimed in the article here, that is not what OED says. OED says that encyclopædia (egkyklopaideia) is a faux Greek word based on a misreading of egkyklios paideia. (Interestingly, egkyklopaideia has been borrowed back into Modern Greek nonetheless.) Encyclopædia is the normal etymologic spelling of the word, and the spelling with e is the expected modernized form (cf. ether/æther, etc.). --Tkinias 02:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First encyclopedia / first use of the word

Actually the credit for the earliest of British encylopaedist must go to Sir thomas Browne. His Pseudodoxia Epidemica describes itself in its opening page as an Encyclopaedia and ran into six editions (1646-1676) It was upon the shelves of many English households. (User:Norwikian)

Discussion still in there, but obviously true only in the most literal sense in that it called itself an encyclopedia. It is in no way a compendium of all accumulated knowledge, which is the encyclopedic vision pursued over the centuries. flux.books 12:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

H G Wells

H.G. Wells talking about the idea of an encyclopedia; maybe he was referring to Wikipedia :-): , or its possible complementary meta-encyclopedia in advance Encyclopedia Systematica http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?EncyclopediaSystematica. See the link 'Simulating a global brain' there for a Wells-connex.

Special sections of it, historical, technical, scientific, artistic, e.g. will easily be reproduced for specific professional use. Based upon it, a series of summaries of greater or less fullness and simplicity, for the homes and studies of ordinary people, for the college and the school, can be continually issued and revised. In the hands of com-petent editors, educational directors and teachers, these condensa-tions and abstracts incorporated in the world educational system, will supply the humanity of the days before us, with a common un-derstanding and the conception of a common purpose and of a commonweal such as now we hardly dare dream of. And its creation is a way to world peace that can be followed without any very grave risk of collision with the warring political forces and the vested insti-tutional interests of today.

--(http://sherlock.berkeley.edu/wells/world_brain.html)

--User:Extro

Wells' World Brain is mentioned in the Wikipedia's article about itself, actually: Wikipedia. -- Stephen Gilbert 18:32, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A history of encyclopedias page?

I think the whole article might be better if we made "history of encycl" a new page and put a bit of detail on all the olf ones. Anyone agree? --BozMo|talk 15:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you mean the section about those before 1700, I say yes"! Apwoolrich 13:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. If it's just a matter of length, that's what the table of contents is for - to find sections. Part of the point of studying history is to inform the present. It's clear that a lot of Wikipedians could benefit from understanding some of the history of the form of the encyclopedia, and moving the history to a separate page would make it far less likely that people would discuss the modern issues around encyclopedias in context. That is, there are some important things to learn from the history - though the lessons are not all clearly stated at the moment. flux.books 12:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, it could be a good idea. We could summarize in a few sentences with the link to try to encourage people to read some of it. I'd suggest including three chunks: the early and 17-20th c. history; and the list of historical works. It looks like most of the references list belongs with that as well, though Collison might be in both. Of course, that would highlight the fact that the main article needs more discussion of encyclopedias. flux.books 14:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition

Britannica defines an encyclopedia as a reference work, yet wikipedia only defined encyclopedia as a compendium. Wikipedia is not a reference work due to its open nature and lack of certainty about any article at any perticular time.

It would seem wikipedia is redefining the word encyclopedia to include itself. whats with that??

Why should Britannica's definition of "encyclopedia" be more accurate than Wikipedia's? Merriam-Webster defines it as follows: "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject". You are correct that Wikipedia's "open nature and lack of certainty" make it less reliable than sources backed by an authority; however, the fine newspapers and magazines (and books, court cases, and so on) at Wikipedia as a press source would disagree with Wikipedia not being a reference work, as they all have used it as such. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In which court cases has Wikipedia ever been cited as authoritative? 66.53.17.220 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a useful question here, which is whether Wikipedia should really strive to be a comprehensive discussion of knowledge, or focus on new topics, updates, matters not covered in other reference works, etc. A huge topic, no doubt covered in many discussions elsewhere. At some level wikipedia clearly aims to eventually cover everything, so for now it seems reasonable to call wikipedia an encyclopedia. And again there are useful lessons for wikipedians in the history of the genre. flux.books 14:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is

A) an [administrative] summary of relevant definitions and work-related matters ([email protected]);

B) a [behaviourist] detailed generalised typed response to massive typical stimuli ([email protected]);

C) a [computed] listing of articles for the general public; could be at different levels from different viewpoints (these) ([email protected]);

E) an [empirical] result of writing up the current paradigm ([email protected]);

I) an [ideal] format for reference by the general public ([email protected]);

J) a [judicial] way of educating criminals, criminologists, lawyers and a judiciary by abstracting impersonal details about judicial details, law or penal details by selected authorities; restricted by economic conditions; from personal knowledge or other sources via various drafting procedures ([email protected]);

K) an [epistemic] general study of a particular area ([email protected]);

L) a [logical] elaboration of Greek studies ([email protected]);

M) a [materialist] system of writings on various subjects chosen by its authors ([email protected]);

P) a [phenomenal] view in writing of one's world ([email protected]);

PS) the delusion that everything can be usefully summarized in a few pages (Anon.);

S) a [solipsic] recording of generalised thoughts about general subjects ([email protected]).

Wikipedia is not a dictionary so the above list should never be in this article. --mav

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The above is intended to be encyclopedic and philosophical. So this should be in the original article ([email protected]).

---

'Dictionary of ...' to list with the encyclopaedias?

It has bothered me for some time that this article does not list encyclopaedic works whose titles begin Dictionary of ... . At one time I thought these ought to be listed on the Dictionary page, but having recently re-read it, I see that it relates entirely to lexicographical works. Its a very fine article indeed, and I am loath to mess with its structure.

It has a disembiguation page which says the following, (I wrote the entry Biographical dictionaries):

• An alphabetical sequence of articles relating to particular topics, eg dictionaries of medicine or engineering. Also biographical dictionaries. These can be regarded as being encyclopaedic in their treatment, being far more than just a list of words and their meaning.

I propose that we use the Encyclopadia page to list Dictionary of ... reference works, since they are essentially the same thing. Before I begin I shall welcome comments, please. Apwoolrich 13:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes a hard distinction to draw, but see the new page encyclopedic dictionary. Clearly many of the works you mention are more encyclopedias than dictionaries, especially early works, so they belong here as you suggest. flux.books 14:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Spelling section

In this paragraph from the section on the spelling of "encyclopedia"--quoted following my comments--I propose to remove all but the first sentence, or at least the majority of the rest of the paragraph. Reason--it covers information given in the (linked) Wiki article on American and British English spelling differences, thus is redundant and not necessary in this article focused on encyclopedias as such and not spelling differences, which belong in the latter page. If no one comments to the contrary within 3 weeks, I'll remove it when I return to this page. ~ Dpr

Due to differences in American and British English orthographic conventions, the spellings "encyclopaedia" and "encyclopedia" both see common use in British and Commonwealth- and American-influenced sources, respectively. (The British spelling is sometimes rendered encyclopædia, with the æ ligature). The digraph ae or æ, the normal Latin rendering of the Greek diphthong αι, is usually changed to e in American orthography, for example in other words from the root paid‐ such as paediatrician (American pediatrician). Contemporary British usage often makes the same simplification; in this case, though, the Oxford English Dictionary asserts that the spelling with æ "has been preserved from becoming obsolete by the fact that many of the works so called have Latin titles, as Encyclopædia Britannica", which use the spelling with æ in their names.

"human" knowledge=

Isn't the word human in the first sentence rather redundant or repetitious. I mean if anything else ever turned up with a written compendium of knowledge we'd hardly deny them use of the word? --BozMo|talk 15:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Should wikipedia be mentioned on this page? --NeuronExMachina 05:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WP is now mentioned. --BozMo|talk 15:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guardian criticism

This wiki article has been criticized in the UK newspaper article mentioned at and linked at the top of this page. The critic was biased - a former editor of Encyclopedia Britannica - but some of his criticisms may be valid enough to help improve the page. Also note, this wiki article, along with the others mentioned in the Guardian article, will be receiving heightened public attention. Bwithh 14:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, in your effort to quickly post about this, you might not have had a chance to look at the article itself, or the article history. It is clear that the critic is commenting on an earlier version of the article - for example, the typo he takes pains to note was already corrected, and more importantly the article seems to have been substantially revised since he read it. So the big notice you have inserted at the top doesn't really qualify as a carefully considered edit, itself, as it's not accurate. It's also not specific enough to be helpful, it's a very broad brush stroke you have applied. Please edit your comments to make them accurate and useful, soon if possible given the nature of what's going on here.

To address some specifics in the Guardian article:

• The critic was right in some respects, the article needed work and still does. I wouldn't defend the work there as entirely accurate, or complete - some of the history and much of the modern discussion could be expanded, and there is very little theory. But it had gotten quite a bit of work between when he read it and when the Guardian article was published.
• And yes, whoever wrote the original discussion about the Pseudodoxia Epidemica was well off the mark in terms of their conclusions on the importance of that work. But that had already been rewritten to put it in better context. It's a bit longer than it deserves to be, but no longer as inaccurate as it was. As to "The 120-odd words on Browne ..." - yes, but about 30 of those 120 words use Browne's work as an illustration of a key historical and contextual point, that not all encyclopedias were organized alphabetically, and to explain one alternative. That is, those words aren't really about Browne - they are about encyclopedias.

Even granting the many shortcomings of the earlier and revised versions of the Encyclopedia article, Mr. McHenry (the critic) gets low marks as well:

• "The article is of modest length at 2,000 words (compare Britannica's corresponding article at about 26,000 words)." wikipedia won't ever have a 26,000 word article about encyclopedias, that's not how wikipedia is structured. And the word count would have been a lot lower if, as suggested above, we had moved much of the discussion to a "history of encyclopedias" page. To do a word count on just this page, given how wikipedia is organized, is either fatuous or has entirely missed the point.
• "The longest discussion of a particular work is ..." There is much more discussion of other specific encyclopedic works in wikipedia, but they are linked under separate articles. For example, it's certainly true the reference in the Encyclopedia article to the Encyclopédie should be more complete, for those who aren't made curious enough by what is already there to click the link. But McHenry and others could get a great deal more discussion about the Encyclopédie simply by clicking any of the links. In particular ...
• "(And by the way, the full first edition had 35 volumes.)" It would seem the American and French scholars digitizing and translating the Encyclopédie think that the Encyclopédie had 28 volumes according a link included in the article on the Encyclopédie. The other seven volumes were later supplementary volumes, not edited by Diderot. It's a rather harsh implication he has made given those circumstances. flux.books 18:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The present Britannica has about three sentences on Rees's Cyclopaedia — we have proper article. EB 1911 never had one. This is historical for Rees was a serious rival to EB6ed, and was in effect written out of the story. The present Britannica article skimps many historical ones. Wikipedia has been and will contnue to be the means for highlighting these. 62.7.134.179 21:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems we have grounds for a rebuttal as I think I found another inaccuracy with the Gurdian article as I've explained here. If I am right (and this is all out of my league) how (or where more importantly) should we go about formulating a community response? --bodnotbod 22:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(news)#Guardian_article --bodnotbod 22:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, they were completely exaggerating the quality of the Encyclopedia article in the EB. It begins with a stupid section discussing how much work it takes and how difficult it is to create an encyclopedia. Here it would be labelled clear NPOV and an indirect advertisement. Secondly, the actual content about encyclopedias themselves and their history is not much longer than our article. It actually devolves into a discussion about dictionaries and other reference works, so he is being disingenious about its length. He also fails to mention that we have entirely separate articles about these encyclopedias, while they have only one or two sentences in the article. It also has a bizarre section about the "American contribution" to the encyclopedia discussing Comptons and other which is also rather POV. And their discussion of EB is uniformly triumphalist and POV, which would be criticized here. Tfine80 21:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a good example of the dilution of content quality in the modern editions of EB. The encyclopaedia article in EB1911 is much better for historical information on them. EB has the problem of having to shoe-horn C20 information into the print version. The only way they can do this is to greatly condense information about earlier events or drop them entirely. EB 1911 was the last edition written mostly from a British/European perspective, and reflects that history and culture comprehensively. Later editions show their American ownership and preoccupations. WP allows the infinate addition of material EB has ignored. Apwoolrich 07:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I would note that EB also has a separate article about the Encyclopédie. The point is, it's silly for him to comment about whose is bigger, as his comments miss the point of what wikipedia is (and also why someone might not want 26,000 words). No denying there is some good info in their article, though. flux.books 15:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on the grades that the "experts" gave. They were clearly asked to give a grade on a scale from 0 to 10 without any guidelines on how they should arrive at this grade so they just pulled something out of the air. We should focus on the content of the criticism. The one on our Eliot articles, for example, actually indicates that there's nothing wrong with them! :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Mention of Wikipedia should be removed from this article. According to this article, an encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge, whereas Wikipedia is simply a mass storage of mostly miscellaneous information. Of course, this is by design, or put another way, Wikipedia is incapable of making the distinction between knowledge and information. Since Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, it should not be mentioned in this article.96.49.3.223 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree. I have no idea why you would say that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. "Wikipedia is a free, collaborative, multilingual Internet encyclopedia." Not much more to this conversation. LogicalCreator (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree. Just ask 10 or 100 random people this question: which is the encyclopedia that you usually use? Also some reputable source says so: http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1192818/Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kresp0 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Disagree. Though that doesn't change the fact that this page isn't entirely NPOV. The entire "21st century" section focuses on Wikipedia, with only a small piece about Britannica, especially considering Wikipedia having a list of 155 internet encyclopedias. A vast majority of the page is dominated w/ mentions of only "Wikipedia," where other encyclopedias would have just as much relevance.

Encyclopedia

The dictionary states that an Encyclopedia is "a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject."

However, I was told that an Encyclopedia is a collection of opinions on different subjects and their respectable branches.

After viewing a few articles, I've noticed that more on Wikipedia, the POV overrides the truth. That being, in some articles, there is no attempt to show the other side of an argument, and some articles seem to have exclusively one side, and any attempt to change it is usually reverted. Even when credible sources are given, sometimes, they aren't accepted by some users even if they meet the criteria.

So it seems like to me only about half of Wikipedia follows the first definition, while the rest follows the second one I've heard.

This isn't really a complaint as much as it is a notation by me.

But it does raise a question, and if answered I'd appreciate a simple response if possible, is any one definition favored over the other or does Wikipedia stride under the common definition?VisioNaryD (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Wikipedia currently or ever in the future achieves its goal, it meets the first definition by design and intent. The nature of a reference that "anyone can edit" (and I mean ANYONE) is that it will forever be in flux between scholarly work and fanatical scrapbook. I have no intention of entertaining your uncited anecdotal definition. --OGRastamon (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

UK usage of Encyclopedia

The UK, in practice, uses "encyclopedia" justs like the USA. It is considered the modern spelling. For evidence see Oxford University Press - Encyclopedia. This is the same University that published the OED. The days of England using ae are history. See also similar discussion on "Medieval" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/British spelling of Medieval. Webster's is outdated. --Stbalbach 00:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why did you delete my comment? American dictionaries say that "encyclopaedia" is "chiefly British," meaning that it's mostly used in Britain. This does not imply that it's widely used; it might be used a little, but in the U.S. is practically never used, and that's what makes it chiefly British. This aside, data from the British National Corpus (1990s) give almost equal frequencies for "encyclopedia" and "encyclopaedia." My comment was in fact about U.S. (not UK) usage of the word, and Webster's is not wrong IMO. --JackLumber 07:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You could interpret it that way; but if you read it literally, like most people do/will, it says the British chiefly use the ae spelling. Webster's is not an authority, there are all sorts of dictionaries, why this particular one? Also this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, we draw from any and all sources to determine article content, it's not like dictionaries have special authority that trumps others, they are just one piece. In fact dictionaries suffer from the same problem of all print media, they become out of date. Finally this is the English Wikipedia so we write for a broader audience not just the USA. --Stbalbach 14:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The following phrase in the article note:

... although rarely so, the modern British spelling of encyclopedia is the same as in the US.

is unsupported by references provided, uncorroborated, and contradicted by the commentary above; it is also unclear given the prior clause. Until its validity can be demonstrated, I will continue to remove this contentious phrase. And users should think twice before supporting and (re)adding nonsense to articles by pointing the finger. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No one in the UK publishes material today using the ae spelling of encyclopedia except in rare cases - it is simply outdated. I've show so with numerous links -- if the current catalog of the Oxford University Press (publishers of the OED) is not good enough for you, what exactly do you want? If you can show publishers in the UK using "ae" on recently published works, please show me. The commentary above only shows that it was done in the past, and done so today only rarely. As for the "prior clause", I guess you are referring to the "chiefly british" line? that is an American dictionary talking about it's usage in America, and saying where you see it at all, would be in Britain. But it says nothing about how common its usage is in the UK, not to mention it is out of date. -- Stbalbach 03:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not the point: this is an opinion that, no matter how true it might be, is unsourced – provide a reference to support this claim. Though neither search of this sole publisher is authoritative, a counter-search reveals numerous current (fewer) instances of "encyclopaedia". You might be able to demonstrate this or that with links, but it does not prove what the 'modern' British spelling is and, thus, is unverifiable. (Note: I've no difficulty including verifiable notions per Webster's or any reputable source.) If anything: the syntax of this phrase given the prior one is, effectively, gibberish ... and little above allays that. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

<indent follows to left>

According to the OED (2nd ed 1989) twin entry for "encyclopædia/encyclopedia" it says:

The spelling with æ has been preserved from becoming obs. by the fact that many of the works so called have Latin titles, as Encyclopædia Britannica

Meaning, if it has a Latin title (Britannica is Latin), than the Latin spelling is preserved, otherwise it would be obsolete. "ae" is just a typeset issue for the Latin æ (the OED does not even list "ae" at all, just "æ"). In fact we should not be using "ae" in Wikipedia since we have the font available for æ -- Stbalbach 04:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Better; thank you! I've tweaked the revised edition: viz. "many", not all, and readding the notation regarding the permissibility of both spellings in the OED and Webster's.

Stemming from that, "encyclopedia ... (also encyclopaedia)" is indicated in the entry, at least, for my 2001 single-volume edition of the New Oxford Dictionary of English (ISBN 0-19-860441-6) – which is partially produced using the Arial font (as indicated upfront) – so arguably ae is still appropriate to use in any venue and we should when necessary (e.g., citations). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok looks good. Can we safely say that the "æ" is still preserved, but in names that are Latin? (the "product name" thing is something I made up earlier not realizing the Latin name explanation from OED). And that "ae" is simply a typesetting short-cut for æ? (what else is it?). -- Stbalbach 17:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Great. Well, it isn't preserved merely in Latin names, hence my change. Arguably, EB is a Latin holdover but is an English title. The same can be said (even more so) for lengthy/combination titles: The Oxford Encyclopaedia of European Community Law, for example. We've sufficiently covered off on the ligature issue here. methinks: added details can/should be dealt with in the dedicated article (the character is called "ash") instead. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipaedia (wikipædia?) - where common sense is defined but not applied. flux.books 13:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In every single non-american book I've read it has been spelled encyclopaedia. Although one very recent wildlife encylclopaedia CD did spell it encyclopedia, but for some reason used american spellings alongside british ones in some cases. 01:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware this has been dead for a while, but I'd just like to add that while publishers may be normalising the spelling of encyclopaedia to the American spelling (something which is happening in many other cases to assure a world-wide "standard" English), I am yet to see someone from the UK using "encyclopedia" in place of "encyclopaedia" in normal usage. In fact, I have to tell myself NOT to put the "a" in when accessing Wikipedia. I know this gives no proof, but it's just my experience of the way the word is used in this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.204.106 (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Again I'd just like to add my weight to the use of 'encyclopaedia' certainly not being "outdated" in the UK as some are suggesting and is in fact (apart from online) the only spelling I ever come across in the UK. The non-US books I have checked all use 'encyclopaedia' and a quick check on two British websites - BBC News and The Times Online - also show the use of 'encyclopaedia' in every case. (I still all too often type 'Wikipaedia' in my browser too...) 90.197.153.237 14:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR

User:83.131.51.211 has been given notice on his talk page concerning WP:3RR; his edits today appear to be in violation. I haven't (yet) written him up at WP:ANI, but any subsequent revisions of the article likely merit a block. --EngineerScotty 23:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

encyclopedia etymology

According to this books time-line of encyclopedias: [6]

1541 Ringelbach uses the word "Encyclopaedia" in the title of his Lucubrationes

..which is half-right, it is not "Ringelbach" but "Joachimus Fortius Ringelbergius" (or "Ringelberg") who published "Lucubrationes vel potius absolutissima kyklopaideia" (Basle, 1541). -- Stbalbach 01:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Right now, it says the word was first used in 1541. The word was used in French in 1532 by François Rabelais in his Pantagruel to describe a general education.^[7] The OED says it was used in English in 1531 by Sir Thomas Elyot in The boke named The gouernour: "The circle of doctrine..is in one worde of greke Encyclopedia." According to The circle of knowledge; encyclopaedias past and present, compiled and with an introductory essay by James M. Wells. in Greek times enklikios paedia was used to describe a general education. Writers like Aristotle are called "encyclopedic writers" because of the broadness of their writing. The Espasa says that Ringelbergius was the first to use it in a title of a work.--Primetime 03:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. I just checked and it looks like Elyot was the first to combine the two words. P.P.S. Maybe I'm wrong. Sources conflict, so I'll leave it alone.

With tweaks, this works for me. I was actually going to comment on this after reading the 1911 v. of EB, but I lacked the willpower at the time. ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent etymology addition

Regarding this recent etymology addition:

The word had already been recorded in English in 1531, meaning "course of construction," thought to be a false reading by Latin authors of the Greek enkyklios paideia taken as "general education". The modern sense of a "reference work arranged alphabetically" is from 1644(though it has a precursor in Antiquity, the Origines by St. Isodorus of Seville), and is also often applied specifically to the French "Encylopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des Sciences, des Artes, et des Métiers" (1751-65), long known as 'the' Encyclopaedia, edited by the so-called 'encyclopedists'.

It is taken word for word from Online Etymology Dictionary which clearly is a copyright work. I have asked for citations, but since the "OED" provides none and is very vague, that seems improbable. So I've moved it here until someone can verify, expand and clarify with citations and specifics. --Stbalbach 13:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia link

The link to Wikipedia was recently deleted as vandalism. Probably links to Wikipedia show up frequently as vandalism, and the anti-vandalism person (or bot) may not have noticed that it was relevant to this article. Before adding it back I think we should get a consensus about the link being present. If there is reasonable opposition to having the link I won't add it back. But Wikipedia, to me, seems significant enough in the world of encyclopedias to warrant a link in this article. Rlitwin 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why people keep removing the link to the article on wikipedia with no explanation and without addressing it here. The issue has been raised in talk so people shouldn't continue making the deletion without justifying it. Rlitwin 13:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the link to Wikipedia in the External links undermines the intelligence of the reader.. I mean come on, is it really neccessary to link to the site they are already on, in case they hadn't realized it yet? I mean, they somehow got on to this site, and managed to search for "Encyclopedia" and came to the entry (or came to it from Google, but same difference), and they read the article, and got to the links section, and then we have to give them an "external link" to the Wikipedia main page? As if to say, "Hey, you should really check out this Wikipedia site. Here's the link. It's a great example of an encyclopedia!" It's not even really an external link. It's the equivalent to an article on toast linking the exact same article on toast, for more information on the subject. --Krakko 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SELF, particularly "Wikipedia's free content is reused in many places, online and off. Do not assume that the reader is reading Wikipedia, or indeed any website." There's print versions, CD/DVD versions, potential forks, etc. to consider. I'm sure you've seen Wikipedia content elsewhere on the Web while googling, for instance. The Wikipedia article also contains an external link to Wikipedia. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Competition

Are Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encarta, and such traditional encyclopedias Wikipedia's competitors? Their so different. At their core, these are are traditional paper encyclopedias and wikipedia is a free-content online work. If so, how do we which encyclopedia is ahead. There is no market share or sales to base a comparison. I don't think you could compare number users or articles, accuracy of those articles, or hits to the website. Wikipedia is so different from Britannica. How do we know which encyclopedia is winning.--Wikiphilia 05:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Put it in an internal links section. Neopetslovette 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Four major elements

I don't see why we have four bullet points. The first one contains three parts:

• "Encyclopedias can be general [and] can also specialize in a particular field ..." - this seems to duplicate the second bullet about scope.
• ""General encyclopedias often contain guides on how to do a variety of things ...". While true, this does not define an encyclopedia. Neither does gazetteer.
• Examples like Britannica and Great Soviet. These do not describe "four major elements" and should be discussed in their appropriate context, as Britannica already is.

The last bullet point doesn't state any defining criterion for an encyclopedia but the mere fact that there are modern versions; it rather belongs in section Modern encyclopedias. Any objections if I delete these two bullets and move the examples that are not covered in context under See also? — Sebastian (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well-rounded education?

Regarding this text:

enkyklios paideia, literally 'the things of boys/child in a circle', meaning "a general knowledge."

Which was recently modified to this:

enkyklia paideia, literally '[well] rounded education', meaning "a general knowledge."

I don't speak Greek, but I'm disappointed to learn the origins of "rounded education" does not derive from the picture of students sitting in a circle listening to Socrates or some ancient Greek sage. If this is not the case, where and how did "round" get associated with education? It must be a very old association based on some reason. -- Stbalbach 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

---

My source is very old, and I'm sorry it's German: Benselers Griechisch-Deutsches Schulwörterbuch, Leipzig und Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1931.

• ἐγ-κύκλιος, kreisförmig, rund ..., od. allgemein: αἱ ἐγκύκλιοι (ἀρχαί) die gewöhnlichen, niedern Ämter, ἡ ἐ. διοίκησις die niedere Verwaltung, τά ἐγκύκλια μαθήματα, ἡ ἐγκ. παιδεία der Kreis der allgemeinen Wissenschaften und Künste, die jeder Grieche in der Jugend treiben mußte, allgemeine Bildung.

• παιδεία, ... 1) Auferziehung, Erziehung,, Unterweisung, Unterricht, Zucht ... 2) das durch Erziehung Gewonnene ..., wissenschaftliche Ausbildung, Bildung, Kenntnisse, Wissenschaft, Einsicht, Kunstfertigkeit, Ausübung der Kunst. 3) poet. Bildungsstätte, Schule, ...

Translation:

• ἐγ-κύκλιος, circular, round ..., or general: αἱ ἐγκύκλιοι (ἀρχαί) the common, lower offices, ἡ ἐ. διοίκησις the lower administration, τά ἐγκύκλια μαθήματα, ἡ ἐγκ. παιδεία the circle of general sciences and arts, which every Greek had to pursue in their youth. , general education.

• παιδεία, ... 1) education, instruction ... 2) that which has been gained through education ..., scientific learnedness, culture, knowledge, science, insight, skilfulness, practice of the arts. 3) poet.: institute of education, school, ...

I tried to find an English on line source but was not successful. Are you aware of any? — Sebastian (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a source. This still leads us in circles, where and how did "circle" become associated with "education". Students sitting in a circle, physically and then symbolically, seems like a neat explanation. My ancient history is weak, but didn't the Greeks gather in a circular forum to hear orators in the center speak before casting votes with a pebble? -- Stbalbach 19:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding something here. "Circle" never became associated with "education". It just so happens that the Greek word for "general" is derived from "circle". If you want to see it in terms of derivation, you can see two separate chains:

• circle $\Rightarrow$ round $\Rightarrow$ allround $\Rightarrow$ general
• child $\Rightarrow$ education $\Rightarrow$ knowledge

Then someone used "general knowledge" to describe an encyclopedia, which was when the two chains met. I wrote "well-rounded", because I felt it fits a bit better to "education" and to the Greek ideal, but you might as well write "allround knowledge". HTH, — Sebastian (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok yeah I missed that thanks for the clarification. -- Stbalbach 20:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

literally translates as a "well rounded" ？

I think the word "round" in English should have been extended to the meaning "full, complete" at mid-14c.at earliest(online etymology dictionary).

In the sense of the contemporary English it may be 'literally translates as a "well rounded" 'extended the the word "round" but is it really said just like literally meaning "well-rounded"in the sense of the time when the word ἐγκυκλοπαιδεία had been created in old Greek?

I couldn't find the related description from the link.

Henry George defines as "ordinary, everyday" by the third definition.I think this meaning is more appropriate.

online etymology dictionary also said "general" (from en "in" + kyklos "circle").

Therefore I recomend it should be described:

"enkyklios" (ἐγκύκλιος), meaning "ordinary, everyday" entended to "in circle(ἐγ + κύκλιος)"[9] + "paideia" (παιδεία), meaning "education, rearing of a child"[10]. Together, the phrase translates as a "general knowledge" derived from "lessons whom audience takes in the circle ".

Sorry for my poor English. I'm Japanese who tries to add this sentense with the page of 百科事典, encyclopedia in Japanese and has difficulty with the interpretation of the word "round" and "well-rounded" used in this page. --219.211.122.141 (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I think that you can transate the word "circle" as "complete". I mean complete as full, total, complete as a circle and also perfect as a circle! It means that Encyclopedia is able to speaks and teaches about every kind of knowledge. Verify it on the italian Wikipedia's voice "Enciclopedia" I suggest something more. Think about a circle. How is it defined in geometry? "A line forming a closed loop, every point on which is a fixed distance from a center point." Who is IN the center point? Who is the "center point"? You! Man is the center point of the knowledge. It's one of the main aspect of Enlightnement and before it was the the main concept of the "Umanesimo" (XVcentury). It's not a case if the word Umanesimo came fom a latin word that means "human". Another reflexion: Think about the definition of "line" (that word is used to define circle). A line is made by not ending point. In other word the number of the points in a line is limitless. So the line that represents the knowledge is formed by limitless points. So the knowlwdge is endless. Another thought: The knowlwdge is circle (metaforically), because to understand the Truth, we have to see the connections between things, and also because we have to see the knowledge in her moving. Everything is connected in the knowledge. Another thing: in a circle there is no points to start drawing. Everything has the same importance in Knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elehasufel (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate

"the spellings encyclopaedia and encyclopedia both see common use, in British-/Commonwealth- and American-influenced sources, respectively." doesn't mean much. I guess it means "encyclopaedia is commonly used in the British Commonwealth, while encyclopedia is commonly used in the U.S." Not only is it inaccurate and awkwardly worded—it's just wrong. The two spellings are about equally used in the British National Corpus. And the Canadian Encyclopedia is a Commonwealth source. Webster's 3rd doesn't exactly say that "the digraph is rare in the U.S.," but rather regards encyclopaedia as an also-ran. JackLumber. 19:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Psychlopaedist: are you related to User:E Pluribus Anthony? JackLumber. 20:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The current version is also awkwardly worded: the prior version (I think) is intended to clearly distinguish between British/Commonwealth English and American English ... and the above seems just as subjective an assessment as any. Also-ran is rather obtuse wording. If clearer wording isn't produced, I will restore content from previously. Lastly: no, I'm not related to that user. Psychlopaedist 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What I said is a *fact*—it's not a subjective assessment. See e.g. Pam Peters's Cambridge Guide to English Usage, page 181. That alleged "distinction" between British/Commonwealth and American is just phony. JackLumber. 21:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please source it in the article then, as editors are supposed to do. Also note that there appears to have been at least some background/discussion about the original note (with some rigmarole), so I'll do a little digging and make edits if needed. Thanks. Psychlopaedist 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I just added a couple sources—to wit, Oxford, Chambers, Merriam-Webster, and American Heritage. Yet you and Anthony have a lots of things in common---the edit summary style (RE: ; cpyed), the latinate username (cf. Ex post factoid, Cogito ergo sumo), that space-ellipsis points-space " ... ", an interest in Canada, Quebec, Toronto, Asia, Southeastern Europe, geography, encyclopedias... JackLumber. 22:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding your other points, I guess we do have things in common, but please note that the editorial abbreviations used are apparently fairly common in Wikipedia. Ah well. Beyond that, I can't comment further. Psychlopaedist 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Spelling variant used in title page not mentioned?

The article gives the variants of the word as "An encylopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia". To be honest, I've never seen the first. A google search does bring a lot up, but does if I meant "encyclopedia". Is this what the article means, or is missing the second 'c' an actual variant? Jameshfisher 21:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a typo. Corticopia 22:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the typo was introduced on March 6, 2007, and I see that it was fixed on March 31, 2007. 69.140.164.142 11:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Choose better word?

Where it says "Encyclopedias of at least one volume in size exist for most if not all Academic disciplines, including, typically, such narrow topics such as bioethics and African American history," I suggest substituting a better word for "narrow." 69.140.164.142 11:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ratings?

I suggest the article be expanded to include more information that would assist readers in making comparative judgments regarding the quality of the various encyclopædias that exist. If there are objective, published studies comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia with the accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica, for example, or the accuracy or comprehensiveness of different published encyclopædias, then please add citations (or if already mentioned in the existing citations, expand the text!) 69.140.164.142 11:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. Any others should be done likewise as this is a general top-level summary article. -- Stbalbach 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity

The brethren of purity, Basra 960 wrote the influential Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity, which had enormous influence at the time. I would like to insert it in temporal order, which means it lies in the middle of an existing paragraph currently dominated by Christendom. Would anyone object if I refactored this? --Ancheta Wis 17:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1911 encyc brit

Is this link correct? My computer comes up with an error message. I've tried several times to-day, and each time, it takes over three minutes before finally giving an error message. Kdammers 04:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is one of the most popular if not the must popular encyclopdia in the world, there should be a headline on Wikipedia and other online encycopedia's, not links to them, but information about them. Nikro 02:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In fiction

Encyclopedias play a role in fiction and popular culture. Just think of the Encyclopedia Galactica in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy or the essays of Jorge Luis Borges. Some other articles have a section on "Xyz in popular culture" or similar. How or where should this be expressed with regards to encyclopedias (and dictionaries, for that matter)? Is there already an article on this subject? Hmm... there is a category:Fictional encyclopedias. But no article? --LA2 08:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Necessary external link?

I noticed a link to Encyclopaedia and Hypertext in the External links section. Is this important enough to include in the article? Foxjwill 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bartholomeus Anglicus / Bartholomeus de Glanvilla

In the History / Early Encyclopedias section, the author of the 1240ish De Proprietatibus Rerum is erroneously given as Bartholomeus de Glanvilla. On the follow-through link, however, it is explained that this 14th (!) century monk was often confused with the 13th (!) century Bartholomeus Anglicus, the actual author of the encyclopedia. Could this please be changed? Thank you.62.131.11.37 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

link question

Hi! I wanted to link to a Celtic encyclopedia but when I wrote "Celtic encyclopedia" withtin the tag the Wiki code returned the phrase "encyclopedia". Consequently, I had to write "Celtic Celtic encyclopedia" to achieve "Celtic encyclopedia" and this feels a bit awkward. Could anybody please tell me why it is necessary to ignore the first word before encyclopedia? Sponsianus 22:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the | symbol you are using after the web address. You don't need it for external links (I've just discovered). If you put one in, Wikipedia thinks it (and the word after it) is part of the address.62.172.108.24 (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Purpose

I always think of encyclopedias as having a moral or cultural purpose. That is they are intended to somehow make the world a better place, not being just a way to sell books. Could something about the purpose encyclopedias are put together be mentioned in the article? Thanks. Steve Dufour 05:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία

Shouldn't the second letter in "ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία" be a Nu, "ν"? Why is it a Gamma? Or did the G become an N? I know this is more of a Greek question than a question regarding the word encyclopedia, but alas I feel if I asked it there no one would know what I was talking about. Feel free to send me a personal response if you don't want to crowd the talk page. Merç. Arthurian Legend (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

See Agma. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Mention of the Suda

Should the entry include mention of the byzantine encyclopedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suda Gimme danger (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordmick (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to use.

Wikipedia is very difficult to use,there are no easy shortcuts for everything,that means that their search engine could not respond to every thing with full details,other than that its an phonetic inception of new idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftypowernap (talk • contribs) 23:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New developments

There is a new development in encyclopedias that has been brought about by the internet, and that ought to be mentioned in the article. Apart from the growth of Wikipedia and About.com which can be thought of as alternative encyclopedias with a popular input, there are a growing number of micro-sites, such as Universe Review, kNOW, and Knowledge 2008, which, though not authoritative or exhaustive like the large encyclopedias, are closer in spirit to the original cyclopedias of the Renaissance, and whose aim is to provide an all-round education/summary/broad overview of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.228.195 (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

traditional spelling

I added a fact tag to the claim that encyclopedia is traditionally spelled encyclopædia with the edit summary: "traditional according to whom? also updated source which was a dead link" and User:AnnaJGrant reverted it with the following summary: "That was the traditional spelling of encyclopedia.." Unfortunately, saying so isn't a good source for citing information. Also, I updated a broken link in my edit which was reverted. Can we be more careful with our bot generated tools please? Thanks! —scarecroe (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than get into a British vs. American spelling debate, I've just added a wiktionary link. See also WP:ENGVAR JGHowes ^talk - 12:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

good idea! Pundit|utter 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

History

Let's try this for size, and see where we get. An encyclopedia in ancient times was the contemporary scholars' best effort to describe the physical universe and perhaps to categorize it. Given that definition, probably the earliest encyclopedia was the Chinese Book of Changes, the I Ching. The understanding of the I Ching as a fortune-telling device came perhaps later, in less-educated times, but was not the original intent. --Dan (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest the Tung Shing; and that its omission here seems both serious and sinophobic.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"Free Encyclopedia" is NPOV

I know that all of you really like Wikipedia(you're editing it of course). But the fact is the Section Encyclopedia#Free_encyclopedia is not neutral and should be rewritten to include more currently running encyclopedias. A whole new article (possibly called Open-Source Encyclopedia or Free Encyclopedia) may be justifiable.

Spitfire19 23:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's not neutral, but only because it centres on Wikipedia too much - the language used about Wikipedia is perfectly neutral, but it acts like Wikipedia is the only free encyclopedia - it hasn't been updated since the advent of Citizendium and Knol. Category:Online encyclopedias should be a good start - most free encyclopaedias are online AFAIK, any other distribution method would be impossible to sustain without payment. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is finally resolvedSpitfire19 (Talk) 03:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hell Ya, they are removing the KNOL entry from it. --النول (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia

Wikipedia is not consistent with language, as it changes between English and American spellings. Wikipedia should standerdise the spelling, preferably changing to correct English spellings. Since proper English is the original and correct form of the language, it should be the one used, such as in this page, which should be renamed "encyclopaedia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclay1 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The national variety of English to be used on Wikipedia has never been agreed, since there are so many variations (not just British English vs. American English). The current policies are WP:ENGVAR and the Manual of Style (spelling). To summarise: most articles with British-related subjects generally use British English (OED or normal), those connected to the US use en-us spelling, and those connected to neither use both (both variations are allowed within the article, and the lead paragraph must mention both spellings of the subject e.g. "An encyclopedia (or encyclopaedia) is..."). In fact we have a user warning template devoted to it:

_{In a recent edit, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.}

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you.

Language naturally evolves and changes with national and international variations. There's no point in crusading for the elimination of all but the One True English. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

True facts. Mclay1, what is a "billion"? We here in America have one strict definition for it. I hear you folks over there do not. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 18:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Enclyclopaedia was the original spelling. Spelling words with "E" with"AE" avoids dangerous confusion. Someone chucked a brick at a pediologist's house because they confused Pedo with paedo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumirp (talk • contribs) 08:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Period piece

"By preserving Latin and Greek texts which would otherwise have been lost, they helped to rekindle the search for knowledge and methods of natural philosophy which would revive again during the Renaissance." So: lots of Arabist studies were going on during the Renaissance? Certainly news to me. (Would like to see where medival encyclopediasts would be without them-we would still be quoting "The Wedding of Mercury & Philology", I suppose). Perhaps less esoterically, the actual Renaissance encyclopedias seem to have been fitted into the Age of Enlightenment (17-19 cent) to the degree they are mentioned at all. Really do not have time for edit war, links to Olaus Magnus etc: could someone please take a look at things? 21:58, 30 June 2009(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.80.230.148 (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymology section

I've kicked the obscene etymology section to the end of the article. It's completely ridiculously too long to be the first piece of content in the article, and frankly, simply isn't important enough. The first thing that goes in most encyclopedia articles is more detail about what the topic is, or the history of the topic. Starting with several page derivation of the word in the title, when the word wasn't even invented till 1500 years after the encyclopedia, is completely assinine.- Wolfkeeper 02:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Background for this interpretation can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Prithee and currently ongoing at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 73#WP:DICTIONARY needs tweaking?.

I disagree with this perspective, and believe the name of the object, and its characteristics are fundamental. The history section is by far the longest, which makes your comments about length getting in the way, ironic. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the background for this is reading the damn article here and putting yourself in the shoes of the likely reader. They do not want two pages of etymology immediately after the introduction.- Wolfkeeper 04:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

2 pages? I count 2 paragraphs and 1 stray sentence. Unless you're using strange font size settings... --Cybercobra (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's 4K of source text, and when you've read it; you still know no more about encyclopedias. You know marginally more about one word that refers to encyclopedias; and even then only the English term for it.- Wolfkeeper 05:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the Etymology section is more accurate than the History section. I really wanted to put etymology before all for two reasons: firstly because is the normal format of the articles; secondly because it is far more correct than the History section, so it would be a better presentation for the article. Lele giannoni (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) There was a minor dispute over what the sources actually say about the etymology of the word. This has just been sorted out here. I will change the section to reflect what sources say. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed from article

In practice, however, the distinction is not concrete, as there is no clear-cut difference between factual, "encyclopedic" information and linguistic information such as appears in dictionaries. Encyclopedias incorporate material that is also found in dictionaries, and vice versa. In particular, dictionary entries often contain factual information about the thing named by the word. Even in such cases, however, an encyclopedia entry aims to provide a much fuller treatment of the subject.

This was added to a paragraph about the differences between dictionaries and encyclopedias. The word 'concrete' says that there's not any actual difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia, whereas the referenced text just says that dictionaries and encyclopedias contain a bit of the same information, and doesn't state anywhere that I can see that there's no difference between the two.- Wolfkeeper 16:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

On the whole it seems to be inaccurate précis.- Wolfkeeper 16:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources say that "In contrast with linguistic information, encyclopedia material is more concerned with the description of objective realities than the words or phrases that refer to them. In practice, however, there is no hard and fast boundary between factual and lexical knowledge." and "Usually these these two aspects overlap - ENCYCLOPEDIC INFORMATION being difficult to distinguish from LINGUISTIC INFORMATION - and dictionaries attempt to capture both in the explanation of a meaning..." And, "The two types, as we have seen, are not easily differentiated; encyclopedias contain information that is also to be found in dictionaries, and vice versa."

The point is, the distinction between "encyclopedia" content and "dictionary" content is not clear cut. The article nowhere says that they're the same.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I altered the wording to be closer to what the sources say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Generally speaking

This edit sufficiently carries the meaning of the three given sources. Wolfkeeper initially claimed that the problem with the original phrasing was that the word "general" was used too many times;[8] my new edit obviously corrects this. Now it appears his problem is with the phrase "generally speaking". I think this phrase is necessary, since all of the relevant sources indicate that the distinction is not clear cut, especially in the case of dictionaries, which will often include "encyclopedic" information. We need to be careful to properly convey what the sources are actually saying here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that general-purpose dictionaries are always concerned with words, terms and linguistics of one form or another, and that's what the references say.- Wolfkeeper 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of 'generally' in this case is ambiguous, and in what is probably the more common meaning, actually wrong. 'Generally' is typically used to mean 'usually', but it can also mean always. The always meaning is correct here, for dictionaries.- Wolfkeeper 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And no, it didn't help that the same word appeared twice within 3 words, either.- Wolfkeeper 15:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're also making the claim above (and to a fair degree trying to write this into the article) that "all of the relevant sources indicate that the distinction is not clear cut, especially in the case of dictionaries, which will often include "encyclopedic" information" but just because two things contain some of the same things, doesn't mean that there's no distinction between them. For example consider that aeroplanes and trucks may carry some of the cargo, that doesn't mean an aeroplane is a truck or that there's no other distinction between aeroplanes and trucks. With encyclopedias and dictionaries, just because as reference works, they contain some of the same information doesn't make them indistinct forms.- Wolfkeeper 15:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no "always" or "never" when it comes to the distinction between dictionaries and encyclopedias (and the distinction is the whole point of the sentence). All of the sources bear this out. The context makes it clear that "generally" is being used in the usual sense here.

I'm trying to write the article according to what the sources say. Most if not all of them, including one you yourself added, say the distinction is not clear cut. And no, that is hardly equivalent to arguing that there are no differences at all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, but the source says that dictionaries are always concerned with words and their uses, not sometimes. So you're deliberately misrepresenting that.- Wolfkeeper 15:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're massively also oversimplifying. They say that in many aspects there are significant overlaps, but they also point to large differences, and the point that dictionaries are not translatable, whereas encyclopedias in fact are routinely translated, is a clear-cut difference, that is noted in one of the references.- Wolfkeeper 15:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're misreading the sentence. It is about the distinction between encyclopedias and dictionaries, not the definition of "dictionary".

Of course there are difference. I wrote the paragraph on them, thank you. However, as far as I can recall, none of the sources specifically give translatability as an example of a difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. The only that I can remember mentioning it at all (Bejoint p. 30) only briefly mentions that encyclopedias can be translated, but dictionaries can't.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Bejoint specifically says that.- Wolfkeeper 04:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But that's nothing to do with the edit you arbitrarily reverted. My edit simply made the text state that dictionaries specifically are linguistic reference works as this is both obvious as well supported by the references immediately after it. And I frankly don't know why you reverted it, since according to the references you added encyclopedia entries can contain both linguistic and factual information about the topic; but the fact remains that all dictionary entries do necessarily contain linguistic information, whereas not all encyclopedia articles must (although any given article may).- Wolfkeeper 04:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly, the point of the sentence is the difference between encyclopedias and dictionaries. Such a difference is general, not universal. That caveat appears in virtually all of the sources, so it needs to appear here too. --Cúchullain ^t/c 14:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC) I took out the phrase "of necessity"[9] (there is no "necessity" that any work do anything) but otherwise this change is reasonable, so I've revert myself.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bejoint says "For many entries [in an encyclopedia], a different entry word might have been chosen, and this would not have modified noticeably the contents of the entry. That is why an encyclopedia can be translated, but a dictionary cannot". He is not giving translatability as a necessary difference between encylopedias and dictionaries; it is rather the result of encyclopedias focusing on factual information rather than linguistic information. At any rate we do discuss translatability here already, and it follows what Bejoint says closely.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Forget the translation thing. The point is that there are large numbers of actual universal differences between encyclopedias and dictionaries. It is not simply a style difference. There are many things you are simply not allowed to do in an encyclopedia that are routine in dictionaries, and vice versa. You are not allowed to have a dictionary entry where the entry is not about the entry term. You are allowed to have an article that is not about the term in an encyclopedia. You are not supposed to have verbs as article names in encyclopedias. It's perfectly allowed in a dictionary. The reason is that the dictionary is always, first and foremost, a linguistic reference work. An encyclopedia is not first and foremost a linguistic reference work. That is a concrete universal difference.- Wolfkeeper 20:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(Unless it's an etymological encyclopedia... ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I only addressed the translation thing because you brought it up. But moving on, i would like to point out that all of my changes have been based on reliable sources, which carry far more weight than our personal interpretations of what is "allowed" or not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Citizendium instead of Encarta

Encarta was last published in 2009 so I listed Citizendium instead. Plz do not see this as a POV standpoint towards Larry Sanger. SpeakFree (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Encyclo

The article claims that the Greek word is ἐγκυκλοπαιδεία It seems to me that it should be ἐνκυκλοπαιδεία. Also, ἐνκυκλοπαιδεία would never mean "general." It means "in a circle." How can this mean "general"?Lestrade (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

It doesn't mean "well rounded education" either, that would be "eὺcyclopedia" [ἐὺκυκλοπαιδεία]. "ν" = "n" and "ὺ" = "u."Lestrade (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

a) When the prefix εν combines with a word beginning in κ, it regularly becomes εγ.

b) The original Greek phrase was εγκύκλιος παιδεία, " 'encyclical education', the circle of arts and sciences considered by the Greeks as essential to a liberal eduation" (OED). See the Liddell and Scott definition III.3. of εγκύκλιος ' general education, prior to professional studies'. The current writeup is a bit confusing; I will work on it. --Macrakis (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nationalistic bias

I think this article is affected by a nationalistic bias, particularly in two sentences.
Firstly there was written that sir Browne's work was the first to be titled encyclopedia. This information was evidently incorrect, since Aventinus and Skalić used this title before. Likely, Browne was the first one in English. So I added the words "in English". However, I have no source about that.
Secondly, the article says that Harris was the first one to write an alphabetical encylopedia. That, too, is incorrect. In fact, it's evident that also Moréri, Furetière and Bayle's works were alphabetical (not to mention Etymologiae or Suida) and theirs, too, like Harris', were specialistic dictionaries more than true encylopedias. So, also in this case I think that Harris was the first in English.
The reason why I'm so angry about the nationalistic bias in this article is that it's been translated in many other languages, so that these deceitful informations have been spread throughout the wikipedias. Lele giannoni (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Unresolved link

What makes a scholarly encyclopedia? is broken and now points to the general Duke library website [[10]], rather than to http://www.lib.duke.edu/lilly/artsearch/guides/discussion%20guides/scholarlyencycl.htm Robertekraut (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism revert

Undid several of the latest revisions because of vandalism.

RealityApologist (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Info removed, please restore; General encyclopedias

Please restore the citation. Removed here

General encyclopedias often contain guides on how to do a variety of things, as well as embedded dictionaries and gazetteers.

Ashok Babu Tummala, M. Sankara Reddy, Hemant Kumar. E-libraries, 2007. ISBN 8184242824. Page 199

It is published by the Andhra Pradesh Library Association.

--J. D. Redding 19:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit replaced this sentence:

General encyclopedias often contain guides on how to do a variety of things, as well as embedded dictionaries and gazetteers.

with:

General encyclopedias possess guides on how to do a variety of things, as well as subsume dictionaries and gazetteers.<ref>Ashok Babu Tummala, M. Sankara Reddy, Hemant Kumar. E-libraries, 2007. isbn 8184242824</ref>

Thanks for posting the page number here, Reddi. Since the original reference didn't supply a page number or chapter, I tried searching for what part you might have had in mind, and couldn't find it. Clearly page 199 is the source for the claim; I see now that the original sentence was copied almost verbatim from the source.

Regarding the change of wording: "Possess" makes it sound like all general encyclopedias contain how-to guides, which is wrong. The word "subsume" seems like a mistaken or at least strange word choice. The main sense of "subsume" is to bring an instance or subcategory under a category that contains it, or to be the containing category. That is not the relationship that general encyclopedias bear to dictionaries and gazetteers. Another sense of "subsume" is to include, which might be technically correct, except that "subsume" in this sense emphasizes the act of one thing absorbing or incorporating another, which seems inappropriate here.

There are a couple problems we should think about for how to make the article better, since the writing in the Characteristics section right now is pretty incoherent. The first is that the sentence in context, regardless of how it's worded, is a strange digression. It comes in a paragraph that surveys the different kinds of subject matter that can define an encyclopedia. One of these is "general": all topics in every field. The rest of the paragraph illustrates subjects that non-general encyclopedias can cover. It's out-of-place to mention secondary, fairly inconsequential details about general encyclopedias here. Another problem is that the next paragraph is about "scope", but from the examples, it's not clear what distinction is intended between "subject matter" and "scope". Any ideas for how to fix this?

The other problem is that the source is poor. It's written in bad English, suggesting little or no editorial oversight. The source is not specifically about encyclopedias; the title is "Developing a Subject Based Personal Electronic Library a Step by Step Guide." It says weird stuff like "the Wikipedia's articles may be considered to be of a trivial nature" and it lists Everything2 as a well-known on-line encyclopedia (and omits Wikipedia!). I don't feel good about citing it. I hope we could find something better. Is there a reason you wanted to cite this source in particular?

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I was correcting the original sentence and the copied from the source problem. Correcting any infringement and giving a citation.

Really needs to be cited. To correct the current situation. But be open to finding other citation while this one is used.

And, older general encyclopedias (several of real hardcopy 1900s sets I posses) do contain/incorporate these things. Not sure how many older books you possess. This doesn't even mention other encyclopedias (Everything2 is, though you personally may not agree).

Though it's not really relevant, your last comment bothers me. "Bad english" is relative [... usually the resort of specious arguments]. And don't hold much weight, personally. The source is Indian, so maybe it is a translation.

--J. D. Redding 23:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Encyclopedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203022708/http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?title=21st&query=encyclopaedia to http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?title=21st&query=encyclopaedia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121221131406/http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)