The Better Book of Knowledge

[madviking]

Which is the more important book of knowledge, in terms of knowledge content, import, and significance: the dictionary or the encyclopedia*?

*encyclopaedia for you Commonwealth jerks.

 

[Save_Ferris]

A dictionary tells, an encyclopedia teaches.

 

[madviking]

A dictionary tells, an encyclopedia teaches.

A dictionary can't teach?

 

[Kennigit]

encyclopedia has wider range of applications and more detail.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Encyclopedias are more fun to browse.

 

[Ajidica]

Encyclopedia.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Encyclopedia has more than just descriptions of words, and thus, has more potential to teach.

 

[Old Hippy]

the book downtown is writing... I have not opened either a dictionary or an encyclopaedia in years now, tho i sometimes go to my Thesaurus

 

[mayor]

I guess the book written by Downtown, cause who doesn't want to have his knowledge, but since that isn't ready yet my vote goes towards the Encyclopedia.

I vote for the encyclopedia because it better suits my need however I don't think the two can really be compared. They provide different kinds of information and complement each other rather than compete with each other.

 

[Dachs]

Encyclopedias, in presenting potted versions of a given topic, are likely to present incorrectly potted versions of said topic. They have juuuust enough rope to hang themselves there.

Dictionaries have a much more limited - and therefore much more reasonable - remit. Their subject matter is considerably less contentious than are encyclopedias'. Therefore, if I really had to choose, I'd say dictionaries, on the grounds that it's much easier to find an encyclopedia that sucks at being what it is theoretically supposed to be than it is to find a comparably bad dictionary.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

dictionary for me.

 

[Agent327]

Neither. The internet has plenty of entries of both.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Encyclopedias, in presenting potted versions of a given topic, are likely to present incorrectly potted versions of said topic. They have juuuust enough rope to hang themselves there.

What articles did you look at here for this analysis?

 

[Masada]

history i'm guessing. and he'd be right. encyclopedias just can't keep current enough.

 

[Tee Kay]

Encyclopedias, in presenting potted versions of a given topic, are likely to present incorrectly potted versions of said topic. They have juuuust enough rope to hang themselves there.

Dictionaries have a much more limited - and therefore much more reasonable - remit. Their subject matter is considerably less contentious than are encyclopedias'. Therefore, if I really had to choose, I'd say dictionaries, on the grounds that it's much easier to find an encyclopedia that sucks at being what it is theoretically supposed to be than it is to find a comparably bad dictionary.

I must say I've never really looked at it that way before. Interesting.

I own a dictionary but not an encyclopedia; the latter becomes obsolete too quickly to be worth buying. Old ones are interesting for an insight into the available knowledge and the mentality of the times though.

 

[mayor]

I must say I've never really looked at it that way before. Interesting.

I own a dictionary but not an encyclopedia; the latter becomes obsolete too quickly to be worth buying. Old ones are interesting for an insight into the available knowledge and the mentality of the times though.

Well... As far as I'm concerned the same thing can be said for dictionaries with a new spelling every few years

 

[Tee Kay]

Well... As far as I'm concerned the same thing can be said for dictionaries with a new spelling every few years

Maybe a few words out of several tens of thousands. Generally dictionaries are good for several decades, bar slangs.

 

[mayor]

I don't agree with yearly. We had a encyclopedia at our house that dated back to 1970-80.. somewhere in that timeperiod. I admit that some parts were outdated and some things were missing but the majority was still correct.

(we threw it out since we needed more space in the bookcase and you can get the same info from the internet)

 

[Perfection]

mad magazine

 

[Masada]

I don't agree with yearly. We had a encyclopedia at our house that dated back to 1970-80.. somewhere in that timeperiod. I admit that some parts were outdated and some things were missing but the majority was still correct.

in the three highly obscure fields i deal in, there's at a rough estimate twenty monographs and about a hundred papers coming out each and every year. in a good years there's almost constant reappraisal going on. even getting a consensus on the state of play is hard enough, let alone getting a scholarly consensus on stuff that might be useful for an encyclopaedia.