The Better Book of Knowledge

[Traitorfish]

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.

And that's when they don't let a complete lunatic write an entry that goes unrevised for almost forty years.

Still, I retain some sympathy for the encyclopaedia as a way of introducing people to these topics, so I don't think I can cast my lot as readily as Dachs. A dictionary may be far more reliable than an encyclopaedia, but nobody ever ended up studying history because they particularly enjoyed the section on "H".

 

[Verarde]

Dictionaries give definitions of words.

Encyclop(a)edias hold information on vast ranges of topics.

Encyclop(a)edias get my vote.

 

[NickyJ]

Encyclopedias get my vote. Dictionaries provide spelling and simple definition, as well as etymology. Encyclopedias, on the other hand, go into deeper detail.

For instance, if you look up the word "galleon" in a dictionary, it says "a large sailing vessel of the 15th to the 17th centuries used as a fighting or merchant ship, square-rigged on the foremast and mainmast and generally lateen-rigged on one or two after masts."

However, if you look at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, it gives: 1. definition, 2. etymology, 3. history, 4. details, such as its construction, distinguishing features, and 5. a list of notable galleons.

If I did not know what a galleon was, and wanted more information than that it was just an old sailing ship, the encyclopedia could give me almost all the information I needed.

 

[classical_hero]

The book of Downtown will be an interesting read.

 

[warpus]

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.

A dictionary only tells you what words mean.

An encyclopedia explains the context.

 

[MrCynical]

An encyclopedia, by many orders of magnitude. May not go into that much depth or be perfectly up do date, but can give a good introduction to a huge range of interesting subjects. Rarely need an actual paper encyclopedia now wikipedia's around though. Personally I've never had much use for a dictionary. Probably only opened one a handful of times in the past decade.

 

[Save_Ferris]

A dictionary only tells you what words mean.

An encyclopedia explains the context.

This is what I meant.

 

[Rashiminos]

I'd hazard a guess that the people voting encyclopedias would not understand them without dictionaries.

 

[meromorph]

When I was young encyclopedias were my favorite reading material. I value wikipedia more than the rest of the internet combined.

 

[azzaman333]

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 like Dachs' reasoning, so I'm going with that.

 

[LucyDuke]

I'd hazard a guess that the people voting encyclopedias would not understand them without dictionaries.

Surprisingly enough, most people learn most of their vocabularies without consulting dictionaries!

 

[MrCynical]

I'd hazard a guess that the people voting encyclopedias would not understand them without dictionaries.

Not really - the vast majority of your vocabulary is not learnt from a dictionary, and a decent encyclopedia will define any specialised terminology. I've never gone to a dictionary to look up a term from an encyclopedia.