Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the second edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (2007) within its broader historical context of the production of encyclopedias in the twentieth and the twenty‐first centuries. The paper contrasts the 2007 edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica to the Jewish Encyclopedia published between 1901 and 1905, and to the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica published in 1972; then contrasts the 2007 edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica to Wikipedia and to other projects of online encyclopedias.

The paper provides a personal reflective review of the sources in question.

That Encyclopaedia Judaica in its latest edition does not adequately replace the original first edition in terms of depth of scholarly work. It is considered that the model offered by Wikipedia could work well for the Encyclopaedia Judaica, allowing it to retain the core of the expert knowledge, and at the same time channel the energy of volunteer editors which has made Wikipedia such a success.

The paper is of interest to those with an interest in encyclopedia design or Jewish studies.

This paper provides a unique reflection on the latest edition of the encyclopedia and considers future models for its publication based on traditional and non‐traditional methods.

Over the years, Encyclopaedia Britannica has undergone a number of revisions and has been provided in a number of formats other than print. The different electronic formats include a CD‐ROM version, a subscription online version, a free online version that was recently changed to a subscription version, and a DVD‐ROM version. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usability and effectiveness of the different electronic versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The objectives of this study were to find out if one of the electronic versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica is easier to use than the others, to see if the users are satisfied with the information that they retrieved from each version, and to see if the users retrieve the same information from each version. Over one third (six) of 15 participants thought that britannica.com was the easiest to use. The main reason mentioned was the set‐up of the initial results screen. Most of the participants felt that all of the databases answered the searches sufficiently and nine participants felt that britannica.com answered the searches the best. The main reason mentioned was the variety of information sources provided on the search results page (Encyclopaedia Britannica articles, magazine articles, Web sites, and books). Seven of the participants were satisfied with using all of the databases.

Encyclopædia Britannica was the leading provider of encyclopedias in the English language, but after sales declined rapidly in the early 1990s the company was forced to file for bankruptcy. Many different organizational and market factors contributed to this crisis, such as the diffusion of the PC, the invention of Encarta, the technical challenges of moving text to electronic formats, and the difficulties of inventing a new format while also operating the leading seller of books. Looking back, what could the company have done differently?

To illustrate important themes on a leading firm's response to technical opportunities and threats; teach students about technological waves, technological disruption, and different concepts of obsolescence; and examine strategic concepts such as attacker's advantages and skunk works.

For over 200 years the Encyclopaedia Britannica has been the standard against which all other English language encyclopedias are measured. Although universally acknowledged as an outstanding reference work, it has endured a series of financial crises, questionable editorial decisions, and a difficult transition into the computer age. This article will examine the most controversial of the Britannica’s moves, the decision to divide the encyclopedia into the Micropaedia and Macropaedia. The many intellectual improvements that were introduced into the Britannica at this time were overshadowed by attention given to the unusual, sometimes frustrating, new arrangement of the set. An even greater threat to the Britannica’s livelihood has come from the electronic age. Ironically, it was only after the Britannica came online that many of the problems that were inherent in the printed version have been resolved.

The evolution of Wikipedia betrays an increasing reliance on policies and guidelines, signalling certain stabilisation in the knowledge making processes underlying the encyclopaedia. We interpret such a state of affairs as reflecting the need to provide a few principles and guidelines of coordination, in a context that has otherwise been marked by vast diversity, high membership turnover and the lack of traditional exploitative structures. Rather than reflecting bureaucratisation and a shift away from its constitutive principles, the consolidation of these coordinative mechanisms further embeds the distinctive profile of knowledge making processes characteristic of the online encyclopaedia. They reinforce the diversity of the collective (rather than individual capabilities and skills) as the primary source of knowledge and render the mechanisms of harvesting that diversity and assembling it to a reasonable knowledge output key means of social learning.

One of the most striking phenomena in the literature of bibliography is the absence of a comprehensive critical history of the encyclopaedia. Helpful summaries with supporting references can be found, as might be expected, in the 9th, 11th and 14th editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and in Enciclopedia Italiana. Certain encyclopedic works have been treated perceptively in studies focussed on other subjects, such as Thorndike's classic History of Magic and Experimental Science. And for a few particular titles, notably the Encyclopédic of eighteenth‐century France, there is a rather substantial body of published discussion. Occasionally the monographic contributions reach the heights of critical acumen displayed in Hans Aarsleff's essay, “The Early History of the Oxford English Dictionary,” in the Bulletin of the New York Public Library September, 1962 (66: 417–439). But that is not characteristic.

This paper seeks to look at the question of accuracy of content regarding Wikipedia and other internet encyclopædias.

By looking at other sources, the paper considers whether the information contained within Wikipedia can be relied on to be accurate.

Wikipedia poses as an encyclopædia when by no stretch of the definition can it be termed such; therefore, it should be subject to regulation.

The paper highlights the issue that, without regulation, content cannot be relied on to be accurate.

Allyn Young′s lectures, as recorded by the young Nicholas Kaldor, survey the historical roots of the subject from Aristotle through to the modern neo‐classical writers. The focus throughout is on the conditions making for economic progress, with stress on the institutional developments that extend and are extended by the size of the market. Organisational changes that promote the division of labour and specialisation within and between firms and industries, and which promote competition and mobility, are seen as the vital factors in growth. In the absence of new markets, inventions as such play only a minor role. The economic system is an inter‐related whole, or a living “organon”. It is from this perspective that micro‐economic relations are analysed, and this helps expose certain fallacies of composition associated with the marginal productivity theory of production and distribution. Factors are paid not because they are productive but because they are scarce. Likewise he shows why Marshallian supply and demand schedules, based on the “one thing at a time” approach, cannot adequately describe the dynamic growth properties of the system. Supply and demand cannot be simply integrated to arrive at a picture of the whole economy. These notes are complemented by eleven articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica which were published shortly after Young′s sudden death in 1929.

The history of the Encyclopaedia Britannica from its inauguration in 1768 up to the ninth edition of 1888 is described. Its origins in Edinburgh during the Enlightenment are discussed and its early Edinburgh editors and contributors reviewed. Later editors and contributors and the gradual changing of the work are discussed. Its expansion from an Edinburgh to a global publication is also demonstrated.

The aim is to review developments on the internet, especially those of general cybernetic interest.

A massive archive facility is reviewed, as well as an online encyclopaedia devoted to mathematics. Developments in bipedal robot locomotion are discussed, with particular reference to dancing and running. Initiatives of the American Society for Cybernetics, involving Yahoo groups, are introduced and welcomed.

The archive facility is of astounding magnitude and comprehensiveness. The mathematics encyclopaedia is potentially useful, as are the ASC initiatives. Bipedal locomotion in robots is impressive but not perfect.

The archive facility must be a valuable tool for many forms of research, as well as for cultural and recreational use. The encyclopaedia and the ASC initiatives are all valuable facilities. Bipedal locomotion has been developed in response to a challenge, and to gain prestige, but may be useful in development of practical robots for rough terrain.

It is hoped this is a valuable periodic review.