This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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!
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 also read this in Encyclopedia Americana: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.
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)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).
thony|talk]] | 19:16, 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
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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]
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'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)
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)
Removed the libraries comment in early history, irrelevant or even misleading to the theme. flux.books 14:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
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].
I think this entry deserves to be developed much further, as it pretty much sets the compass for the entire project. -- Seb
Does anybody else think that we should maybe make a CD-ROM edition of Wikipedia sometime? (for libraries, etc.)-- Anon
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
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
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. :)
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)
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)
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.
--( http://sherlock.berkeley.edu/wells/world_brain.html)
-- User:Extro
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)
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??
An encyclopedia is
A) an [administrative] summary of relevant definitions and work-related matters (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
B) a [behaviourist] detailed generalised typed response to massive typical stimuli (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
C) a [computed] listing of articles for the general public; could be at different levels from different viewpoints (these) (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
E) an [empirical] result of writing up the current paradigm (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
I) an [ideal] format for reference by the general public (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
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 (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
K) an [epistemic] general study of a particular area (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
L) a [logical] elaboration of Greek studies (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
M) a [materialist] system of writings on various subjects chosen by its authors (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
P) a [phenomenal] view in writing of one's world (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
PS) the delusion that everything can be usefully summarized in a few pages (Anon.);
S) a [solipsic] recording of generalised thoughts about general subjects (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk).
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 (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk).
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):
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following phrase in the article note:
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)
According to the OED (2nd ed 1989) twin entry for "encyclopædia/encyclopedia" it says:
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)
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)
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)
According to this books time-line of encyclopedias: [6]
..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)
Regarding this recent etymology addition:
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)
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)
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)
I don't see why we have four bullet points. The first one contains three parts:
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)
Regarding this text:
Which was recently modified to this:
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.
Translation:
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 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)
"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 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)
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)
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)
The brethren of purity [1], 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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)
"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)
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)
(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)
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. [1] [2] Encyclopedias incorporate material that is also found in dictionaries, and vice versa. [2] In particular, dictionary entries often contain factual information about the thing named by the word. [2] [3] Even in such cases, however, an encyclopedia entry aims to provide a much fuller treatment of the subject. [3]
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)
References
DOLei
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bejoint31
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).DOLencyclopedicdefinition
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Undid several of the latest revisions because of vandalism.
RealityApologist ( talk) 07:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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!
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 also read this in Encyclopedia Americana: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.
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)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).
thony|talk]] | 19:16, 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
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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]
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'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)
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)
Removed the libraries comment in early history, irrelevant or even misleading to the theme. flux.books 14:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
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].
I think this entry deserves to be developed much further, as it pretty much sets the compass for the entire project. -- Seb
Does anybody else think that we should maybe make a CD-ROM edition of Wikipedia sometime? (for libraries, etc.)-- Anon
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
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
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. :)
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)
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)
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.
--( http://sherlock.berkeley.edu/wells/world_brain.html)
-- User:Extro
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)
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??
An encyclopedia is
A) an [administrative] summary of relevant definitions and work-related matters (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
B) a [behaviourist] detailed generalised typed response to massive typical stimuli (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
C) a [computed] listing of articles for the general public; could be at different levels from different viewpoints (these) (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
E) an [empirical] result of writing up the current paradigm (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
I) an [ideal] format for reference by the general public (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
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 (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
K) an [epistemic] general study of a particular area (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
L) a [logical] elaboration of Greek studies (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
M) a [materialist] system of writings on various subjects chosen by its authors (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
P) a [phenomenal] view in writing of one's world (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk);
PS) the delusion that everything can be usefully summarized in a few pages (Anon.);
S) a [solipsic] recording of generalised thoughts about general subjects (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk).
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 (stone_michael2002@yahoo.co.uk).
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):
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following phrase in the article note:
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)
According to the OED (2nd ed 1989) twin entry for "encyclopædia/encyclopedia" it says:
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)
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)
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)
According to this books time-line of encyclopedias: [6]
..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)
Regarding this recent etymology addition:
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)
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)
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)
I don't see why we have four bullet points. The first one contains three parts:
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)
Regarding this text:
Which was recently modified to this:
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.
Translation:
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 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)
"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 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)
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)
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)
The brethren of purity [1], 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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)
"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)
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)
(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)
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. [1] [2] Encyclopedias incorporate material that is also found in dictionaries, and vice versa. [2] In particular, dictionary entries often contain factual information about the thing named by the word. [2] [3] Even in such cases, however, an encyclopedia entry aims to provide a much fuller treatment of the subject. [3]
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)
References
DOLei
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bejoint31
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).DOLencyclopedicdefinition
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Undid several of the latest revisions because of vandalism.
RealityApologist ( talk) 07:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)