As someone who was fortunate to have a World Book encyclopaedia set, I think having a curated, "this is everything" experience is vastly under-rated.
Encarta was better because it had some multi-media (as opposed to "just paper").
I remember being thrilled with Wikipedia when it came out, going down lots of rabbit holes, and marveling at all the up-to-date information, but a decade-and-half later, its downsides are also apparent to me:
- easily leads to distraction
- subject to its own kind of bias
- harder to get "big picture" without some a priori mental framework
I am quietly happy that World Book is still around :-)
> I remember being thrilled with Wikipedia when it came out, going down lots of rabbit holes,
That has not changed even a tiny a bit. Everytime I start with a topic, I end up (like everyone that is a bit curious) completely elsewhere
https://xkcd.com/214/ (there was another one I cannot find where someone was having an accident, the other person ran for information about how to close the wound and came back after an hour with information about (I think) Roman antiquity)
Encarta was better because it had some multi-media (as opposed to "just paper").
I remember being thrilled with Wikipedia when it came out, going down lots of rabbit holes, and marveling at all the up-to-date information, but a decade-and-half later, its downsides are also apparent to me: - easily leads to distraction - subject to its own kind of bias - harder to get "big picture" without some a priori mental framework
I am quietly happy that World Book is still around :-)