Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. This Project is an attempt to provide book reviews and publishing history of manuscript and published books. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.

[edit] Page title

Isn't this current naming going to be very difficult to Search for? RickK 04:59, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Advance notice of intent to move this back to 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This article is not currently at the normal English spelling of the title and as the ad shows, it's also not the title used for the work by its vendor. Objections anyone? Jamesday 22:44, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have an original copy right here and it does say "Encyclopædia". --Wik 22:47, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

I also object. Look at the spelling on http://www.britannica.com/ Mintguy (T)

I used to have fun sometimes asking people to spell "encyclopædia britannica". You could tell immediately by the look they gave whether they had previously noticed the old-style spelling or not. The main entry should have the spelling used then and still used now. jallan 22:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

FWIW I find the ligature silly, and it introduces all kinds of problems. Internally, you can use a redirect, but the use of the ligature means that many if not most will get to the article via a redirect - and that's slow for the user, and demanding on the already-strained resources of wikipedia. In short, it's pointlessly fussy, archaic,a waste of resources and user-unfriendly.flux.books 20:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additional info

I can't find anything about "lazy negroes", etc. in the encyclopedia. I think we should see some proof first.

I've got most of the volumes of EB11 in print. I just had a quick look at the US Civil War article but didn't see any mention of negroes at all. However looking at http://94.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HA/HAITI.htm it says "The people are almost entirely pure-blooded negroes, the mulattoes, who form about 10% of the population, being a rapidly diminishing and much-hated class. The negroes are a kindly, hospitable people, but ignorant and lazy. " Mintguy (T) 21:12, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there a similar public domain encyclopedia in spanish??Mac 09:27 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

Just how much material in an article with a boilerplate link to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica must be rewritten or removed before that link can be removed? -- llywrch 20:23, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You may find the article on this one a little easier to read, considering it has minimal typos. Эйрон Кинни 00:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia content

"Much content from the 1911 edition has been incorporated into Wikipedia; the count as of 26 September 2004 was about 2200 articles."
2200 is about the number of pages in Category:1911 Britannica, but there are more which have been removed from the category as more info from other sources has been added.
—wwoods 05: 25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just thought id say that i have a complete 1911 Encyclopaedia Britanica. Its not in great shape but is still very readable and is quite amazing. If you wish to get a hold of me EMAIl me @ britanicajoe@hotmail.com

[edit] Non-PD versions?

The description of the link to http://1911encyclopedia.org/ says: This appears to be a raw, unproofread OCR-scanned version, and so contains many errors and no illustrations. This source should not be used for anything more than research; the content is not public domain. - I don't understand the "not public domain" part. AFAIK raw scanning doesn't constitute any new copyright on a text with expired copyright protection - it doesn't constitute a new "work" (which would have to meet minimal standards of originality), regardless of what the site states. So, shouldn't the "This source..." part be removed? IANAL, however. Gestumblindi 01:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought the compilation of PD data was protected under copyright law even when the source data is PD (in order to prevent wholesale ripping-off of existing compilations). But I'm not sure, not being a lawyer either. Cwoyte 15:35, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

At least according to European copyright laws, a simple compilation of PD data doesn't constitute a new protection of the data itself - it may be the case that the data of http://1911encyclopedia.org/ may not be used in exactly the "compiled" form there... maybe even that, there's a nice word in German law: "Schöpfungshöhe" - "extent of creation", a "work" has to be be of a certain uniqueness, a relevant amount of newly created content is required to gain copyright protection. Still, I think it is allowed to extract the raw data and use it in a different form. Gestumblindi 18:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I revised the satement on the link to say that the source claimed copyright as a fair warning to users. DES 17:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright-clean version?

Does anyone have a "copyright-clean" version of the 1911 EB online? From what I can tell:

1911encyclopedia.org has an OCR scan that may be copyright-encumbered
PG has released a handfull of volumes, but nowhere near all of them (and they won't be finished anytime soon)
Some people/companies have scans of the encyclopedia, but nobody is making them available online -- at least not for free ($$) and not without claims of copyright.

Is there anywhere people can get this important document in its entirety online? I'm surprised that someone like archive.org doesn't have scans on their site.

Womble 14:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

See http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_1911_Encyclopedia. We are working on it! If you want a paper copy of your own, ABE is advertising several copies, both the orginal and the compact size reprint for about £200 plus carriage. As the compact version was marketed by mail order it is not at all rare. Apwoolrich 16:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caithness

Why why why is Caithness in this category? Laurel Bush 17:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC).

[edit] EB1911 More harm than good?

I own a hard copy of EB1911 and have spent considerable time reading articles on WP with the {EB} tag. I have reached the conclusion that they tend to be incredibly bad articles. It's really very simple, read an article from EB1911 versus the same article written in the latest EB2005 and you will see what I mean. The choice of words, the grammar, the inclusion of reams of facts that have no importance or relevance, a lack of modern narrative technique (much less post-modern), the covert nationalistic biases, the lack of any meaning or significance to people or events, no modern interpretations, shocking POV historical revisionisms. I just don't understand why people think it is a good idea to import these articles in to WP, they should avoided, used for some very basic fact checking or ideas of things to write about. Wikipedia is not a fact repository, it is a living document, when a would-be editor runs across a topic that has been usurpered by lengthy, dense, difficult to decipher old dusty article from 1911 it is so much work to untangle and create a modern, up to date well written article, most of the time it is left alone and continues on like some kind of virus lurking in the bowels of Wikipedia. It is as if Wikipedians are expressing a conservative bias that is safer to go with old views than to update with modern ones. I would really like to see a more strict policy about polluting our waters with this stuff, I and others have spent considerable time deleting utter junk imported from EB1911 by good intentioned but misguided people, and with Gutenburg releasing more volumes I suspect this flood will continue.

--Stbalbach 05:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It certainly is easy enough to delete a bad article and start from scratch. If you think we're better off without them, go for it. I don't think there is much danger of further flooding of EB articles from PG. I don't think anybody was really waiting on PG; text was already available from 1911encyclopedia.org for anyone interested. Feel free to fix them or delete them; it's Wikipedia! --Amillar 23:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me give an example. I know very little about this particular topic, but just came upon it this morning, and it is representative of the 100s (thousands?) of bad EB1911 articles on Wikipedia. The article is Francisco Jimenez de Cisneros (Ive since updated it, so am linking to the original for purpose of example), created from EB1911, it was first made in Sept of 2003. Since that time, a year and a half, there have been a few syntaxual edits, but nothing else. I challenge you to tell me why this person is important (somthing typically found in the first paragraph of the lead section). It would require a serious effort of time and energy to figure it out, if you could even at all. In fact, here is what it says on why he is important, at the very end of the article:

But his most famous literary service was the printing at Alcalá (in Latin Complutum) of the Complutensian Polyglott, the first edition of the Christian Scriptures in the original text. In this work, on which he is said to have expended half a million of ducats, the cardinal was aided by the celebrated Stunica (D. Lopez de Zuñiga), the Greek scholar Nuñez de Guzman (Pincianus), the Hebraist Vergara, and the humanist Nebrija, by a Cretan Greek Dentetrius Ducas, and by three Jewish converts, of whom Zamora edited the Targum to the Pentateuch.

Can you decipher what that means? Would you have even found it? Here is a modern translation:

Cisneros was a Spanish Renaissance cardinal who helped spread the revival of learning through his rosetta stone like translation of the Bible. He set up six different versions of the Bible in parallel columns using the original Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin so that readers for the first time could check the translations of all the texts.

Now you may say, I should enter that information and therefore Wikipedia "works" and I would agree. My argument is more specific to EB1911 articles -- not only are they not clear, they actually serve to prevent future editors from improving on them. In other words, if this particular article had been left a blank slate instead of importing the EB1911 version, I think it would be a much better article today because editors would be more encouraged to improve on a blank slate, than to try and decipher and fix the old EB1911 version.

I have since gone through and made further updates. Another problem with these articles are they are elaborate narratives, like stories. It makes it very difficult to insert new information because it breaks the narrative. By the same token, the reader must read from the begining or else things dont make sense half way in. This particular article is more than one mans biography, it is a partial history of Spain. While it is useful, it just isnt in the spirit of Wikipedia IMO.

--Stbalbach 15:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I vigorously disagree w Stbalbach regarding the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, and will continue to merge as much of its content into the wikipedia as possible. If I knew how to make a bot to create every article the wikipedia lacks and the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica possesses I surely would. There is a rather stagnant related discussion @ Talk:Animism, BTW. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I might suggest using a bot to import EB1911 is the work of an archivest or antiquarian. Importing articles takes no thought or effort, knowing what information is wrong and how to re-write it takes experience and knowledge and research and considerable labour. EB1911 is a single source of many, if we had no copyright restrictions, there are modern reference materials that are far better and more accurate we would use instead. There is a certain belief that EB1911 is better than nothing, I believe it is worse than nothing. With nothing we have a blank slate without the Victorian era legacy. Stbalbach 18:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The victorian era has a verifiable expert POV. This conversation starkly reminds me of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER. Many feel that WHEELER's addition of classical greek POV is unfortunate. I on the other hand prefer a true diversity of thought, with expression of all signifigant POV's. If you feel the Victorian POV is insignifigant, we differ on that. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "verifiable", much of the problem with 1911 is they made stuff up or reported on stuff that is in fact not verifiable or essentially gosip. If you don't think that's true, you have never spent the time "cleaning up" a 1911 article with multiple more reliable modern sources and the benefit of 100 years of research. What your describing, your joy of old views, is antiquarianism, interesting in its own right, but of no value to the modern reader without further synthesis and analysis. Antiquanianism is not what Wikipedia is about, you can buy the hardbound copies of 1911 for a $100 or so and read it there, or read online for free through Gutenburg.Stbalbach 15:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I often spend the time to clean up 1911 articles, weaving them into the wikipedia. Indeed if I wasn't concerned you'd go and give them a rather severe "cleaning" of your own I'd link you to a few ;) I will say there was a circumstance where persons w a P.C. viewpoint had shoved a great deal of leftist weasel speak into a rather fine 1911 article, only to be chagrined to discover that the antiquated views contained therin were the only verifiable views available on the subject, it being a concept almost entirely neglected by "modernists", mainly due to Sapir-Whorfesque changes in views. if you convince me you'll be tender, I may even give you a link ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think a lot of people hang on to older historical writings because they are well written and entertaining, which for many is more important than being factually accurate or intellectually challenging. There are many examples of classic historical works that still sell well to this day, despite modern research which challenges and refutes the old notions and beliefs. For me, history is about finding the truth. For 19th century historians, telling a good story was paramount; in fact this is true of most historians prior to the 20th century, the art of history only became a profession with standards of accuracy very recently. Stbalbach 20:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We agree entirely there. I usually explain it thusly: When speaking with a friend about his day, he is acting as an eye witness (the least reliable form of evidence). When reading the news, we are hearing from someone we don't know, who is at best (indeed rarely) reciting 1st or second hand information. When we are reading contemporary history, the lens is that much darker, the opinions and paradigms expressed by the author that much stronger, and the telephone game that much more distant from the source. But when we are talking about history 100 yrs old or more!... we honestly can't interpret it as very much more than a sociological or psychological insight into the author and the translators and historians between them and us.

Frankly, history is far removed from a hard science, and even the best intellegence gathering regarding the most pressing of current events (like WMD in Iraq for example) compiled by the most reliable of experts... isn't very reliable at all ;) In summary, take all such fairy tales, from the newspaper, from your history books old and new, and yes, even from your closest friend discussing his exciting day... with about a pound of salt ;) Cheers, Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 12:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello I'm a fellow wikipedian who like yourself shares a liking of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. I noticed your defense of the 1911 encyclopedia on the talk page and thought you might be intrested in taking part in a wikimedia project that intends to put the entire 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica on the internet proofread and in wiki format. This gives you an opprotunity to share the knowledge of the 1911 version without engaging in edit wars with modernists.

Some links to this 1911wikipedia wikimedia project are: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:WikiProject_1911_Encyclopedia

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/1911wikipedia

I hope that you will be able to participate in this project. Even if you can not it would be most appreciated if you can spread word of this project to those who are intrested. In a few years practicaly all hard copies of the 1911 enyclopedia will be unreadable. This is the last chance to preserve the complete sum of human knowledge of the 20th century for humanity. This is also a chance to create a major supplement to the mdoern wikipedia filling in on the parts that wikipedia is weakest : pre20th century knowledge. --Gary123 12:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The EB 1911 should be a separate project. There's a great deal of historical value in having an accurate transcription of it. And some of the biographical and historical material might make useful entries or sections of entries in wikipedia, as they would be as current today as they were then - even if you personally believe the people to be obscure, there is great value while studying history in identifying individuals who were signifcant to a particular time period!

BUT very few substantial topics would be well served by importing entire 1911 articles, or mixing them in. wikipedia is meant to be a current reference reflecting current knowledge. Wholesale imports are guaranteed not to be that, in most cases. flux.books 16:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1911 Wikipedia

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/1911wikipedia

Link to proposal on mailing list: [1]
Naming suggestions:1911 Wikipedia
Domain name:en.1911wikipedia.org
Scope:The 1911 Enyclopedia Brittanica is considered the best encyclopedia ever made. Many of the historical and literary articles in wikipedia use the 1911 Brittanica as the main source. A 19111 wikipedia project would work to put the entire encylopedia onlibe in wikipedia format. This would be an excellent source and support for wikipedia articles. Current online 1911 editions are ocd scanned and thus of very poor quality. Our wikipedia editors would be very effective in editing it.
Details: 1911wikipedia
Proposer:--Gary123 18:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
People interested joining:
Relevant links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%E6dia_Britannica http://1911encyclopedia.org/ http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/A10_ADA/index.html

[edit] Content of the article: Copyright issues

Much of the content of this article seems to be taken word-for-word from [2], a source linked to in the article. I am not clear on the copyright staus of this source, but even if it is PD, shouldn't this level of cloning require an explicit citation of the source? DES 16:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Classic Literature Library the source abovc, has a copyright notice for 2004. The history of this page looks like the original verison was much closer to the text now online at that site. Also, some but not all of the same text is now online at [3] which ahs a site copyright notice. It is possible that both are quoting some PD site, or even copying from wikipedia, but that is not clear. A google search on the first sentance of the current article turns up 157 hist, most of which seem to be taken from wikipedia as far as i can see. DES 17:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, the site "Classic Literature Library" also claims Copyright to the Bible. Stbalbach 16:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed a manually inserted Category:Possible copyright violations from the article. If someone thinks this article indeed violates a copyright, tag it with the copyvio template. -Poli 07:54, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Very well i shall do so, then we'll see what reactions there are. DES 4 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)

What makes you think Wikipedia copied that site and not the other way around? This article still has text from the first revision in history from 2002. According to archive.org, encyclopedia.classic-literature.co.uk has only existed since 2004. Angela . July 4, 2005 23:49 (UTC)

[edit] External Links: problem is not a problem.

The text contained in the External Links portion as follows: "All the image files of books in the product are claimed to be copyrighted, although all but a few of the books are in the public domain. Determining actual copyright status may require legal advice."

...can be changed. A scanned image (or a simple photograph) of a book in the public domain does not make it able to be copyrighted. This is true for the USA and any nation with which the USA has a reciprocal agreement regarding copyright laws pertaining to written works, which means most of the world. Google it if you want. This has been decided by case law rulings for decades as of this year. 23.June.2005

This is a grey area of copyright law. Many museums charge money and claim copyright status on the images of their paintings, even if the paintings are a couple of hundred years old (and have expired copyright status). Part of this is because they keep cameras away from these works of art (for sometimes a good archival reason... but not always) and call the photograph of the painting to be an original work. So it is the photograph itself (or the image scan, in this case) which is copyrighted. Weak claim, I will admit, but it is there neverless. If you have the original volume and choose to scan it in yourself, that is in the public domain and can't be disputed. Taking scanned images from somebody else that has asserted copyright status on those scans may be a copyright violation. That is where you need legal advise. --Robert Horning 17:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not a grey area of copyright law; Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. clearly sets out that they are in the public domain in the US. [4] points out that while the museum community was negatively impacted by the ruling and really hate it, they thought it was the correct opinion under the law.--Prosfilaes 10:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Which is why we have this image tag (Template:pd-art):

The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years. This photograph of the work is also in the public domain in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.).

--Stbalbach 15:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problem?

I reverted the copyright problem notice as this being a violation of http://encyclopedia.classic-literature.co.uk/ As far as I can tell, that was clearly taken from us-- including an ad which I scanned from an old National Geographic (Image:EncycBrit1913.jpg), clearly the same with matching age yellowing pattern. -- Infrogmation 5 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)

I agree. Classic Literature claims copyright on a lot of things that are public domain, it's not a top tier site, or even second rate maybe. Stbalbach 5 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)

Agree. Little doubt is left that wikipedia was the source of their article.-Poli 2005 July 7 20:01 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on the 1911 Britannica

My ex-wife has, I think as a family heirloom, an 11th edition Britannica. I agree with the comments that it was the sum of human knowledge at the time, and was the greatest encyclopedia ever published. At the same time, it does not have a neutral point of view. Its point of view is sometimes what would today be characterized as racist or colonialist.

In some ways, the world has moved forward, in terms of respecting other points of view. In other ways, it has moved backward, in no longer recognizing that there can be such a thing as knowledge.

I do have one concern about Wikipedia and the 1911 Britannica. Most of its text should be considered good material for inclusion in the Wikipedia, but some articles are racist or colonialist.

Robert McClenon 02:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I take the opinion that this edition should be used as a source for some content, particularly for older historical information, or to get a viewpoint on what a particular branch of science had one hundred years ago. Medical advise in particular is very out of date, but articles on contemporary historical figures (that is...contemporary to 1911 editors) are outstanding and in some cases are the only real source of information that can be obtained for some of them.

Right now I'm plowing through the articles on the Wikisource 1911 Encyclopaedia Britiannica Wikiproject, and I'm finding it very interesting what articles have been updated since the original articles were "seeded" into Wikipedia and what articles have stayed almost word-for-word exactly what was found in 1911. Surprisingly it is European historical figures that are usually the least touched, while people of historical note that are from places further from England (and the further it is, the more likly it seems to be) are drastically changed...usually with considerably more detail. It will be interesting to see what minor contributions to Wikipedia this project can deliever when it gets close to completion. --Robert Horning 04:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I personally can't believe some people can SERIOUSLY believe the 1911 EB was the sum of human knowledge at the 20th century. Firstly it was only ever Encyclopaedic knowledge. There is a lot of knowledge that humans have which is not considered Encyclopedaediac. For example only 34 women contributed. I'm qute sure at the time quite a number of women knew a lot of things that very few men knew. Secondly our idea of what is encylopedic knowledge changes over time. I haven't looked at 1911 EB but I'm sure there are many articles where people would go why the heck did they bother to include this or go into so much detail whereas there are also probably many articles when there was a lot of knowledge in 1911 which was not included because at the time not considered encyclopedia or important enough.

On a related note, thirdly and most importantly, it wasn't just colonial and racist, it would have undoutedly been EXTREMELY Western world view oriented (not just Western, probably England specific too). There was undoutedly a LOT of encyclopedaedic knowledge thats Asians, Arabic, South Americans, Pacific Islanders and Africans (and to some extent probably even Russians etc) and others knew which was not included because very few from the West knew these things and they were not considered important. To be fair, Wikipedia has a Western bias (as it has much more contributors from there) but this is improving and in any case, no one has ever claimed Wikipedia represents the sum of human knowledge at the beginning of the 21st century.

BTW, I wouldn't Robert's analysis is surprising. It's exactly as we would expect. Since 1911 EB undoutedly had a extreme Western (or England) bias, we would expect the info on Asian, Arabic etc figures to be limited, biased and in number of cases maybe downright incorrect so it need to go through substanial revisions to be even remotely useful for Wiki. Of course, as I noted even Wiki tends to have a Western world view bias but the fact that we still notice such a large disparity between revisions perhaps just goes to show how extremely bad 1911 EB was on non-Western figures! Nil Einne 17:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There are quite a few articles on Wikipedia that are copies of articles from this encyclopedia. Many of the articles are have racial and political bias, and some are just downright opinionated (see Manon Lescaut, I'm rewriting it now). Some mentions of this should be made. in this article.

Also, there are some links to commercial products at the bottom of the article. I understand that it's nice to link to places you can get the entire encyclopedia scanned with a K12 curriculum and blah blah, but I thought there was some sort of guidelines about that sort of thing? Foofy 04:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting EB1911 text from articles that are too cumbersome to work with is sometimes the best thing to do. Some people do EB1911 "text dumps" 100s of articles at a time without fact checking or modernizations and expect/assume someone will fix it. It's often better to start with a clean slate and draw on more recent resources and have an external link to the original EB1911 article. Also, I added a section to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias which discusses the systemic bias EB1911 has unwittingly introduced to Wikipedia. There is a small minority of EB1911 fantatics that have done more harm than good IMO.--Stbalbach 04:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm doing. I'm not a good writer so it takes me a bit of time. Am I right in assuming that EB1911 shouldn't be used as a valid "source" in most articles? There are some claims it makes about Manon Lescaut and Antoine Prévost that I've not been able confirm elsewhere, and I'm hesitant to keep them... Foofy 04:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct. It was typical of historians in that era to hype-up controversial stuff, present it as fact, with the aim of entertainment and a good story. Often it was not their fault as no one had time yet to verify the sources and so they just repeated the only sources they had which were very old and questionable. Since then we've had more time and resources to investigate and research new facts have come to light. --Stbalbach 15:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More thoughts on 1911 Britannica

In a recent book about the encyclopedia brittanica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Know-It-All:_One_Man%27s_Humble_Quest_to_Become_the_Smartest_Person_in_the_World under the passage on "encylopedia" it mentions a new yorker article that goes in depth on the 1911 brittanica. I think that article and the passage from the book itself would be very useful for this article.--Gary123 16:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1911 EB Introduction

This is now available on Wikisource http://wikisource.org/wiki/EB1911:Original_introduction. Apwoolrich 18:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That would be useful, if you mean the editorial introduction. But it seems gone? scan here at the moment, you probably need alternatiff plugin. Well worth reading for those interested in this subject. flux.books 18:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How odd. If you click on the infobox for 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica to the right of the main page you will find it. Has anyone altered the name of this page from EB1911 to something different? It worked fine with this link last August. I have added a note on the main page. Apwoolrich 19:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "often regarded as the greatest edition"

This is purely a subjective opinion. Often..how often? Regarded.. by whom? In fact someone in the 1930's who read both the 11th and 14th in entirety said the 14th was a "great improvement" over the 11th, that it had been mostly re-written. The lead section needs to be written without presenting this rather one-sided opinion and keep with facts instead of hyping it up. If your going to present that "fact" that some people things its the best, then you also need to present the "fact" that there is considerable criticism of the encyclopedia. --Stbalbach 19:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please...of course new editions will be rewritten, as the old get outdated. That it's the greatest edition doesn't mean it's the best to use today. Where is there "considerable criticism" of the 11th edition? Actually the Criticisms section is rather silly, saying "Articles about science and medicine are outdated". Well, you don't say! What kind of criticism is it to say a book published in 1911 is outdated in 2005? And the only other criticism is that it wasn't exactly following a neutral point of view. Well, that's precisely what Kenneth Clark praised it for ("slightly coloured by prejudice"), there's no evidence that this has been a cause for "considerable criticism".

Kolokol 19:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It may seem obvious to you, but many people do take it literarly, that this encyclopedia really is the best encyclopedia ever published, even to this day. There is ample evidence of this all over Wikipedia with a core group of eb1911 supporters who cut and paste entire eb1911 articles in with no revisions or edits, including science articles. You may think its silly, and I would agree, but ive seen it many times. I even had a conversation with one person who said he'll only read history from Victorian authors. There really are people who think this encyclopedia is better than more recent ones. --Stbalbach 20:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Even they will be aware that much of it is outdated. They may just sympathize more with the "Victorian POV", and that's their choice. Still, there is no objective evidence of widespread criticism. Your personal criticism doesn't belong in the article. Kolokol 21:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, they are not aware. That is the point. They read the article and take it literarly word for word. Is there some reason you wish to subvert putting this encyclopedia into historical context? Historical context may be obvious to you, but its not obvious to other people. --Stbalbach 21:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, what does "greatest edition" mean? That is a subjective POV statement. If I wrote that in any article on Wikipedia Id be thrown out. "King Kong is regard by some people as the greatest movie ever made". Completely inappropriate to Wikiepdia. It's pretty obvious you have a strong bias in favour of eb1911 and are not solely interested in being fair and balanced. --Stbalbach 21:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea I "wish to subvert putting this encyclopedia into historical context"? Putting it into historical context is not "criticism". And the article does not say it's the greatest edition, which would indeed be POV. It says it is widely regarded as such, which is just fact. This works for movies just the same, e.g. Lo que le Paso a Santiago says it "is considered by many to be the greatest movie ever produced in Puerto Rico" or Balthazar (film) says it "is often praised as one of the greatest films ever made". Kolokol 21:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The link provided doesnt say it's "the greatest".. it has a section header at the bottom with an ambiguous "still the best" (better than the 2005 version?), which doesnt really count, but more importantly, it is an article on a rare book dealer website.. It is an infomercial. Of course a rare book dealer will think highly of old books. It's not a reliable source, or even authoritative. As for other articles doing the same, on wikipedia you can get away with that when no one contests it, in this case its being contested. A citeable authoritative source is being requested to back it up and put into context. --Stbalbach 22:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you won't find this kind of infomercial about, say, the 14th edition. And reliable sources are for facts, this one was just an example of the widely held opinion. But for a reliable source as to the fact that this opinion is indeed the prevailing one, will the current Britannica be good enough for you? It says: "The famed 11th edition was issued in 29 volumes ... The rich, leisurely prose of the 11th edition marked the pinnacle of literary style in the Britannica." It doesn't describe any other edition as "famed". Kolokol 23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

heh.. quoting Encyclopedia Britannica about its own heritage doesnt count as a reliable source, as per the definition of reliable source. What we really need is a well-known author or scholar (who is neutral) who we can quote their name and give the "greatest" opinion some weight. Failing that I would not be opposed to replace "greatest" (someones opinion) with "famed" (factual), its more appropriate, not likely to be mis-understood. The infomercial link is appropriate for backing up that it is "famous", but not as a direct citeable authoritative source for the claim its the "greatest". --Stbalbach 23:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind restarting the indents ... added the quote from Collison, certainly one of the top authorities. Unless someone finds a quote from Frank Kafker that's better, that's probably a definitive statement. flux.books 20:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rail "schedules"

I used the word schedule loosely rather than get into details, but for example in the 1911 Appomattox article it gives information on which nearby towns the train will stop at (trains at the time were probably seen as permanent geographic fixtures like highways today). --Stbalbach 23:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] move to 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica / new proposal to move to "Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition"

I have moved this article as EB describes this as the "11th edition" itself [5] and the term "1911 Encyclopædia Britannica" was introduced mainly by wikipedia (compare 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica versus 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica -wikipedia). —Ruud 18:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good point about the 1911 terminology - that usage was invented.

But the use of "11th edition ..." doesn't seem like the best answer, either, in the end. "Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition" would seem to better fit their actual usage (used for example on the title page (click to view the png version)), and it would sort nicely too. Anyone keenly interested might poke around the digitized version.

Also, moving a frequently referenced and edited page like this should be discussed rather than just doing it. So propose this get moved to Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, with a similar change for the "Ninth Edition." flux.books 18:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The "What links here" shows thousands of articles using the current name. It would be very messy to have thousands of redirects. Any move proposal needs to address this first. It may be a simple matter of changing the {1911} template, I'm not sure. -- Stbalbach 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This page was moved a few weeks ago. Given that, not sure what to make of the comment. flux.books 18:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

When I moved this page I updates all the redirects, which took me about half an hour, HOWEVER after I moved this page Wikipedia went down for several minutes. Now I hope this just was a coincidence, but I'd like to see that confirmed before we move it again. —Ruud 19:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps we could set aside for now what seems to be a very modest technical problem, especially since the handful of those links that are ever used could be updated in a few minutes - and discuss the core element of the proposal? The authority is very clear, see the title page image and the rest of the edition at the links above. flux.books 13:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm read to move ahead with Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition - seems clear enough from the title page. -- Stbalbach 16:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI - I've made a request with admin User:Jmabel to move the page and the Template:1911 at the same time. We can clean up any other redirect problems later. request to Jmabel. -- Stbalbach 17:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all. I manually changed several of what seemed likely to be the most common links and redirects. There don't seem to be that many left, maybe the bot has already been at work. flux.books 20:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition" is better than "1911 Encyclopædia Britannica", but shouldn't there be a comma in there, that is: "Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition"? --Macrakis 15:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would add un-needed complication, article titles are not sentences that need to be grammatically correct, there is something to be said for simple and easy article names. You could use a comma, or a dash, or a slash, or parenthesis etc.. there's all sorts of things that could be done. -- Stbalbach 15:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a complication, rather a clarification. Four run-on words don't make much sense; and it is certainly not consistent with scholarly or bibliographic usage. As for the text of the EB11 itself, in the preface, you see Encyclopædia Britannica in italics, and Eleventh Edition in roman, and in fact I don't think they ever appear together. There are many other WP article titles with commas when appropriate. --Macrakis 15:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "yet stirs the heart of the modern literary reader"

Does it now? This seems like the sort of claim I think it'd be better to leave out.

Yes, it's not by any means the KJV of the Bible. flux.books 17:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gutenberg table

What is the point of this table? I'm not sure what data it's trying to convey, nor what any data regarding the exact locations of proofreaders matter. I'd like to remove it. -- Ec5618 12:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think its relevant to this article. It explains what it is. --Stbalbach 15:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So, what does Chicago mean, in this context? Yes, the text above the table suggests something about distributed proofreading, which might mean there are proofreaders in Chicag, but it isn't explicitly mentioned. More importantly, I don't see the relevance of the information. -- Ec5618 15:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Its pretty clear if you read the paragraph above the table. Im not sure what to say, click the links and read in more detail the terms your not familar with. "Chicago–Chiton" is obviously the name of the Volume, it covers all the articles alphabetically between "Chicago" and "Chiton". --Stbalbach 16:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I dredged up the project pages for several of these sections. Can you open them without being logged into DP? If so, links to the page images are in the Image column, and links to the proofed text are in P2/Text.

—wwoods 23:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

EB1911 V. 2.2: [6]

EB1911 V. 3.1: [7]
EB1911 V. 3.2: [8]

EB1911 V. 4.1: [9]
EB1911 V. 4.2: [10]
EB1911 V. 4.4: [11]

EB1911 V. 6.5: [12]
EB1911 V. 6.6: [13]
EB1911 V. 6.7: [14]

I'm afraid the above links merely ask me to log in, though they note a few completion statistics.

monkey2:monkey2 or see bugmenot.com 71.81.37.129 07:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach, I honestly didn't realise that the words in the table referred to the first and last articles of specific books, even after reading the text above it. Perhaps the text isn't as clear as you imagine.

I also notice that the formatting of the template is a bit odd, since some cells use all caps (hardly useful), while others use small. There doesn't appear to be information about volume 5.4. -- Ec5618 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of relationship to Wikipedia

Forgive me if this question marks me as a Wikipedian come lately, but wasn't much of the initial Wikipedia filled out with articles copied verbatim from the 11th ed. EB? Is that not worthy of mention in the article on it? --Jfruh 21:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Generally its bad form to discuss wikipedia on wikipedia (some rule about self-reference) if it can be discussed in a more general way; theres a section about EB1911's modern usage which can apply to wikipedia or any other site. I think there is also considerable controversy about the use of EB1911 articles on wikipedia being copied verbatim (see the Wikipedia Biases article). --Stbalbach 22:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Wiki depends so heavily on EB-11 is important for users to know. We should not hide it. It makes clear how influential EB11 still is. That is we are showing the influence of EB11, not boasting about Wiki. In my opinion there is too much reliance on EB11 in Wiki, and it is indeed controversial. But it is a verifiable fact of importance and use to users, so keep it. The fact that EB11 is online is also important to users. Rjensen 02:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does not "depend heavily" on EB1911. And Im not sure I agree mentioning Wikipedia is a good idea -- it lends EB1911 undo credibility, anyone can cut and paste an article in 1 minute but that doesnt mean its a quality article. Plus there is a rule about not self-referencing wikipedia in articles -- wikipedia is not the only source that uses EB1911, why just mention Wikipedia? There is already a whole section in this article that talks about the pros and cons of using EB1911 as a modern source. -- Stbalbach 03:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebalanced the article

There were two things seriously wrong with the assessment of the 1911 EB in the article, both blatantly POV, which I've attempted to correct. One is that the 1911 EB was viewed merely in its negative aspects; the other was a prescriptive section! which was quite extraordinary to see in Wikipedia. As has been pointed out on the talk pages of many Wikipedia articles, reader does not need to be told how they "should" use the information: it is sufficient to alert them to the virtues and flaws of the 1911, and they can make up their own minds how they wish to read it. Bill 17:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this paragraph:

On the other hand, in certain disciplines, as for example the classics and ancient history, the 1911 edition compares quite favorably, both in breadth and depth, with more recent revisions of the Encyclopedia. This is due in part to shifting interests that have led to the contraction of certain topics in recent editions, but also to the stellar group of experts who worked on the 1911 edition: no Encyclopedia Britannica since has succeeded in employing a group of equally good writers. The writing and copy editing is also in general far superior to that in the recent editions of the Britannica, and finally the 1911 editors allowed considerable play to the individual points of view of their writers: the articles therefore often have a freshness that contrasts favorably with the flat committee-written quality of the newer editions. For these reasons, despite its inevitable flaws and the progress of human knowledge since its time, the 1911 edition is widely regarded as the best Britannica yet written.

Completely POV. First off, I disagree with just about everything said here. I am a professionally trained historian with a Bachelors degree in History circa 1993 and modern day academia does not see it that way, if it did my training would have bee much different. The approaches to history have changed dramatically since the early 20th century, not to mention the amount of research done in the 20st century that has outdated almost every single article on a factual and methodology basis. The 20th century saw the rise of the "professional" and the 11th edition is one of the last "men of general learning" encyclopedias, replaced by specialists and professionals. I mean if you want to say the style of the writing is good, and the copyediting is good, and the authors were the best popular stars of their time, that's fine, but the above paragraph is pure hagiography POV, not to mention unsupportable original research. Even Amos who read the 11th and 14th editions by the 1930s said the 14th was a better version! "best Britannica yet written" is popular mythology and/or personal opinion. -- Stbalbach 18:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well now we know what "POV" means! ("Completely POV. First off, I disagree with just about everything said here.") When I read this, I went to the first thing I thought of — I'm familiar with central Italy — so Pesaro came to mind. I own an EB15 (1973 printing), and I compared it with the 1911. The recent article of course includes material about WW2 and has no inaccuracies about transportation — which it manages by omitting any mention of it altogether. Other than that, the 1911, among things not found in the modern article, goes into fair detail about the local topography, the ancient history of the town, various natives, and the contents of the museums and churches. This is what I meant about breadth and depth. Tarring the above as "original research" — it merely reports a wide consensus (ah yes, that's, contradictorily, tarred as "popular mythology") is basically an ad hominem remark: you're not the only person in the world to study history.... The man who read the encyclopedias, is merely personal opinion — of a single person — at one remove; even if he was a successful groceryman and involved with chicle.

There is no need for us in 2006 to feel threatened by the excellence of a past work, although it ran on its own prejudices — as if we had none. Bill 18:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a paragraph whose intention is to show that EB1911 is widely regarded as the "best EB encyclopedia ever written" is POV and original research. Your obvious personal leanings are clear. I have a hardcopy of the EB1911, in my bathroom in fact (and I don't use it for toilet paper), but I know what it is, and what it's not. -- Stbalbach 20:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also see previous discussion above "often regarded as the greatest edition" -- no one has been able to provide a reliable source for this mythology. In fact the very notion originates from EB its self, as part of its original marketing campaign. I'd like to see a reliable source (ie. a published modern scholar) say these things about EB1911. -- Stbalbach 20:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk of assertions out of thin air! The reason for the general consensus in favor of the 11th is not because of publicity by Britannica — if so, why aren't the 10th or the 12th considered particularly good (and they're not) -- but because it was better. Of course my personal opinion is that this is so, just as it is yours that it is not: which is why the much vaunted "NPOV" of Wikipedia is a nonsensical impossibility. Yours is a minority opinion, you've been caught out, and are understandably embarrassed: so it's dukes up! My own opinion though has, alas, not a stroke of originality to it, and the most cursory websearch on the matter, even removing the search pollution from Wikipedia itself, turns up a great consensus to back it up, as for example very quickly this passing reference in a Reference Librarian mailing list, but there are dozens of others.

But Wikipedia, running on a democracy (and by and large, of the young and, like myself at least, the désoeuvrés), reproduces mindlessly the Zeitgeist of 2006, under the cover of "NPOV". This is in sum a battleground, and not being that much of a fighter, I'll slither away: but don't believe for a minute you've done something useful or correct, nor that everything good was invented or perfected in our own lifetime. It's a common error, but it's still an error. Bill 21:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh no doubt there are people who think it's "the best",. But we support our opinions with evidence from verifiable sources. No one has of yet been able to produce a verifiable appropriate source (see the help page for how these terms are defined on Wikipedia). Since this is an academic subject, an appropriate source would be a well known academic person confirming what you have said. All of the links provided here saying its great have been from people trying to sell the Encyclopedia! It started with EB its self when it was first released claiming "sum of all knowledge", then used book dealers kept pounding that idea for the last 100 years to sell the forests of EB1911 sets that no one ever throws away, and now since it has entered the public domain, there have been scores of people capitalizing on that mythology to sell electronic copies. The link you provided above is just one more example of that. None of these are appropriate sources for that claim and if you asked a Professor at a university if he would recommend his students to use EB1911 citations in their professional peer-reviewed publications I think they would take a very narrow view. Anyway some of the aspects you mentioned of EB1911 are already discussed in the article in the preceding section before the 21st century section. -- Stbalbach 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The value of EB1911 is for the material it contains that has been cut from later editions. My field is C19 history, and I find that a great number of very sound articles, especially in biography, have been dumped, and there is no mention of even key words relating to the topics in the 15th edition which I have on CD. A topic which has not been discussed anywhere is how much the EB1911 was the child of Horace Everett Hooper, the American-born publisher. He purchased the reprint rights to the 9th edition and pursuaded The [London] Times to issue a reprint of it. In 1902 was published an additional eleven volumes plus a reprint from the plates of the 9th to make the 10th edition. His association with 'The Times ceased in 1909, and he linked with the Cambridge University Press to publish the 11th edition we are discussing. In 1920 Britannica was bought by Sears Roebuck, and in 1923 they published an addition 3 volumes covering the events of WW1. Contrary to the impression given on the main page, the 11th edition was based on American influences, not only in increase of American and Canadian content, but also the efforts made to give it a more popular tone. American marketing methods also assisted sales. Apwoolrich 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Best edition"

I see the article no longer includes such an assertion, but in case anyone is tempted to put it back ... the 9th, 11th and 14th were all quite different, perhaps can be thought of on a rough continuum from scholarly to popular. To a different user, one or the other might be best. The 9th was perhaps the last to serve as a significant tool of scholarship; the 11th culturally significant; and the 14th easy to read and rather ubiquitous.flux.books 17:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joslin Hall article

The article references this "article" - but it's just one person's opinion, not an authoritative source, so please treat it as that. In no sense is the author an expert; he's a bookseller. A few problems of note:

He discusses it as a work of reference; the current version of the WP article does a good job of making it clear that it has to be used with great care in that way. ("Among all my reference books, there is one standout, a star")
He's loose with the facts. The EB was of course published after the Encyclopedie;
Unsupported opinions / bias: "19th century saw the descent of the form into an academic exercise in navel-gazing. New editions of the Britannica were very scholarly and learned but none were particularly readable or even useful to a general audience, as they featured tediously long and ponderously dense entries." What a shame that those poor 19th c. people had to settle for such an EB - it could have been so much more entertaining! I suppose serving as a major tool for the diffusion and advancement of knowledge might be some small consolation, but not much.
It's superficial, and doesn't really get the story right. The parts about the edge or slant of editions are, in particular, not to be relied on.

Anyway, enough on that. If you want expertise, look elsewhere, including the authors at the bottom of encyclopedia.flux.books 16:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "should not be used as a sole primary source"

I've revised this phrase in the first paragraph. As it stood, it was inappropriately prescriptive, and so sweeping as to be inaccurate. Rather than try to craft a way to inject this into the brief summary paragraph, better to just mention the issue and leave it for a proper discussion in the article. It is ultimately a discussion of something rather obvious, anyway. flux.books 12:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "pioneer" of modern encyclopedias!?- index, article length

Some good new content has been added in the past couple months. But the use of this phrase creates some problems: "The eleventh edition pioneered a number of conventions of the modern encyclopedia."

"It was the first encyclopedia to be issued with a comprehensive index volume in which was added a categorical index, where like topics were listed" Not at all convinced the index of the 11th was innovative enough to be worth mentioning, that's an obtuse claim to fame. Both those features had been seen much earlier, if indeed this was the first time they were both included, it's not that remarkable.

And this ... "It was the first to break away from the convention of long treatise-length articles" is completely unsupportable. First for the EB, but not the first modern encyclopedia ... see the Encyclopedia Americana and any of the Conversations Lexikon versions dating back 100 years earlier. If anything, that was a perhaps belated competitive response by EB, and a result of the attempt to popularize it as American influence increased. flux.books 12:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many quotes

One positive and one negative quote is sufficient and balanced. It is POV to keep piling on quotes and bad form to have an article with so many quotes one right after the next, it reads like a war of the quotes, like editors trying to outdo each other with quotes. -- Stbalbach 01:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a step in the right direction. But it's not POV if it's true, no need to toss out that epithet. "one positive and one negative" is not a good approach when there is no real debate; for example, there is no one who seriously thinks the 14th is an exceptional or unique encyclopedia in a broad view. A plausible contrary view might be more in favor of the ninth edition, or the third, but not the 14th. flux.books 16:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Clark is hardly an authority on the subject, the quote is there for other reasons. flux.books 16:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shirk quote deleted

The quote by Shirk (who is he, anyway?) is silly and should have been deleted; it was just moved because I didn't have time to fix everything that day, and was trying to patch up the most obvious problems. For the record, it was as follows. Like everything, this is obviously subject to further discussion. flux.books 16:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There are other opinions, however; Amos Urban Shirk, who read both the entire Eleventh and Fourteenth Edition in the 1930s, said he found the Fourteenth Edition a "big improvement" over the Eleventh, stating that "most of the material had been completely rewritten".

[edit] "Negro" quote

The racist quote I added is outrageous enough that I imagine some people will think it's a hoax. It's not; it's on page 344 of Volume 19. —Chowbok 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That edited quote did indeed come from page 344 of Volume 19, but the article is on "Negritos", not "Negros". Wizened 22:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think so... the scan of the page is here, and the quoted text appears to be in the Negro article. (The article does, to be fair, go on to attribute much of the claimed racial differences to environment, rather than only race; but so far as it goes, the quote seems accurate.) TSP 23:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My source was the 1911 online enclyclopedia britannica (which is referenced in this article). The link is [[15]]. If you then go to the index and look up the article on Negros, you will find that the quote is not repeated there. Wizened 00:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - that version seems to have some text transferred from the Negro article into the Negrito article. If you look at the second paragraph of its Negrito article, you'll see the Negrito article end with its list of references; then some material from the Negro article starts in the middle of a sentence. The Love To Know] version has the text in its correct order, though numerous scanning errors make it hard to read. Because of the low quality of all the completed text versions, it's generally best to check stuff against the [en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling scans]. TSP 12:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I tracked down someone who owns a copy of the original 1911 set and he verified that the OCR version which I referenced has mixed the two articles -- as you suggested. Your quote is correctly attributed. Wizened 19:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the eleventh edition as a source

I'm a bit concerned about how some articles - such as Apocrypha - have large parts of 1911 entries simply lifted straight from Project Gutenberg and placed here on Wikipedia. Personally, I would prefer it if Apocrypha were a stub rather than over-inflated like it is now - the 1911 text makes up at least 75% of the article, and it is so jarringly un-wikipedic and large that nobody's taking a stab at fixing it. While I certainly think that the 1911 edition of the Britannica is a valid source when no other can be found, or when it is supported heavily by other sources, I think we should try to keep direct porting of entries to an absolute minimum - its style mostly doesn't match up with Wikipedia's, and while we'll never root out every bit of bias from the project we can certainly try to limit the amount of bias coming from texts, we should try to make a distinction between biased and unbiased material in the Britannica before it ever enters Wikipedia. To do that we HAVE to stop simply importing whole Britannica articles into Wikipedia. We especially shouldn't allow any bots to get approved to put in 1911 material - it just makes Wikipedia weaker. Rarr 02:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Also discussed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. There once was a time when Wikipedia was young and trying to make a name for its self by having lots of articles and uploading EB1911 text seemed like a good idea. Today it often gets in the way of articles from developing into modern and up to date .. I've never seen a EB1911-based article become Featured, it's like a death knell, better off starting from scratch. I've also never had anyone complain when deleting EB1911 text, even when it meant deleting the majority of the article. Most of the editors who uploaded EB1911 text did so hit-and-run style in large batches cut and paste with little regard, and rarely stayed around to watch the article or care what happens to it. -- Stbalbach 03:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not a comment about this article, it's a comment about wikipedia. Also, there aren't any reliable generalizations; it would depend substantially on the topic of the specific article, as discussed elsewhere. flux.books 01:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

EB 1911 is an excellent resource, especially for topics of humanist education. Uploading a 1911 article to Wikipedia is a great start, editors should then just not be afraid to assimilate it to the WP MoS and expanding it. Look at Homer: the article was a pathetic stub until I inserted large parts of the excellent 1911 article. I didn't just copy-paste it, I selected which parts to insert (moving some to Homeric question or rhapsode in the process). The article still doesn't follow EB 1911 slavishly, but it's quality has imporved tremendously. dab (ᛏ) 10:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with 1911's archaic tone and its dated view of encyclopedic style. After all, if you hit the Random Article link a few times, chances are you won't see something sourced from 1911, but you'll certainly see some fanboy article written in much worse style, and equally unlikely to be fixed (I know, that's not the greatest of defenses). But I do have a concern about dumped articles that have no warning signs: as I've started on the verification project I have found many text-dumps with no tags at all. At an absolute minimum, {{1911}} must be added. Then, I think, deeper concerns can be adequately addressed by including, at the top of worrisome articles, one of the tags {{update}}, {{update-eb}}, or {{1911POV}}.

Also, there may be some value in adding to {{1911}}: "...and may display biases specific to the Encyclopaedia's style and world-view". Thoughts?

There's also a good point made in WP:BIAS: "the material that has been modernized still often reflects the underlying methods and approaches of the original article", and I have no answer for that. Removing the tags should be handled with care. David Brooks 20:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article's a bit schizophrenic

It seems to me that this article is trying to do two things - firstly, to be an encyclopedia article on the 11th edition of Britannica; and secondly, to be a guide to how to use Britannica in writing wikipedia articles. It seems to me that it might be useful to split it in two, with a normal encyclopedia article here, and a discussion of its use in wikipedia at Wikipedia:Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition to deal with the other stuff. Is there any other article on a reference work from a century ago that talks about how its articles on science are out of date? It is unfair to the 1911 Britannica for half of its article to be a guide to how to use the 1911 britannica on wikipedia. john k 01:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree this article is a guide on how to write Wikipedia articles. There is already a Wikipedia guide on using EB1911 (see links top of this page). -- Stbalbach 01:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I'm going to suggest that there's no need for most of the "1911 Britannica in the 21st Century" section. Most of this is OR, as far as I can tell, and not based on what reliable secondary sources say about the 11th edition. And there is certainly no need for the discussions of copyright status of the different online versions, which is not of any interest to anyone besides wikipedia editors. john k 17:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This information is relevant and accurate. -- Stbalbach 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both (and thanks, Stbalbach, for waiting for a consensus). MO: Describing the online sources, and the different ways in which they may differ from the ur-version, are relevant and encyclopediac in the electronic age. Agreed that some of the text near the end, including what I added, was written from the POV of someone using it as a free source for WP (would not belong). However, you can argue (I'll let others judge) that it successfully acts as a guide on whether you can use the online versions as a free source for any purpose (would belong). To the extent it is WP-specific, I would move that somewhere else. The problem is where? We have about two too many project and talk pages on how to use the EB text as a WP source, as the 1911 subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles has gone through several stages. David Brooks 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If there's going to be a discussion of the online versions, it should not be written in the way that it is, and it should be in a section of the article, not the external links section (as we already do for the Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia). In terms of the "the encyclopedia in the 21st century" section, I think that Stbalbach ought to provide some citations for any of the bulleted points. Until that is done, it is OR and should be removed. I'll give him a couple of days to provide references. BTW, David Brooks, you're not that David Brooks, are you? john k 18:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, and I'm not User:DavidWBrooks either, despite my middle initial being W :-). Back to topic - I see your point about OR (although the sections are a plain recitation of fact) but I would still urge that we keep the simple list of links with the important warning "Versions of this public domain work claiming copyright". Then we should move the warning about the IP taint somewhere it will be seen by any Wikipedians who might want to import from those sites. I just did that to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. There aren't many of us left, anyway. When I want to add 1911 factoids, I retype from the TIFF scans. David Brooks 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think there needs to be some kind of change in the links. Whatever you think is best would be okay with me. And I don't think that bulleted list is a plain recitation of fact, if that's what you mean to say. Much of it is vague and unsourced, like the part about "hagiographies" of "nobility". john k 20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So how about this: keep the introductory warning line in place, and reduce the lists to the external link and the sentence that duplicates their copyright notices. But first give Stbalbach and/or me time to (a) put some stronger warnings into any project pages that might be seen by users of 1911 text (b) move the bulk of those two current paragraphs into this talk page. David Brooks 22:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've updated and expanded Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, essentially preserving the material in this article's current References section. Next step is to point to the edited page from the appropriate project pages for the few remaining people who might need it. Now I wouldn't object to the References section being slimmed down. I'd kind of like a pointer to Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica to be left in, but I can see that would still be objectionable.

Note this is a separate topic from that now being discussed in the next section. David Brooks 07:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the current version may vary from the version that started this discussion ... but there is definitely a place for a discussion of using the eleventh edition as a source of knowledge and for research today which is distinctly different from a discussion of using it as a source for wikipedia articles. That is, it's quite wikipedia-centric to assume that discussion refers only to writing wikipedia articles. There is a need for some kind of discussion, as there are many people who still throw around the inane idea that this is the last good encyclopedia, the last encyclopedia that really told the truth and was un-censored, etc. flux.books 13:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

If you want to add cite tags that's fine, but you don't delete things unless you think they are wrong, and can provide some rationale or reason on why they are wrong. If you think something is wrong, then delete it, and defend your position on the talk page. If you think it's OR, then add a cite tag. You did delete it, but you didn't defend your position on why it's factually wrong, just some wishy washy argument about schizophrenia that doesn't address why the section is factually incorrect. --Stbalbach 01:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The material is pretty blatantly OR. Are you saying it's not? Also, some of the points are incredibly dubious - the one about "hagiographies" of "nobility" for instance. john k 10:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, because I don't know what you are pointing to as OR. This discussion started with the descriptions of the external links but that's not where the hagiography stuff is. Can you provide a list? David Brooks 20:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion started with two points, actually - I removed the descriptions of the external links, and also greatly changed and shortened the "The 11th edition in the 21st century" section. I think this section consists very largely of OR (in that there is no evidence that anyone besides the writer of that section in this wikipedia article has actually made the claims being propounded there), and several of the points are not only OR, but inherently questionable (the claim that articles on nobility are hagiography, for instance, which, at best, is using a number of the wrong words and isn't saying what it intends to.) john k 20:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the three cited cases were OR - I had not written them originally and assumed they were accurate, but when I went to verify (I own a hard copy set), there are no entries for those three in the encyclopedia at all (perhaps under different names but I didn't pursue it). But the rest of it is objective and verifiable by looking at the EB1911. If you need more direct quoting let me know. -- Stbalbach 00:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach, I'm happy to accept, in my capacity as an educated person, that you are correct in your characterization of the 11th Edition of Britannica. But looking through your copy of the 11th edition and finding examples of various problems that you identify is pretty clearly original research. What you need to find are reliable secondary sources which identify these problems with the 11th Edition. For some of the points, I'm sure this could be found - for instance, the introduction to the 14th edition of Britannica probably discusses the reasons that an update was felt to be necessary, and gives some of them. But as it stands it's OR. john k 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

John, your missing the point of OR. OR was not written to keep out obvious facts. The source in this case is the EB1911, it speaks for its self - it is self-evident - it is not "research" to say the President of the United States made an error in his speech - you don't need to find a third party who said "the President made an error", you just say "The President made an error, here is the source/quote ..". Stating the obvious is not OR. We have tons of articles on WP that state plain facts. I mean, saying EB1911 has lots of errors because of its age and is therefore problematic for researching is mainstream, common knowledge. As for a EB14th intro I doubt it, they are usually not critical of their own products, and many of these problems would not become problems until much later so you would need a recent critical review of the EB1911 which probably does not exist (I sure can't find one). John, people normally cite OR when they disagree with something - you seem to agree that the section is correct - why are you making an issue over it? -- Stbalbach 01:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's more or less correct, but I think it's undue weight to have a long discussion of entirely predictable flaws of a hundred year old encyclopedia. Of course they have outdated racial ideas, and of course a lot of the science is wrong, and of course information about geographical locations is out of date. Why is this interesting? Is this providing any information beyond what the mere fact that it was written in 1911 gives us? Beyond that, it is pretty clearly original research. I think it's fine to say the EB1911 has a lot of errors because of its age, but getting into specific examples is original research, in that you are looking at the encyclopedia yourself, analyzing it, and putting your analysis into the article. john k 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it may be obvious to you, but it is not to a lot of people. The EB1911 is being copied, quoted and reproduced probably more than any other reference work on the Internet. It specifically mentions that. As for OR, I really think your taking the rule to an extreme - you already agree that information is correct, your being technical about the rule for other reasons - your using it in a way it was not intended to be used. I could point to countless examples of similar situations on Wikipedia where we don't flag things as OR because there is a common understanding they are factually correct. Also it's hardly "research" or "original" to open the EB1911 and point out errors in it which are on every page, it's not like you have to hunt them out. The EB1911 is the source and the errors speak for themselves, you don't need a third party source to repeat what is self-evident. If the President of the United States says after 9/11 that we are going on a "Crusade", we quote the President directly and point out his "mistake", we don't need a third party source, it is self-evident, the Presidents quote is the source. -- Stbalbach 12:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is OR to open up a book and point out errors that nobody else has noticed before. That's the definition of OR - you're doing your own research and including it on wikipedia. And we can't call the president hypothetically calling a war a "Crusade" a "mistake." That would not only be OR, it would be POV, because "crusade" is a word which has a meaning in the English language beyond the strict sense. But even for basic factual errors, I don't think we're supposed to discuss them unless somebody else has (which usually they have). For instance, we can talk about Keats' mistake of "Cortez" for "Balboa" in "On First Looking into Chapman's Homer" because this is a famous mistake that has been noted many times. But do you really think that it would be perfectly appropriate for me to mention that the 11th edition of Britannica contains the inaccurate claim in its article on Anjou that Charles I of Sicily was the son, rather than the brother, of Louis IX of France? That's a completely true statement, but it's OR to point it out, and it doesn't belong in wikipedia. Clearly you have an agenda here, which is that you are irritated that stupid people use the 1911 Britannica in an uncritical way. And of course it is unfortunate that stupid people use the 1911 Britannica in an uncritical way. But that doesn't give you the right to engage in OR to "prove" that the thing is unreliable, which is, at any rate, obvious to anyone with a brain. john k 15:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(OK, so I lost count of the colons) But people ("stupid" is POV) using 1911 in an uncritical way has damaged Wikipedia. As I labor in the verification vineyard I find verbatim imports that aren't even tagged as 1911 material, let alone rewritten. Now, the damage may already be done and unlikely to be extended, bit I'd still like to ask - how would you (John) prevent people from damaging WP by using 1911 uncritically? I've made a suggestion (place a warning on the likely entrypoints for people using 1911 material, such as project pages and talk pages including this one) and started to implement it; is that enough? And I assume we agree that it's not our business to prevent people from abusing 1911 in any other part of their lives. David Brooks 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Any problem inspired by concern with editing problems should be dealt with in the Wikipedia namespace, not in the main namespace. Your suggestion sounds fine to me. It might be a good idea to create a page specifically about use of 1911 in wikipedia, and cautioning against misuse, and suchlike. Although, I fear, the damage has already been done. (For a fun example, see Annam (French colony), which includes the verbatim text of the history section of 1911, combined with a recommendation to ignore that section because it's inaccurate, and go to History of Vietnam instead.) john k 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We already have a page Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. But Wikipedia is not written for Wikipedia editors, it is written for the general public, including kids in Africa and middle school students etc.. and EB1911 is notable as a resource for a number reasons: it was once marketed as "the sum of all knowledge" and this "myth" is still alive and active, it is out of copyright and is probably the number one most widely copied and distributed work of its type on the internet, CD-Roms, Project Gutenberg, etc.. thus discussing it in a critical manner is not only appropriate, but needed - not for Wikipedia editors (we already have a page for that), but for anyone who is reading the article. The problem is there are no recent modern critical reviews of EB1911 to satisfy the technical requirement of OR, but it is a common mainstream and widely accepted view and should not be excluded from Wikipedia on OR grounds. -- Stbalbach 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The job of wikipedia is not didactic moralizing. That much of it is out of date is obviously true, but I don't see any particular need to go into detail, because the ways it is out of date are completely predictable, and can be deduced by anyone based on the fact that it was put out in 1911. And if your criticisms are a commonly held view, it should not be difficult to find citations. If there are no citations, then it is original research, and shouldn't be here. There are all kinds of positives that one could note about the 11th edition of Britannica, ways in which it has information that later versions do not (more detailed geography, for instance, and more detail on political events in medieval and early modern European history), but mentioning those would also be original research, because we don't have a source talking about them. john k 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with morality, it is called "criticism", Wikipedia contains criticisms of works. 'it should not be difficult to find citations - than please find one. It is difficult no one has published a recent critical review of EB1911, that I can find. And they are not just my criticisms, they are yours, and just about everyones "who has a brain", as you put it. The real problem here is the OR rule has no qualifier or rule for "common knowledge with no source available". This is a known and recognized weakness in the OR rule and people are looking at it as we speak, this is not the first time the problem has come up. -- Stbalbach 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to find citations. It's yours. As I've said, I think the lengthy discussion of this issue in the article is unnecessary and unbalanced, so why on earth would I want to find sources? Personally, I'm against an overly broad understanding of "original research," and I think a brief general discussion of the main points of the section would be appropriate, even if no specific source can be found. But the presentation of these specific points is clearly OR, and should be removed. john k 01:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can you post here "a brief general discussion of the main points of the section" as you envision it? In the meantime I'm still working on finding sources, and discussing OR and common knowledge. -- Stbalbach 04:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/c/Talk%7EEncyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_Eleventh_Edition_2088.html"

Category: WikiProject Books articles

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.