Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:34, 14 February 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Resource Exchange If you have access to this resource, or if you need to verify a citation from this reference, check out WikiProject Resource Exchange.Resource ExchangeWikipedia:WikiProject Resource ExchangeTemplate:WikiProject Resource ExchangeResource Exchange Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Untitled

Most schools have a copy of the World Book encyclopedia.

I took the above line out because I would like to see something backing up the statement. Is it referring to most schools in the world? Or most schools in North America or Europe? The extensive list of sales reps around the world suggests it is widespread as well as high-selling, but I think the statement needs either factual backup or qualifying. Hope someone can help. -- Sam

I don't think most British schools have one. We're more likely to have Britannica. Secretlondon 21:18, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

1924 edition of world book

I have a set of the world book and on the front page it clearly says 1924. wikipedia says none were made during that year and I'm wondering if its from '23 or '25 then. Any input would be great

My 1965 edititon was printed in 1964. Perhaps that is the reason. Bubba73 (talk), 00:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mine's from 1924 too so this is really confusing me 213 MxzK →→→ 22:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

CD included with Apple computers

If I'm not mistaken, Apple includes World Book with all consumer computers, not just iBooks. --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 05:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, Apple seems to have discontinued, or at the very least, muted this practice — World Book 2006 is not currently shipping with the Dual Core iMac. This may be due to Rosetta incompatibilities, but such a reason seems unlikely since Software MacKiev has already released the appropriate Universal Binary Updates. Regardless, we should probably qualify the remarks in the article with a "virtually all" or "until recently". ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 15:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

up-to-date nature

I wrote in the article that World Book Encyclopedia is the most up-to-date encyclopedia one can buy. This can be verified by clicking on the link accompanying the statement and scrolling down to the section of the page titled "Features".

Reverting change,

Primetime 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Patently, wikipedia is the most up-to-date encyclopedia, smashing World Book's piddly 20% article revisions a year with hundreds of changes every hour. Though, I guess they have fewer vandalism issues... at least not until the volumes make it into schools. --zippedmartin 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wikpedia gets edited every minute and is automatically fact checked by experts to ensure accuracy and lack of POV, right?? Right??? WRONG!!!! It's full of armchair 'experts' and vandals. No wonder no respectable institution of learning will accept it as a legitimate source. Gawd, you're a twit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.81.2 (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It could be true that it's more up to date. I rarely read anything in Misplaced Pages except to edit it, though, because the factual accuracy is much worse and the style very choppy. If I ever do read anything in Misplaced Pages, I always double-check it somewhere else. Misplaced Pages's strength, in my opinion, is that it's the largest encyclopedia available--although I doubt it will ever be used in an academic setting.
--Primetime 03:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but the dispute is over World Book's claim that it "...continues to revise almost 20% , making it the most up-to-date encyclopedia you can buy". Even if we trust they've carefully researched the up-to-date-ness of not only US and non-US English language competitors, but also non-English competitors, there's obviously a huge gap between yearly-printing and anyone-can-edit. You could however, let this through currently on the technicality that you can't actually *purchase* en.wikipedia yet, in a formal manner - you *could* pay someone to give you a copy on dvd or whatever, within the terms of the GDFL. As for accuracy, anyone who doesn't double check what *any* source says before citing it somewhere important deserves every bit of pain they get. --zippedmartin 07:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, (at least at my school), World Book is considered as a professional high-quality source, while Misplaced Pages is considered at best a site for interesting personal surfing. --- Dralwik| My "Great Project"

You aren't supposed to take anything you read at face value in /any/ encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are secondary sources, intended as a brief overview, and if it matters so much whether the facts are completely accurate and NPOV, you need to do your own verification. This is why encyclopedias are unacceptable in most bibliographies (after high school). You can argue that WB is "professionally reviewed" (which it is) or WP is "peer reviewed" (which it is) until you're blue in the face, but the fact is they're all intended only to give you an overview so you know what to look for next. -- Bilbo1507 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

1959 World Book

I actually have the G volume from the 1959 set. From the front page:

THE WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA

In Eighteen Volumes and Reading and Study Guide

AppleMacReporter 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

By the early 1970s the Reading and Study Guide was Volume 22. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary

Through the fifties, sixties and at least the early seventies World Book was published by Field Educational Corporation. This was owned by the family of Marshall Field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.167.214 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Some references are World Book publicity material

Some of the references for statements such as "it is also the most up-to-date encyclopedia sold, with 20% of its pages revised each year" are sections of the World Book website. These references are patently not independent and as a result they are not suitable for supporting such claims. I've edited the text to make the sources of these claims more clear add added some citation needed flags. Surely there are some recent reviews of World Book which can be cited? --Nick Dowling 10:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments by hard-banned user removed.

Being the most up-to-date encyclopædia isn't a policy, it's a claim that needs to be substantiated, and the publisher's claims aren't sufficient for that.

And before you ask yet again, no, I don't know the work; it's pretty well unknown here, so far as I'm aware. Moreover, I don't find much use for general reference works. None of that is relevant; we're talking about the principles of article writing, for which one needs to know nothing about the subject.

At the moment the article is deeply deficient. For example, it starts with a marketing claim, which no article should do, and the whole piece is full of unsubstantiated (and parochial) statements about its significance. I've added an NPoV tag, in the hope that we'll get some more attention from a wider range of editors. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Predictably, User:67.165.216.16 simply reverted my edits, including the removal of the NPoV template. If he or she continues in this way, it will lead to an editing block. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon user was blocked. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Photograph

There has ought to be a photograph of the most recent World Book (print edition) in this article.

I don't know that there ought to be one, but if you want one, you only have to take a photograph and up-load it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Detailed information

Much more detailed information about World Book and its history and origins can be found here: http://www.answers.com/topic/world-book-inc. Some of that info really should be factored into the Misplaced Pages article (as that link puts Misplaced Pages article to shame). Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Populist?

There has been an apparent edit war over the design description as "populist." This term has a political meaning. Please consult the article, populist, before you use the term. Thank you, Dogru144 (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a big mistake. "Popular" might make sense, but it's hardly necessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference 4

The link's broken. Interchangeable|talk to me 16:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• Start-Class Chicago articles
• Mid-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• WikiProject Resource Exchange articles
• Start-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles