A few months ago, I blogged about “Wikipedians” – the hordes of people around the world who write and edit for the online encyclopedia sensation. In the “free information” world of the Internet, in just a few short years Wikipedia has effectively knocked the more traditional encyclopedias like World Book and Britannica off of their perch as the denizens and purveyors of broad knowledge.

With its self-described goal to be “the sum of all human knowledge,” Wikipedia has become the world’s fifth most popular web site, attracting more than 325 million visits per month – a 20% increase in traffic from a year ago. All this success, even as there have been well-publicized incidences of “rogue” information incorporated into Wikipedia article entries, either through honest error or deliberate insertions of false material; the report on Ted Kennedy’s Wikipedia entry of the senator’s death months before its actual occurrence is but one recent example.

Indeed, among the strengths of Wikipedia’s information model has been the idea of crowd-sourcing, with its legions of editors who have kept an eagle eye on Wikipedia entries to police them and aggressively remove incorrect, non-cited or otherwise suspect information.

But just last week, The Wall Street Journal published a front-page story reporting that Wikipedia is losing its volunteer force at a much steeper rate than ever before. Writers and editors have been departing Wikipedia faster than new ones joining – and the net decline has become particularly pronounced in 2009, to the tune of a net loss ~25,000 editor volunteers every month.

What’s causing this? A few reasons that have been suggested are:

 As Wikipedia has grown, the number of topics not yet covered has diminished, making for fewer opportunities for new writers and editors to come on board with entries or to improve on existing articles.

 Well-publicized problems with the veracity of some articles have caused Wikipedia to tighten its editorial and submission guidelines. The not-for-profit Wikipedia Foundation has adopted a plethora of rules (spelled out over dozens of web pages) that make it much harder for editors who are less familiar with the software to successfully post new stories – causing some articles to be removed within mere hours of being posted. It’s no secret that the burnout rate for writers is going to be higher when they have to continually debate and defend the content and format of their articles.

 A reduction in the “passion” factor – Wikipedians are a bit of a different breed, driven as much by altruism as a generous dose of ego (“I’m better than the rest of you”) when it comes to information knowledge. They’ve even created their own special social world, with the Wikipedia Foundation hosting annual get-togethers of volunteers in such exotic locales as Buenos Aires where they can collectively bask in the aura of their shared “specialness.” But, people being people, over time the thrill abates except for the most passionate contributors.

The downturn in the economy probably doesn’t help, either. More free time might be available to devote to Wikipedia for those newly out of work … but in such times, more attention and effort is understandably going to be placed elsewhere.

Recognizing the need to reverse recent trends, the Wikipedia Foundation is working on creating streamlined instructions to help novice editors contribute articles that adhere to the proper submission guidelines more successfully. It is also working to actively recruit writers and editors from the scientific community, a historically soft spot in terms of Wikipedia’s information coverage.

Whether these steps will be enough to make a difference is an open question. Encouraging more volunteers from the world of science for what is essentially a volunteer mission with little or no peer recognition has been (and likely will continue to be) a tall order. And the jury is still out on the potential effectiveness of the new streamlined submission guidelines, because they haven’t been put into practice yet.

Still, there’s no denying that Wikipedia has had a major impact on the way people research information … and it has accomplished this over the span of only a few short years.

October, 2010

With the demise of Microsoft’s Encarta (it has been discontinued) and the tribulations of the Wikipedia (its rules have been revamped to resemble a traditional encyclopedia, alienating its contributors in the process), the Encyclopedia Britannica 2010 (established in 1768) may have won the battle of reference.

The Encyclopedia Britannica 2010 Ultimate Edition (formerly “Student and Home Edition”) builds on the success of its completely revamped previous editions in 2006-9. The rate of innovation in the last four versions was impressive and welcome. It continues apace in this rendition with Britannica Biographies (Great Minds, Heroes and Villains, and Leaders), Classical Music (500 audio files arranged by composer), and a great Workspace for Project Management (a kind of friendly digital den). Six months of free access to the myriad riches of the Britannica Online complete the package.

The Britannica comes bundled with an atlas (close to 1800 maps linked to articles and 287 World Data Profiles of individual countries and territories); the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Thesaurus, augmented by a Spanish-English translation dictionary; classic articles from previous editions; twelve yearbooks (11,200 articles in total); an Interactive Timeline with 4000+ indexed timeline entries; a Research Organizer; and a Knowledge Navigator (called The Brain or BrainStormer). All told, it offers a directory of more than 166,000 reviewed and vetted links to online content.

In its new form the Britannica is user-friendly, with an A to Z Quick Search feature, monthly updates and the aforementioned 6 months of free access to its impressive powerhouse online Web site (more than 1 million additional articles and other items!).

The Britannica’s newest interface is even more intuitive and uncluttered than previously and is great fun to use. It offers morsels of knowledge, some of it date-specific, appetizingly presented through a ticker tape of visuals that leisurely scrolls across the bottom of the screen plus highly edifying interactive tours of articles and attendant media.

When you enter even the first few letters of a term in the search box, it offers various options and is persistent: no need to click on the toolbar’s “search” button every time you want to find something in this vast storehouse of knowledge. Moreover, the user can save search results onto handy “Virtual Notecards”. Whole articles can be copied onto the seemingly inexhaustible Workspace.

The new Britannica’s display is tab-based, avoiding the erstwhile confusing proliferation of windows with every move. Most importantly, articles appear in full, not in sections. This major improvement facilitates the finding of relevant keywords in and the printing of entire texts. These are only a few of the numerous alterations and enhancements.

Perhaps the most refreshing change is the Britannica’s Update Center. Dozens of monthly updates and new, timely articles are made available online (subject to free registration). A special button alerts the user when an entry in the base product has been updated.

Regrettably, the updates cannot be downloaded to the user’s computer or otherwise incorporated into the vast encyclopedia. Moreover, the product does not alert its user to the existence of completely new articles, only to updated ones. It takes a manual scan of the monthly lists to reveal newly added content.

Speaking of updates, one must not forget to dwell on the Britannica’s unequalled yearbooks. Each annual volume contains the year in events, scientific developments, and everything you wanted to know about the latest in any and every conceivable field of human endeavor, or Nature. About 11,200 articles culled from the last 12 editions buttress and update the Encyclopedia’s anyhow impressive offerings.

The Britannica provides considerably more text than any other extant traditional encyclopedia, print or digital (a total of 59 million words). But it has noticeably enhanced its non-textual content over the years (the 1994-7 editions had nothing or very little but words, words, and more words): it now boasts in excess of 30,000 images and illustrations (depending on the version) and 900 video and audio clips. This is not to mention the Britannica Classics: articles from Britannica’s most famous contributors: from Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein to Harry Houdini and from Marie Curie to Orville Wright.

The Britannica fully supports serious research. It is a sober assemblage of first-rate essays, up to date bibliographies, and relevant multimedia. It constitutes a desktop university library: thorough, well-researched, comprehensive, trustworthy.

The Britannica’s 84-107,000 articles (depending on the version) are long and thorough, supported by impressive bibliographies, and written by the best scholars in their respective fields. The company’s Editorial Board of Advisors reads like the who’s who of the global intellectual and scientific community.

The Britannica is an embarrassment of riches. Users often find the wealth and breadth of information daunting and data mining is fast becoming an art form. This is why the Britannica incorporated the BrainStormer to cope with this predicament. But an informal poll I conducted online shows that few know how to deploy it effectively.

The Britannica also sports Student and Elementary versions of its venerable flagship product, replete with a Homework Helpdesk, “how to” documents, and interactive games, activities, and math and science tutorials. Still, the Britannica is far better geared to tackle the information needs of adults and, even more so, professionals. It provides unequalled coverage of its topics.

Ironically, this is precisely why the market positioning of the Britannica’s Elementary and Student Encyclopedias is problematic: compared to the Wikipedia, the Britannica’s brand is distinctly adult and scholarly. The vacuum left by the Encarta (lamented) discontinuance, though, should make it easier to market the Student and Elementary versions (which are an integral part of the Ultimate Edition and not sold separately).

Still, the 2010 editions of both the Student and Elementary encyclopedias improve on the past in terms of both coverage and facilities: the Homework Helpdesk is a collection of useful homework resources including a video subject browse, online learning games and activities, online subject spotlights, and how-to documents on topics such as writing a book review. There are also Learning Games and Activities: hundreds of fun and interactive games and activities to help students with subjects like Math, Science, and Social Studies. Both versions are updated monthly with new online-only articles.

The current edition is fully integrated with the Internet. Apart from articles about new topics and personalities in the news, it offers additional and timely content and revisions on a dedicated Web site. The digital product includes a staggering number of links (165,808!) to third party content and articles on the Web. The GeoAnalyzer, which compares national statistical data and generates charts and graphs, is now Web-based and greatly enhanced.

The Britannica would do well to offer a browser add-on search bar and to integrate with desktop search tools from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and others. Currently it offers search results through Google but this requires the user to install add-ons or plug-ins and to go through a convoluted rite of passage. A seamless experience is in the cards. Users must and will be able to ferret content from all over – their desktop, their encyclopedias, and the Web – using a single, intuitive interface.

Some minor gripes:

The atlas, dictionary, and thesaurus incorporated in the Britannica are still surprisingly outdated. Why not use a more current – and dynamically updated – offering? What about dictionaries for specialty terms (medical or computer glossaries, for instance)?

Despite considerable improvement over the previous edition, the Britannica still consumes (not to say hogs) computer resource far in excess of the official specifications. This makes it less suitable for installation on older PCs and on netbooks. If you own a machine with anything earlier than Pentium 4, less than 1 Gb RAM, and less than 10 Gb of really free space, the Britannica would be clunky at best.

But that’s it. Don’t think twice. Run to the closest retail outlet (or surf to the Britannica’s Web site) and purchase the 2010 edition now. It offers excellent value for money (less than $40, with a rebate). For less than the price of an antivirus software and for a fraction of the cost of Windows 7, you will significantly enhance your access to the sum total of human knowledge and wisdom.

DISCLOSURE The product was provided to the author at no cost.

The Britannica 2009

Microsoft’s Student with Encarta Premium 2009

Microsoft’s Encarta and MS Student 2008

The Britannica 2008

The Six Sins of the Wikipedia

Microsoft’s Encarta and MS Student 2007

The Britannica 2007 Opens to the Web

The Encyclopedia Britannica 2006

Interview with Tom Panelas

Battle of the Titans – Encarta vs. the Britannica

Microsoft Embraces the Web – Encarta and MS Student 2006

Old Reference Works Revived

Revolt of the Scholars

The Idea of Reference

The Future of the Book

The Kidnapping of Content

The Internet and the Library

The Future of Online Reference

Will Content Ever be Profitable?

The Disintermediation of Content

The Future of Electronic Publishing

Free Online Scholarship – Interview with Peter Suber

Salam

Muat turun SEGERA Britannica Illustrated Science Library – Weather & Climate bagi melengkapkan koleksi anda. Sila klik icon ‘ download’ dibawah untuk muat turun.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

استغربت أن كثيرًا مِن مَن أسألهم عن “موسوعة بريتانيكا” .. يجيبونني بأنهم لا يعرفون عنها شيئًا، بالرّغم مِن أنها مشهورة جدًا !!

باختصار .. موسوعة بريتانيكا هي  أحد أشهر الموسوعات العلمية على الإطلاق،  بل وتعد من أهم المراجع العلمية  والتي يشارك فيها كل عام الآلاف من الكتّاب من جميع أنحاء العالم.  وقد تجد فيها إجابات الكثير من تساؤلاتك في مواضيع  مشروحة  بأسلوب سهل وسلس من خلال رسوم توضيحية قمّة في الرّوعة الإتقان .

لمعرفة المزيد راجع  الموسوعة البريطانية – الموقع الرّسمي

أما آخر إصدار من النّسخة الإلكترونية منها تحت مسمّى ” Britannica Illustrated Science Library 2009″ والتي صدرت في أواخر عام 2008
فهي تقدم لمحة عامّة عن علوم الحياة، وعلوم الأرض، والعلوم الفيزيائية ، وغيرها من العلوم  في 16 مجلدًا..

1- الكون Universe
2-  الصخور والمعادن Rocks and Minerals
3-  البراكين والزلازل Volcanoes and Earthquakes
4- الطقس والمناخ  Weather and Climate
5- التطور و علم الوراثة Evolution and Genetics
6- النباتات والطحالب والفطريات Plants, Algae and Fungi
7- اللافقاريات Invertebrates
8- الأسماك والبرمائيات Fish and Amphibians
9- الزواحف والديناصورات Reptiles and Dinosaurs
10- الطيور Birds
11- الثدييات Mammals
12-جسم الإنسان  Human Body  (الجزء الأول)
13- جسم الإنسان Human Body (الجزء الثاني)
14- الطاقة والحركة Energy and Movement
15- التكنولوجيا Technology

16- استكشاف الفضاء Space Exploration

ملحوظة: المجلدات جميعها باللغة الإنجليزية.  لست أدري إن كان يوجد لها نسخة مترجمة أم لا. لكن لا تبتئس من هذا إن كنت غير متقن للغة الإنجليزية، فجميع الصفحات تحتوي على صور توضيحية تغني عن ألف كلمة !!

للتحميل : من هنا.

başlıkla alakasız bir yazı yazmayı planlıyorum şu an, ama yazının sonlarına doğru neler olur bilemiyorum. başlığı ruh halimi anlatsın diye yazdım, fakat ruh halimin içeriğini pek yazasım yok . nasıl bir ruh haliyse artık bu. ben anlatmayayım da siz çözün. hahah.

ilahi ben, adamı öldürürüm.

 meraklıyımdır ben. küçüklüğümden beri her bir haltı merak edip araştırmaktayımdır. hatta bir ara öyle boku çıkmıştır ki bu merak olayının, merak etmediğim şeyleri dahi öğrenmek adına anabritanicca denen şeyleri okumuş, adeta hatmetmişimdir.

“çok mu işine yaradı lan gerizekalı” derseniz; birincisi lanlı lunlu konuşmayın bak fena olur… ikincisi sensin tamam mı gerizekalı… üçüncüsü;  aslında yaradı işime. ciddiyim. işbu anabritanica sayesinde lise ve üniversite yıllarımda girdiğim her ortamda konuşacak bişiler bulabilmişimdir mesela. bu nedenle çok kız çevremde fır dönmüştür zira tipsiz bir adamım… çevremdekiler ne konuşurlarsa konuşsunlar fransız kalmamış, hatta kalamamışımdır. ama karşımda fransız kalanlar çok olmuştur. bunları bir kenara bırakıp, lise yıllarımın ortalarına doğru bir seyahate çıkmak istiyorum bugün sizlerle, yıllardır muzdaribi olduğum o hastalığın başladığı yıllara yani…

o yıllarda, nereden çıktığını bilemediğim –belki de çok enteresan bir hayatım olmadığı için ortaya çıktı, yada ilgi çekmeye çalışıyordum. bilemiyorum– fakat genetik olduğunu düşündüğüm, olmayan olayları anlatma hastalığına tutuldum. evet. gerçekten de insanlara sürekli olarak olmayan şeyleri anlatıyor ve onları inandırıyordum yetnezmiş gibi bunu yaparken bir de üstüne zevk alıyordum. ya insanlar gerçekten çok saftılar yada ben gerçekten çok iyi yalan söylüyordum. hala durumun tam olarak ne olduğunu bilememekteyim fakat aradan geçen 8-9 senede hastalığımda herhangi bir iyileşme olmadı fakat insanlarda pek değişmediler açıkcası, hala herşeye inanıyorlar.

fakat demem o ki en azından farkındayım bu durumun ve bu farkındalık şizofren olmadığımın kanıtıdır gözümde. neyse.

ne diyorduk; insanlar saftı. yada ben çok iyi yalan söylüyordum. bilemiyorum. ilk başlarda çok büyük özellik arz etmeyen bu yalan söyleme olayı daha sonraları, gerçekten de özellik arzetmeye başladı. yani başta inanılabilecek, gerçekliğinden şüphe edilemeyecek, yalanlar söylerken, durumun bokunu çıkarma isteğim neticesinde, aklı başında bir insanın inanamayacağı şeyleri anlatmaya başladım insanlara… ve onlar yine inanmaya devam ettiler. işte bu yalanlarımın hepsini burada ortaya dökmeyi planlıyorum… böylelikle rahatlıyacağım. hatta heyecan olması açısından yazı dizisi şeklinde yapacağım bunu. hahayt.

hayatımın ilk yazı dizisi. başlıyorum ulan anlatmaya…

vol.1

ben küçükken krizler halinde gelen bir hastalığım vardı benim, fakat sonradan iyileşmiştim. kriz geldiği anda sesleri görmeye başlıyor, yetmezmiş gibi renkleri duyuyordum. evet anabritanica bilgilerini nasıl bir sentezlemesiydi bilmiyorum ama yapıyordum bunu. duyuların karışması hastalığı adını veriyordum bu hastalığa ve yetmezmiş gibi latince bir isim bile uyduruyordum ardından. hastalık sadece renk ve ses karışmasından ibaret de değildi hani… mesela karabiberin tadı köşeli, tuzunki ise yassıydı. sert bir cisme dokunduğumda ise tuz tadı alıyordum. hastalık 25 milyonda bir görülüyordu ve ben o şanslı insanlardandım.

hatta bu hastalığa geçici olarak sebep olan bir bitki bile vardı. bir afrika kabilesinin mensupları bu bitkiden bolca yiyiyor sonrada geçiyordu davulların başına. onlar artık sesleri duymuyor, görüyorlardı. eşsiz müzikal bittiğinde yapılan yorumlar ise daha ilginçti, “mavisi fazla mı oldu ne?” ben bunları anlatmaya başladığımda etrafımda beni dinleyen inanmakla inanamamak arasında kalmış bir takım insanlar görüyordum. şaşkın, daha önce bu tarz hikayelere maruz kalmamış, ne yapacağını bilemeyen, inanmaya fazla meyilli insanlar. hikayem son bulduğunda ise nedense çoğu inanıyordu. inanmayıp internetten araştıranlar da vardı tabii… fakat bu olasılığı önceden hesaplamış, mynetten ilgili hastalıkla ilgili 5 bilemedin 6 ayrı site açmış bir insandım. sitede neler yazmıyordu ki? hastalığın muzdaripleri şöyle zeki, böyle tuttuğunu koparır, sanatçı ruhludur tey tey tey. değer verilmelidir bunlara…

üniversiteye geldiğim yıl üçüncü sınıftaki bir tıp öğrencisini bu hastalığıma inandırmam ise takdire hakikaten şayandır gözümde. aşmıştım demek ki. genç doktorumuzda başta “yok canım olur mu öyle şey saçmalama” triplerindeyken, internetten yaptığı araştırmalar sonucunda, geçen 2-3 senede hastalıkla ilgili sitelerin sayısı arttığından da olabilir belki, inanmıştı bendenize.

korkunçtu hala da korkunç. çılgınlar gibi insanları kandırıyordum fakat kimselere anlatamıyordum halen de anlatamıyorum.  anlattım rahatladım. oh. (devamı gelecek…)

CNET News reports,

Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

…For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called “relevant” field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles–one from each site on a given topic–side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.

In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.

That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.

For recognizing the handwriting in Windows Mobile 5/6-based touch screen devices, DIOTEK has released software called “DioPen Cursive”. It is the best handwriting software product for recognizing Cursive handwriting. Moreover, it is efficient for rating various types of handwritings of Americans and Europeans. Besides, it is able to recognize print handwriting.
Even if you have written multiple lines in your mobile, they can be recognized using this software. The optimized user interface of the device lets you input characters correctly only with fingers without additional stylus pen. At present, it is able to recognize English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish. Other languages such as, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Dutch will also be supported soon.

Click to know about recent Windows Messenger and Hotmail in your mobile

Some important features of this software :
•High recognition accuracy from extensive handwriting database
•Multiple languages support (over 70 Languages)
•Outstanding multi-function soft keyboard with maximized convenience
•Preloaded on numerous mobile phones and other devices over the years
•Easily applicable to various platforms and operating system of your device

[ More ]

Picture this: it is three o’clock in the morning and you have been awake all night preparing this term paper which is the culmination of your efforts in a research-based class you are taking. The paper is due at nine o’clock and you are not quite done with finalizing your thoughts¹. All of a sudden, you realize you must cite a reference for a specialized term you must use in your paper. It is not that you do not know the meaning of the term but rather, as the standards of scholarly writing demand, you must give a reference to another paper or a reliable source that defines the term. This source proves incredibly difficult to come by and the more you search on-line for journals and publications that might have used this term, the more you are convinced that there will not be any hope in finding one. You could go ahead and use it without reference to any source in the hope that your professor might pardon your breach of academic standards, or guess what? You could log in to your account on Wikipedia or create one on the fly at no cost and pour out all your knowledge about this term on a page dedicated to it. You could even link related articles already on Wikipedia to it but after doing this comes the real question: Is it scholarly to cite this as a reference for your paper?

Published articles are reliable because they are mostly written by experts in their respective fields and they are also peer-reviewed. It is, however, not necessarily the case that people who write Wikipedia articles are less knowledgeable in their fields than those who write in academic publications². Academia guarantees the sanity of its publications through the process of peer-review–bureaucracy and excessive formalism that not only puts a lot of people off and cuts down the number of people who are qualified to write drastically but also ensures that even among those who have the capacity to write, only articles which are generally accepted by the whole community of scholars are published. Pausch (2007), late professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University, lists among his childhood dreams authoring an article for the World Book Encyclopedia. It was one of the things on his list that was actually accomplished before his death and it turns out that it was quite easily done³. He gives an off-handed defence of Wikipedia by retorting: “Having been selected to be an author in the World Book Encyclopedia, I now believe that Wikipedia is a perfectly fine source for your information because I know what the quality control is for real encyclopedias: they let me in.” Clearly, he did not think very much of the World Book’s peer-review standards.

There is a form of peer review that goes on on Wikipedia. If I read an article and feel it is incomplete, I can add what I know to it. I can also raise concerns with parts of it which I think are questionable. Wikipedia has standards that articles must meet and when they fall short, even though they are not scrapped, there is a note at the top which alerts the reader that there might be inaccuracies in that article or that it does not meet required standards. This system ensures, at least for the frequently read articles, that there is a reasonable amount of validity that one can vouch for.

Wikipedia has some advantages over traditional encyclopaedias: it is free — a significant reduction in cost compared to the amount of money it costs to produce a paper encyclopaedia with that volume of information. It also has entries on events as they happen; for example, there is an article that documents the recent Iranian elections that is yet to appear in a paper encyclopaedia⁴, Susan Boyle, the now famous Scottish singer who caught the eye of entertainment observers also has a very detailed entry documenting various aspects of her life and how her achievement has influenced society, etc. Paper encyclopaedias just do not have the capacity for this rate of turnover which could be critical for certain kinds of information. Another advantage is its ability to provide links to related articles. Of course these exist in traditional encyclopaedia but they are not as convenient. It can also display video — a feature paper encyclopaedias lack for obvious reasons. The fact that many encyclopaedias are making it a point to increase their on-line presence is a testimony to the fact that web-based technologies and the attitudes that go with them are thriving and are the building blocks of how things will be done in the next generation.

Some of these attitudes though, are abhorrent as evidenced by the activities of rogue users. An article can be edited by virtually anyone and they can make any change they want including ones to deliberately introduce inaccuracies. Although Wikipedia has measures to curtail this, for the period between the degrading of an article and its correction, somebody might be misinformed and that poses a potential problem. Many academics recommend Wikipedia with much trepidation because of its susceptibility to this and other kinds of vandalism.

Giles (2005) published an expert-led investigation carried out by the scientific journal Nature which revealed that, even though the presentation of entries is generally less confusing in Encyclopaedia Britannica, one is almost as likely to find errors in Britannica as in Wikipedia in their entries on scientific subjects. Clearly, any approach for gathering information such as can be compiled into an encyclopaedia will not be perfect but does that mean Wikipedia can be cited indiscriminately and for all purposes?

References:

1. Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900-901, doi: 10.1038/438900a

2. Pausch, R. (2007). The last lecture: Really achieving your childhood dreams. Retrieved June 17, 2009 from YouTube. Website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo

Thanks to Yaw Berkye Antwi-Boasiako for reading a draft of this.

Everyone who has been to school has been told to read something because it is one of the “Great Books.” We have this idea that there are some things that everyone should read.

Years ago, I was given a set of Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.’s Great Books of the Western World, which puts this idea into practice. While I have read several of the works from the set in other books as part of classes or on my own, I have never read my way through the set. In the first volume of the set (part of which is pictured above), the compilers of the set created a recommended ten-year reading list.

After years of moving these around, it seems like its time to take a systematic approach to the set and see what it’s worth. The plan is to find out whether these books are worth reading and get into the “Great Conversation” with the authors of these books. My goal is to read these books and write about how they relate to modern life. The reason for this blog is to broaden the conversation from just me and the authors to include you.

Over the past few years, I have been a writing tutor for the Illinois Humanities Council’s Odyssey Project (more on that in a future post). One of the professors, Charles Thomas Elder, summed it up by saying “The only reason to read Plato is if you want to have a conversation with Plato.”

So, join me for a conversation with these authors and please chime in through the comments. I’ll post my thoughts on the readings and how they relate to modern life as I read them and include some readings not in the set, including some modern books. Since I studied Ancient Greek and Latin, I’ll also probably have an entry or two on my translation projects.

One note before we go any further, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. has nothing to do with the project and knows nothing about it. In fact, the set I am using is from 1952. Britannica has added to the set since then, so the readings and reactions are limited to the set I have.

Without further ado, here is the first year reading list, so you know what is coming up.

The Britannica Great Book Reading List (1952)

First Year

1. Plato:

• Apology
• Crito

2. Aristophanes:

• Clouds
• Lysistrata

3. Plato:

• Republic (Books I – II)

4. Aristotle:

• Ethics (Book I)

5. Aristotle:

• Politics (Book I)

6. Plutarch: The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans

• Lycurgus
• Numa Pompilius
• Lycurgus and Numa Compared
• Alexander
• Caesar

7. New Testament:

• The Gospel According to St. Mathew
• The Acts of the Apostles

8. St. Augustine:

• Confessions (Book I-VIII)

9. Machiavelli:

• The Prince

10. Rabelais:

• Gargantua and Pantagruel (Book I – II)

11. Montaigne: Essays

• Of Custom, and that We Should Not Easily Change a Law Received
• Of Pedantry
• Of Education of Children
• That It Is Folly to Measure Truth and Error by Our Own Capacity
• Of Cannibals
• That Relish of Good and Evil Depends in a Great Measure Upon the Opinion We Have of Them
• Upon Some Versus of Virgil

12. Shakespeare:

• Hamlet

13. Locke:

• Concerning Civil Government (Second Essay)

14. Rousseau:

• The Social Contract (Book I – II)

15. Gibbon:

• The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Chapter 15 – 16)

16. American State Papers:

• The Declaration of Independence
• The Constitution of the United States
• The Federalist (Numbers 1-10, 15, 31, 41, 51, 68-71)

17. Smith:

• The Wealth of Nations (Introduction – Book I, Chapter 9)

18. Marx-Engels:

• Manifesto of the Communist Party

Download

http://kewlshare.com/dl/12f6edda394b/J-Encyc.Brit.2009.Book.of.the.Year.pdf.html

http://hotfile.com/dl/4636554/fc3d79d/J-Encyc.Brit.2009.Book.of.the.Year.pdf.html

http://www.filefactory.com/file/ag36bad/n/J-Encyc_Brit_2009_Book_of_the_Year_pdf

The Britannica Online Encyclopedia is a comprehensive and highly informative online version of the well known Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://www.britannica.com/

A moisturizer needs both water and oil to work effectively. An alternative could be a humectant like glycerin but even that works better with a bit of oil added to it.

Whilst certain natural occurring oils work well on most parts of the body care must be taken in choosing what to apply to your face.

Olive and Macadamia oils work well and have some great rejuvenating properties, most oils like this which are found naturally occurring in plants have many beneficial qualities. Notably they will not clog the skin’s pores, which is often a problem with man made chemicals.

There is a world of difference, however in rubbing a small amount of Avocado oil into a patch of dry skin than using it every day as a face moisturizer. In most cases, whether we like it or not, large manufacturers spend millions of dollars every year on sourcing ingredients that work on women’s skins.

A newly launched product will quickly lose its allure if it receives a bad review in the beauty pages of a top fashion magazine. Alternatively, if it is well received it can make the said company a fortune in sales as a lot of women listen to the advice that they read. So whilst you can decide to try different natural ingredients for yourself why not utilize the money spent so you don’t have to waste any of yours.

Whatever product you ultimately choose, make sure your daily routine fits your lifestyle and make quick changes if something doesn’t feel right for you.

Salam

Muat turun SEGERA Britannica Illustrated Science Library – Volcanoes & Earth bagi melengkapkan koleksi anda. Sila klik icon ‘ download’ dibawah untuk muat turun.

Note : Please download as a FREE User & be patient to finish your download.

Journalistes trompés sur Wikipédia

François Richard Dossiers Internet et Média

Shane Fitzgerald, un étudiant irlandais de 22 ans, a suscité un débat mondial sur la célèbre encyclopédie participative Wikipédia en y publiant une fausse citation attribuée au compositeur de musique de film Maurice Jarre quelques heures après sa mort, le 28 mars dernier. Le but de l’anarque? L’étudiant en sociologie voulait tester les effets de la circulation ultra rapide de l’information au niveau mondial et son influence sur le travail des journalistes. Résultat? La fausse citation, respectueuse de la mémoire de l’auteur, s’est retrouvée en quelques heures dans des médias écrits et en ligne de l’ensemble du monde anglophone, du Canada, au Royaume-Uni, en passant par l’Inde et les États-Unis.

Wikipédia pas fiable

Wikipédia a rapidement été décrié avec les arguments habituels: pas une vraie encyclopédie, sources non-académiques, travail d’amateur, etc. Pourtant, les administrateurs du site ont a trois reprises retiré cette fausse citation parce qu’elle n’était pas accompagnée de sources sur son origine. Les retraits ont été effectués dans le pire des cas quelques heures seulement après une des mises en lignes effectuées par Fitzgerald. Ces délais n’étaient apparemment pas assez rapides pour empêcher des journalistes de médias réputés de les copier sans contre-vérifier…

Encyclopédies académiques

Au moins deux grandes études sur la fiabilité de Wikipédia ont été réalisées au cours des dernières années. Dans les deux cas, les chercheurs ont démontré que le taux d’erreurs sur Wikipédia était équivalent aux prestigieuses encyclopédies britanniques Britannica et allemandes Brockaus. Les bénévoles de Wikipédia seraient-ils plus rigoureux que les journalistes de certains grands médias?

VOS COMMENTAIRES SUR JOURNALISTES TROMPÉS SUR WIKIPÉDIA

PUBLICITÉ

CD Rap music Hip Hop de la scène de Montréal

CD de musique Ill Legal. Compilation de rappeur et rap music Hip Hop avec Chilly D, DJ Mana, L’intrus, Shades of culture, SP, Patrick Batemen, 01 Étranjj, Ninja P, Virus, Vulguerre, Chance Won, Erratum, Son 2 PT, Manspino, Dynastie des Morniers. 9,95$

Tél: (514) 256-9000, en région: 1-877-256-9009
Par Internet: cafegraffiti.net
Par la poste: Reflet de Société 4233 Ste-Catherine Est Montréal, Qc. H1V 1X4