---
id: 2026-04-11T16:20:11-0400
title: 2026-04-11 16:20:11
tags:
  - status/draft
date-created: 2026-04-11T16:20:11-04:00
daily: "[[2026-04-11]]"
---
# 2026-04-11 16:20:11

> At first I thought this distinction in medium was between web and print,
> but in writing I recognized that Wikipedia was not especially innovative
> the web made reference print (namely encyclopedias) obsolete,
> but nonfiction literature has probably never been a preferred source of truth.

I think I like nonfiction books
because I grew up during a time
when the internet was already established
as the definitive source of all knowledge,
but when there was still vocal opposition
to its adoption as such.

In elementary school I was taught how to use the library traditionally
and I heard every week that on Wikipedia
erroneous content is presented as fact.
At the time I took issue with the warning,
now I recognize it as implicit [[nirvana-fallacy]].
Print encyclopedias have the same problem
with the additional complication
that those errors can't be fixed after distribution.
A serious limitation favoring Wikipedia
since our library's encyclopedias were a decade old.

Many people my age and much older feel validated remembering math class
knowing that they _do_ have a calculator on them at all times.

For the same reason,
my favorite books to own are ones that are wrong:
old computer science textbooks
that speculate about the future (now past),
opinion pieces with really shit opinions,
etc.

Because I now understand that books are works of art
that occasionally contain truths
(which they have always been)
rather than sources of truth
which occasionally possess artistic merit
(which they have never been)
they're much more interesting.

Most people have an understanding
that every book comes with an implied statement from its author
that they believe it is worth your time.
I don't think that most people have this expectation for encyclopedias.
I'd feel sorry for a book never finished,
but an encyclopedia entry serves most of its purpose
just by being in the volume.

* A book is text someone wanted you to read.
* An encyclopedia is text that someone wanted to be available.

The utility of a book is in its focus:

I have a lot of issues with [[hubbard_2020_failure]],
but if a coworker wanted to learn about [[statistical-modeling]] for business
I'd hand them that book
rather than send them links to a dozen articles
that may communicate their respective ideas more effectively.
