vault backup: 2026-04-12 02:38:27

timestamped/2026-04-11_16-20-11.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+id: 2026-04-11T16:20:11-04:00
+aliases: []
+title: 2026-04-11 16:20:11
+tags:
+  - authorship/original
+  - destiny/permanent
+  - status/draft
+  - type/periodic/timestamped
+dg-publish: true
+date-created: 2026-04-11T16:20:11-04:00
+daily: "[[2026-04-11]]"
+weekly: "[[2026-W15]]"
+monthly: "[[2026-04]]"
+quarterly: "[[2026-Q2]]"
+yearly: "[[2026]]"
+---
+# 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.