2.4 KiB
id, title, tags, date-created, daily
| id | title | tags | date-created | daily | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-11T16:20:11-0400 | 2026-04-11 16:20:11 |
|
2026-04-11T16:20:11-04:00 | 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.