70 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
70 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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.
|