Talk:World Book Encyclopedia

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books: Reference works This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles This article is supported by the Reference works task force. Resource Exchange If you have access to this resource, or if you need to verify a citation from this reference, check out WikiProject Resource Exchange.Resource ExchangeWikipedia:WikiProject Resource ExchangeTemplate:WikiProject Resource ExchangeResource Exchange articles Illinois Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Chicago Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Most schools have a copy of the World Book encyclopedia.

I took the above line out because I would like to see something backing up the statement. Is it referring to most schools in the world? Or most schools in North America or Europe? The extensive list of sales reps around the world [1] suggests it is widespread as well as high-selling, but I think the statement needs either factual backup or qualifying. Hope someone can help. -- Sam

I don't think most British schools have one. We're more likely to have Britannica. Secretlondon 21:18, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Most schools in India don't have any encyclopedias MCCAGE (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a set of the world book and on the front page it clearly says 1924. wikipedia says none were made during that year and I'm wondering if its from '23 or '25 then. Any input would be great

My 1965 edititon was printed in 1964. Perhaps that is the reason. Bubba73 (talk), 00:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine's from 1924 too so this is really confusing me 213 MxzK →→→ 22:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, Apple includes World Book with all consumer computers, not just iBooks. --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 05:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Apple seems to have discontinued, or at the very least, muted this practice — World Book 2006 is not currently shipping with the Dual Core iMac. This may be due to Rosetta incompatibilities, but such a reason seems unlikely since Software MacKiev has already released the appropriate Universal Binary Updates. Regardless, we should probably qualify the remarks in the article with a "virtually all" or "until recently". ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 15:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote in the article that World Book Encyclopedia is the most up-to-date encyclopedia one can buy. This can be verified by clicking on the link accompanying the statement and scrolling down to the section of the page titled "Features".

Reverting change,

Primetime 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patently, wikipedia is the most up-to-date encyclopedia, smashing World Book's piddly 20% article revisions a year with hundreds of changes every hour. Though, I guess they have fewer vandalism issues... at least not until the volumes make it into schools. --zippedmartin 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikpedia gets edited every minute and is automatically fact checked by experts to ensure accuracy and lack of POV, right?? Right??? WRONG!!!! It's full of armchair 'experts' and vandals. No wonder no respectable institution of learning will accept it as a legitimate source. Gawd, you're a twit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.81.2 (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be true that it's more up to date. I rarely read anything in Wikipedia except to edit it, though, because the factual accuracy is much worse and the style very choppy. If I ever do read anything in Wikipedia, I always double-check it somewhere else. Wikipedia's strength, in my opinion, is that it's the largest encyclopedia available--although I doubt it will ever be used in an academic setting.
--Primetime 03:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the dispute is over World Book's claim that it "...continues to revise almost 20% [of its pages], making it the most up-to-date encyclopedia you can buy". Even if we trust they've carefully researched the up-to-date-ness of not only US and non-US English language competitors, but also non-English competitors, there's obviously a huge gap between yearly-printing and anyone-can-edit. You could however, let this through currently on the technicality that you can't actually *purchase* en.wikipedia yet, in a formal manner - you *could* pay someone to give you a copy on dvd or whatever, within the terms of the GDFL. As for accuracy, anyone who doesn't double check what *any* source says before citing it somewhere important deserves every bit of pain they get. --zippedmartin 07:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, (at least at my school), World Book is considered as a professional high-quality source, while Wikipedia is considered at best a site for interesting personal surfing. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

You aren't supposed to take anything you read at face value in /any/ encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are secondary sources, intended as a brief overview, and if it matters so much whether the facts are completely accurate and NPOV, you need to do your own verification. This is why encyclopedias are unacceptable in most bibliographies (after high school). You can argue that WB is "professionally reviewed" (which it is) or WP is "peer reviewed" (which it is) until you're blue in the face, but the fact is they're all intended only to give you an overview so you know what to look for next. -- Bilbo1507 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "This is why encyclopedias are unacceptable in most bibliographies (after high school)" statement above, that was not always true. When I was doing research/term papers in high school and college, most teachers told their students TO USE encyclopedia sets as main and primary sources. Occasionally, I would have a teacher who limited the number of different general encyclopedia sets (like World Book, Britannica, Grolier's, Funk & Wagnall's) cited/referenced in a bibliography to three. However, if it was a specialized encyclopedia set, there was no limit. Then, there are those one-volume reference books that have "encyclopedia" as part of their name. Again, my teachers would not limit how many of those that could be listed in a bibliography.

I know I'm dating myself, but even my 1995 Master's thesis had 1 generic (Funk & Wagnall's) and 8 specialized encyclopedias in the bibliography and no one questioned their inclusion or use as a source.

Just thought I'd say something in defense of encyclopedias used for research/term papers. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have the G volume from the 1959 set. From the front page:

THE WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA

In Eighteen Volumes and Reading and Study Guide

AppleMacReporter 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the early 1970s the Reading and Study Guide was Volume 22. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Through the fifties, sixties and at least the early seventies World Book was published by Field Educational Corporation. This was owned by the family of Marshall Field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.167.214 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Some of the references for statements such as "it is also the most up-to-date encyclopedia sold, with 20% of its pages revised each year" are sections of the World Book website. These references are patently not independent and as a result they are not suitable for supporting such claims. I've edited the text to make the sources of these claims more clear add added some citation needed flags. Surely there are some recent reviews of World Book which can be cited? --Nick Dowling 10:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by hard-banned user removed.

Being the most up-to-date encyclopædia isn't a policy, it's a claim that needs to be substantiated, and the publisher's claims aren't sufficient for that.

And before you ask yet again, no, I don't know the work; it's pretty well unknown here, so far as I'm aware. Moreover, I don't find much use for general reference works. None of that is relevant; we're talking about the principles of article writing, for which one needs to know nothing about the subject.

At the moment the article is deeply deficient. For example, it starts with a marketing claim, which no article should do, and the whole piece is full of unsubstantiated (and parochial) statements about its significance. I've added an NPoV tag, in the hope that we'll get some more attention from a wider range of editors. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Predictably, User:67.165.216.16 simply reverted my edits, including the removal of the NPoV template. If he or she continues in this way, it will lead to an editing block. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user was blocked. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has ought to be a photograph of the most recent World Book (print edition) in this article.

I don't know that there ought to be one, but if you want one, you only have to take a photograph and up-load it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much more detailed information about World Book and its history and origins can be found here: http://www.answers.com/topic/world-book-inc. Some of that info really should be factored into the Wikipedia article (as that link puts Wikipedia article to shame). Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an apparent edit war over the design description as "populist." This term has a political meaning. Please consult the article, populist, before you use the term. Thank you, Dogru144 (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a big mistake. "Popular" might make sense, but it's hardly necessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link's broken. Interchangeable|talk to me 16:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on World Book Encyclopedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indiana.edu/~librcsd/libguide/ency/12.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there is absolutely no mention of "The World Book Encyclopedia Cyclo•teacher Learning Aid."

When my parents bought our family's first World Book in 1964, it came with the Childcraft set and the Cyclo•teacher -- which I still have in working order!

The Cyclo•teacher is a unique educational, and fun, learning device. It's a manually operated machine much like a ViewMaster. There are circular two-sided inserts covering Study Skills, Mathematics, Language Arts, Social Studies, Science, and Identification. Each insert (or "Cycle" or "Wheel") has 30 inquiries (15 per side) and there are answer inserts to figure out the answer and write it down. You then slide a lever and the inserts rotate so that the answer appears and you can check to see if what you figured & wrote is correct. Twenty yellow (12) and green (8) blank wheels were also provided in order to customize for certain abilities, levels, and interests. Each section starts out rather simplistically and the wheels increase in difficulty the higher you go on the wheels' numbers. The wheels are color-coded for ease of use. The Study Skills section is 'light' green and has 28 wheels. The Mathematics section is pink and has 114 wheels. The remaining sections are --

Language Arts pale blue 36 wheels

Social Studies orange 36 wheels

Science (identification, terminology, & vocabulary) light brown 36 wheels

Identification yellow 18 wheels

Plus 2 wheels on Beginning Numbers, 6 wheels on counting like items, 9 wheels on Using Letter in Words (a form of spelling and identification), and 4 wheels on Beginning Manuscript Writing (forming upper & lower case letters by printing -- NOT cursive).

Though most wheels are dated 1964, there are several dated 1962.

To me, this "Learning Aid" is a very important part of the encyclopedia; and, as such, I think the "Cyclo•teacher" should have its own section in the World Book entry. 2600:8800:784:1E00:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

I would like to add a section for Cyclo-Teacher, as I too remember having one as a kid in the 70's. Unfortunately there is not a whole lot of source material for research. Even the official WorldBook web site does not have any mention of it in their 'About Us' page. I would have like to have been able to find out when the first and last edition of Cyclo-Teachers came out as well as any information about its developers and contributors. I know it was probably around the mid 60's to early 70's but I would like to accurately date it if I was to make an entry. For now, I would just suggest adding an entry in their 'Associated Publishing Projects' or even create a separate list to include non-book related products which this would fall under.

--Deano252 (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have two of the 'devices.' One states "patent pending" and one has a Patent Number. Looking up the Patent Number, it has a date of mid to late 1964 (I didn't write it down and don't remember the month and day).

As such, I would suggest an "origination" of "1964." Unfortunately, I don't know how long World Book or its publisher supported the Cyclo-teacher. But I do know there was a "50th Anniversary" edition which, I believe, was for the company's anniversary, not the Cyclo-teacher itself.

A "50th Annivery" phrase was printed in gold on the 'device.'

And though I did not state it in my original entry above, I still have the original with all of the original stuff in pristine working condition (the storage case is a little worse for wear). 2600:8800:785:8500:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a slight mismatch in the 22 September anon edit: they give the price as $1999 as of 2022, but the 2022 encyclopedia is $999. Pre-orders for the 2023 encyclopedia are $1999. So, not actually wrong, but confusing, but probably also not worth changing because of the required wordiness. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]