Microsoft Killing Encarta

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-microsoft-pulls-the-plug-on-msn-encarta/' target='_blank'>http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/41...on-msn-encarta/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) will discontinue both its MSN Encarta reference Web sites as well as its Encarta software, which have both been surpassed by rising competitors, like Wikipedia. In a message posted on the MSN Encarta Web site, Microsoft says, "Encarta has been a popular product around the world for many years. However, the category of traditional encyclopedias and reference material has changed. People today seek and consume information in considerably different ways than in years past.""</em></p><p>This doesn't come as a big surprise, but I do think it's unfortunate - as much as I enjoy Wikipedia, for research purposes I think it's always important to have more than one source of information. I don't have the paranoia that some people do about inaccurate information on Wikipedia, but having content written by professionals can never be a bad thing as a secondary source of information to fact-check the primary source. Goodbye Encarta; even though I haven't used you in years, I'll still miss you...</p>

[Sven Johannsen]

I don't have the paranoia that some people do about inaccurate information on Wikipedia, but having content written by professionals can never be a bad thing as a secondary source of information to fact-check the primary source.

I and my kids have been out of school for a while and my grandkids aren't writting research papers yet. What's the current feeling/reality. Is Wikipedia a valid source on a High School/College paper these days? I remember spending a good deal of time getting things out of Colliers, Encyclopedia Britannica, and such. That was back when you had to retype it all too. No cut and paste back then.

[randalllewis]

It depends. There are certainly college instructors who forbid use of Wikipedia as a source. I love the idea of Wikipedia, but I am skeptical of lots of the material there. I have personnally experienced the downside of Wikipedia in attempting a minor correction of one item. Apparently the author of that piece monitored it constantly and he really resented any suggestion that something might be wrong or at least unclear. Rather than get involved in the Wiki community over a minor point, I just gave up.

As for Encarta, the multimedia features were its strongest point. I have purchased several editions over the years. It is sad to see it go, but Microsoft has killed off lots of packaged programs over the years as technology made them obsolete or if their sales were limited.

I hope other encylopedia remain viable online because the world needs research sources with professional editors. We can't get by with Wikis alone.

[Jason Dunn]

I have personnally experienced the downside of Wikipedia in attempting a minor correction of one item. Apparently the author of that piece monitored it constantly and he really resented any suggestion that something might be wrong or at least unclear. Rather than get involved in the Wiki community over a minor point, I just gave up.

That's definitely a flaw in the Wiki system - if the primary author of a piece feels like he has "guardianship" over it and refuses to allow changes, well, it's not really a community effort anymore then, is it? :(

I hope other encylopedia remain viable online because the world needs research sources with professional editors. We can't get by with Wikis alone.

What other encyclopedias are left though? :confused:

[Rob Alexander]

I'm sorry to see Encarta go. It's not so much the articles as the great world atlas and other multimedia features that I'll miss. I particularly love the timeline, which can give you a great feeling of the flow of particular historical events, and the datasets that are associated with many of the specialty views in the atlas.

On the Wiki questions, I am a college professor and can tell you how I approach that with my students. First, no encyclopedia is really a very good source for college-level papers. I expect my students to search more in-depth sources. I wouldn't object, however, to them citing an encyclopedia for some simple statement of fact.

My students may not cite Wikipedia as a source because there is no assurance that the things published there are valid. They are not traditionally peer-reviewed as a published encyclopedia is, or a peer-reviewed journal, and some things in it are just plain wrong. Unless you're already an expert on a topic, you'll have no way of knowing what is reliable. I do, however, encourage my students to look at Wikipedia very early in their investigation of a new question because it can set out the issues that help define a topic. One thing that Wikipedia is strong on is showing conflicting views of a topic and it's good for the students to see that. But then, once they know what they are looking for, they must go seek information from reliable sources.

Anyway, Encarta does things that the web alone can't do and it's a shame that it hasn't kept enough of a market to justify it being continued. I'll keep using the current version for a long time.

[Jason Dunn]

I'm sorry to see Encarta go. It's not so much the articles as the great world atlas and other multimedia features that I'll miss. I particularly love the timeline, which can give you a great feeling of the flow of particular historical events, and the datasets that are associated with many of the specialty views in the atlas.

Yeah, I agree. Raw data is something that anyone with knowledge can provide, but a high-quality media production is something that no Wiki will ever provide (at least not with their current business model). So for that reason, it is a shame that Encarta is going away. I think I'll try to pick up a copy at some point...