Comments on: Why I’ll miss Microsoft Encarta

By: Catherine

Catherine — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:16:17 +0000

I remember having Encarta on CD-ROM – it was great for year 9 geography projects – with the slight downside that everyone else in the class would have the same images as you. Sad to see it go but not suprised.

From what I’ve heard/read, peer-review amongst academics is becoming more common on wikipedia, particularly (obviously) on more in-depth scientific articles.

Also heard a rumour that wikipedia have asked for the encarta content to be donated, not sure how reliable that one is though!

By: Mike Jennings

Mike Jennings — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:43:45 +0000

GillsMan – very interesting! I’ll have to confess now that I never actually completed MindMaze, although I had plenty of fun trying. Quite intruiging to finally found out about the prize that you got for finishing it!

By: GillsMan

GillsMan — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:36:04 +0000

I remember Encarta fondly as well. MindMaze was brilliant and if I recall correctly your prize for completing the maze was a little mini game where you would be asked for a verb, a noun, a common noun, etc, and the words you entered would make up a story, so I could produce such funny results as:

“DAVID BECKHAM was FARTING with his CAT FOOD in GILLINGHAM … ” and so on.

By: Print Banners

Print Banners — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:39:35 +0000

This reminds me of when they started saying encyclopedias were obsolete due to the computer and Encarta. Now the cycle has taken a new turn and its sad to hear that something I grew up studying with (nearly 6-years, Im still young) will be put down.

By: Sanjay

Sanjay — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:34:08 +0000

I, too, will miss the passing away of Encarta. Browsing through Encarta used to be a pleasurable experience. I can’t say I feel the same about Wikipedia. Apart from the suspect content, there is a marked difference in style of writing and general presentation of information. I sincerely hope that a scholarly alternative to Wikipedia appears in the not-too-distant future.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:12:31 +0000

This constant “oooh, Wikipedia contains wrong stuff!” truism is getting boring now. Have you guys taken a critical eye to peer reviewed scientific and academic studies? Or books written by experts? They’re littered with deliberate lies, half-truths, omissions, and simple innacuracies.

Wikipedia is no exception. The only thing it does worse is to contain amusing bits of vandalism, but it is your call whether to take a cursory glance at the reference.

By: Mike Jennings

Mike Jennings — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:12:49 +0000

Wikipedia may have its faults, sure, but it seems that the people who question its integrity and accuracy are in the minority – even if they’re right for questioning its accuracy, since having incorrect information in medical fields (as Steve pointed out) can be potentially life-threatening.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia is now the de facto place to go, it seems, if you need to find out something quickly. I think it’s a shame that this is the case and professionally-research sources are falling by the wayside despite their numerous advantages.

By: Steve Cassidy

Steve Cassidy — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:38:10 +0000

Without wishing to seem like the peanut gallery here, I’d take issue with the whole idea of a wone-stop shop for any kind of knowledge. We are already accustomed to the right to a second opinion when we seek medical knowledge, for instance: the natural monopolism of the computer business isn’t always a good thing when it comes to fields that computers have made more accessible.

By: Stephen Ferns

Stephen Ferns — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:17:29 +0000

You would think, if MS were nice, that they would offer the contect of Encarta to a project like Wikipedia and give them the beginning of something to make a Wikipedia alternative

By: DaveButch

DaveButch — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:34:49 +0000

Wikipedia is so inaccurate as to be almost redundant in the modern idiom in my view.