I'm looking for a recent (post-WWII) critical review of the
Encyclopedia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1911). The more recent the
better. The more scholarly the better. The more inclusive of the
Encyclopedia as a whole (not individual articles or categories).
Looking for scholarly comments on its value and worth as a research
source today and errors it contains. The most recent reviews I could
fund were from the 1920-30s. Any help appreciated!

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 01 Aug 2006 19:05 PDT

The wikipedia entry on EB-1911 is a good critique in its own right,
and makes mention (and some links) to some fairly recent reviews:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_Eleventh_Edition


Does that do the trick?


pafalafa-ga

---

Clarification of Question by stbalbach-ga on 01 Aug 2006 21:18 PDT

Wikipedia won't work, need a published source.

---

Clarification of Question by stbalbach-ga on 01 Aug 2006 21:20 PDT

I'm actually the one who wrote the Wikipedia article, but I need
sources to back up the "21st century" section of the article.

LMAO!!  

Paf, I want you to know that as far as I know, you and I are the only
two Researchers that have cited a clients OWN WORK as our source. I
got you beat though, I actually ANSWERED with the clients own
newspaper article as my source!

Check it out:

Q: (Old) Mr. Boston bartender's guide and liquor company 
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=288321

He was right, I should have put it together, but somehow I managed to
miss it, and Google crawled the Boston Globe site. I found the Q again
near expiration, checked again, and answered.. Funny stuff.

Hi,
Then maybe I am the only commenter to post a link to the questioner's
own website in response to his question,  Harrison Pope's about
amnesia  (and I thought I was so clever to have found something
pertinent ...).

LMAO again myoarin!!  That's toooo funny!

Yeah, Cynth, taught me to notice who the questioner is.

Back to the question here:  it seems unlikely that in the last few
years there will have been new critical reviews of EB 1911, since it
is now so old, and knowledge has advanced so far in the last 20, 30
(?) years, that everyone who reads encyclopediae recognizes that it
has become outdated, a document of its era, despite its once great
reputation.  (I grew up with the understanding that its articles were
written by the senior persons in each field.)
A generation ago, print was still the primary medium for information,
but now the web has become the immediate source (e.g., Wikipedia). 
Why would anyone write a critical review, and who would publish it,
except  - as you have done -  to briefly document EB 1911's reputation
for those who find a reference to it and need to know.

I certainly enjoyed your article.  Had to click on "pathetic fallacy",
but the ability to do so is what makes Wikipedia such an enlightening
source.
Thanks, Myoarin