If they're put online by a known (reliable) encyclopedia, then yes. But something like wikipedia would not.
2007-02-04 07:33:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
For me indeed yes, and even more. The reason for me is that the encyclopedias in book form may be very heavy for my poor wrists, and of many volumes that fill a lot on shelves. Furthermore they may only provide years' old knowledge because revisions and additions can only be got thru new editions. The encyclopedias I may have access to thru the Internet may give the newest or revised information that oftenmost is necessary here and now.
Another detail about encyclopedic tomes as well as about all books in general, is that old books are stinking when you open them and when they are many, even more stinking than a computer's cpu in function.
Of course encyclopedias in the traditional book form may look quite impressive and beautiful on book-shelves at home, but they take the place of many monographs unless you have very abundant place in your home library for all the books you want to have.
2007-02-11 02:19:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by pasquale garonfolo 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes and no. Although you can get alot of information on the web, the information may not be accurate. You just have to know what is accurate and what isn't. That can be difficult if you're not familiar with the subject.
2007-02-12 04:32:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tina 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
In my opinion, "online" is an encyclopedia in itself! (I couldn't ask for a better one)
2007-02-10 23:03:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by keyslagoon 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Some are better than others. Wikipedia can be good, but it is best treated with some skepticism. Encarta is one which I never use, having found it to be riddled with errors and inaccuracies.
2007-02-12 01:23:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ben B 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
y wouldnt they be... yeah
2007-02-11 13:44:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by Blonde Gal 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
yes they do,,
2007-02-11 08:45:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by jerry 7
·
1⤊
0⤋