Changes

By far the most famous of these sets, as well as the best-selling American encyclopedia of any kind, is ''World Book Encyclopedia'', first published in 1918 with 15 volumes, with an expansion to 22 volumes today.  Unlike many other encyclopedias, ''World Book'' is published in volumes that are not uniform from the point of view of length, since each volume covers a specific letter of the alphabet.  The exceptions are C and S which, due to their length are divided into two volumes, while single volumes represent the letters J-K, N-O, Q-R, U-V, and W to Z.  ''World Book'' has a total of 14,300 pages, including about 27,500 photographs or illustrations, with many in color; over 3,800 editors helped write the articles. In the first volume the complete list of the main authors and consultants is given, with a synthetic profile and the topics they dealt with. At the end of most of the entries the name of the author is indicated.

By far the most famous of these sets, as well as the best-selling American encyclopedia of any kind, is ''World Book Encyclopedia'', first published in 1918 with 15 volumes, with an expansion to 22 volumes today.  Unlike many other encyclopedias, ''World Book'' is published in volumes that are not uniform from the point of view of length, since each volume covers a specific letter of the alphabet.  The exceptions are C and S which, due to their length are divided into two volumes, while single volumes represent the letters J-K, N-O, Q-R, U-V, and W to Z.  ''World Book'' has a total of 14,300 pages, including about 27,500 photographs or illustrations, with many in color; over 3,800 editors helped write the articles. In the first volume the complete list of the main authors and consultants is given, with a synthetic profile and the topics they dealt with. At the end of most of the entries the name of the author is indicated.

==Online encyclopedias==

==Online encyclopedias==

The reason for the demise was the availability of the internet as a source of information, and the creation of freely-accessible online encyclopedias.  On March 9, 2000, the Nupedia project was launched. From the very beginning, Nupedia adhered to the principles of a free encyclopedia, using the Nupedia Open Content License first, and then moving to the GNU FDL in early 2001 at the request of Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. After changing the Nupedia license to GFDL, a text appeared on their website<ref>gnu.org/encyclopedia/encyclopedia.html</ref> about the decision to combine the GNUpedia (the original, Linux-system based name) and Nupedia projects and urging visitors to GNU.org to contribute to the free encyclopedia. Instead of "open content encyclopaedia", Nupedia received the slogan "free encyclopedia", which was later inherited by Wikipedia. But despite the status of a free encyclopedia, Nupedia was not a wiki site, and writing texts was allowed only to certified specialists after the approval of the preliminary application.

The reason for the demise was the availability of the internet as a source of information, and the creation of freely-accessible online encyclopedias.  On March 9, 2000, the Nupedia project was launched. From the very beginning, Nupedia adhered to the principles of a free encyclopedia, using the Nupedia Open Content License first, and then moving to the GNU FDL in early 2001 at the request of Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. After changing the Nupedia license to GFDL, a text appeared on their website<ref>gnu.org/encyclopedia/encyclopedia.html</ref> about the decision to combine the GNUpedia (the original, Linux-system based name) and Nupedia projects and urging visitors to GNU.org to contribute to the free encyclopedia. Instead of "open content encyclopaedia", Nupedia received the slogan "free encyclopedia", which was later inherited by Wikipedia. But despite the status of a free encyclopedia, Nupedia was not a wiki site, and writing texts was allowed only to certified specialists after the approval of the preliminary application.

Despite the great resonance and interest in the project, only 2 articles were written in six months and Nupedia never became a successful project. In order to speed up the process of replenishing Nupedia with articles, Wikipedia was opened on January 15, 2001, and which was using the Mediawiki program. In the early months of Wikipedia, success was amazing; Wikipedia attracted new participants, as well as Nupedia participants who switched to the new project. Soon, Wikipedia began to function completely independently of Nupedia. Supporters of GNUPedia and the Free Software Foundation liked Wikipedia, who were opposed to article checking and were very worried about bureaucracy.  Nupedia was closed on September 26, 2003, its articles were moved to Wikipedia. By the time of the closure, 2.5 years after the start of work, Nupedia had only 24 ready-made articles and more than 74 unfinished articles.

Despite the great resonance and interest in the project, only 2 articles were written in six months and Nupedia never became a successful project. In order to speed up the process of replenishing Nupedia with articles, Wikipedia was opened on January 15, 2001, and was powered by the Mediawiki program. In the early months of Wikipedia, success was amazing; Wikipedia attracted new participants, as well as Nupedia participants who switched to the new project. Soon, Wikipedia began to function completely independent of Nupedia. Supporters of GNUPedia and the Free Software Foundation liked Wikipedia, who were opposed to article checking and were very worried about bureaucracy.  Nupedia was closed on September 26, 2003, its articles were moved to Wikipedia. By the time of the closure, 2.5 years after the start of work, Nupedia had only 24 ready-made articles and more than 74 unfinished articles.

The disadvantages generated by Wikipedia, however, is not accessibility for destructive influences (trolling, vandalism, etc), but internal inconsistency; few articles are linked to others in what would normally be a thematic flow that made ''Britannica'' and others decisive in their works.  Lack of competent, credible authorship is also a major factor; unlike printed encyclopedias, the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia are written by amateurs with little to no expertise in the fields that they are writing about, with some of these writers being in the news for the scandals they have created<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1544737/Fake-Wikipedia-prof-altered-20000-entries.html</ref><ref>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/most-notorious-wikipedia-scandals.html</ref><ref>https://www.cnet.com/news/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr-scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/</ref><ref>https://thinkprogress.org/wikipedia-editors-uncover-extortion-scam-and-extensive-cybercrime-syndicate-d4949ebf47c8/</ref>.  

The disadvantages generated by Wikipedia, however, is not accessibility for destructive influences (trolling, vandalism, etc), but internal inconsistency; few articles are linked to others in what would normally be a thematic flow that made ''Britannica'' and others decisive in their works.  Lack of competent, credible authorship is also a major factor; unlike printed encyclopedias, the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia are written by amateurs with little to no expertise in the fields that they are writing about, with some of these writers being in the news for the scandals they have created<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1544737/Fake-Wikipedia-prof-altered-20000-entries.html</ref><ref>https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/most-notorious-wikipedia-scandals.html</ref><ref>https://www.cnet.com/news/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr-scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/</ref><ref>https://thinkprogress.org/wikipedia-editors-uncover-extortion-scam-and-extensive-cybercrime-syndicate-d4949ebf47c8/</ref>.

==References==

==References==