Which type of references do you prefer?

Ah, well, that poll was created to test code, so I know I missed some stuff. Plus, there's a limit of 10 choices per poll. Hang on, I may be able to add to it (but you won't be able to change your answer if you've already selected something).

well it worked

Interesting comments about why one made a choice one way or the other in the poll here!

Of special interest is the split I see between those who would automatically think in terms of books/hard copy/hard publications and those who think of reference as a concept. My thought is that I visualize the "concept" of 'reference' first, it is an easy jump to selecting the Internet, since its Omnipotent, or Omnivarous or omigoshjustplainHUGE.

I will always treasure and use any reference books I have - and I have far more non-fiction than otherwise. There is something for me that will never replace the joy of holding a certain weight of a book in hand, smelling the "new book smell", or maybe paging through pages gilded ever so delicately on the edges.

As an artist, I see the huge advantages that young people have in learning and using computer graphics programs and systems. Yet I will always be glad that I went to art school at the last time one learned to draw all diagrams with templates, mylar, ruling pens, technical pens, and "paste-up".

I am free to learn more skills to pile on top of my foundation of graphic skills and I am able to function graphically without the new bells and whistles. As to reference, I think that the Internet is not what 'we' see as a 'reference' - for we have been trained in basics of selection of content whereas young people only using the computer may not have that critical thinking component of making thoughtful and effecient choices.

At one time, it was 'bemoaned' that the public was getting all their 'information' from fewer and fewer sources. Such a paradox now - we have literally the 'world' for reference, but in actuality, isn't it just as limiting as our own training or imaginations? And, lets not EVEN think about the need for 'speed' - or "Hey, if I can't find out the info NOW NOW NOW fugedaboudit!"

I picked almanacs, because I like books that I can find all types of different things in. Of course, the house is full of dictionaries but almanacs hold a special place in my heart.

I use the net more and more, particularly for medical information.

I think children shouldn't be allowed to use the net until they have demonstrated some critical thinking ability. I see friends plop their kids in front of the puter to do their homework, and while the kids can look up anything, they don't know how to put anything into context. It's all just a pile of goop to so many of them. Frightening.

Well, I am clearly a weirdo because, if given a choice, I prefer to use a knowledgeable person as a beginning resource. This is especially so since they can give you ideas about good books or references on a topic.

I find the net good for research too - but I find it especially helpful if I have some basic knowledge about a topic first.

Deb

I totally disagree that an almanac is "for sports fans only." That's where you look up last year's current events, that's the fastest way to find out who is the US Ambassador to Mauritania (or wherever) etc. I use every one of these tools. Since the 'net is still something of a novelty to me, I use it as a last resort, in desperation when I've failed to figure out where to look it up in a book. Comes from having gone to college back in the days when a computer was something used by large corporations to keep track of billing information.

Earlier today, i was reading about the results of a study in Israel. Children using computers regularly have poorer scores on a number of academic scales. Apparently, the largest discrepancy was in grade 4 students' math scores. The problem was more noticeable with boys, who also rated computers as being more important than girls did. I'll have to track down more info on that study - i love anything that backs up what i already believe! (i know that's just awful ...).

To clarify my answer of the Internet, I guess to be fair is I use all of the choices listed but I find them on the Web. The only books I am using these days are for quotations (I love to browse). As was earlier posted, it does take some sorting through to find the 'right stuff,' but it's there and for me it's quick!

OK, I, too have to 'fess up. I actually have several dictionaries in my 'puter files, including one on Australian slang (that's so I'll know what Dlowan and Margo are on about). I even have a Merriam-Webster dictionary among my off-line programs, so I can refer to it if I'm not on line. However, I generally forget that they're there. I'll run straight to the bookshelf when a question comes up, instead of just clicking away.

Merry Andrew- I do almost all of my research on the net now. The exception is government documents. I wanted to look up some Medicare info for my mom. When I got the government booklet on Medicare on the net, it was in pdf. files, which I usually don't care for anyway.

The booklet was so darn long, that I was getting dizzy attempting to find what I wanted. I still think that there are certain references better read from real paper!

Jes I prefer knowledgeable people. Those who listen, read, watch, learn and think things through. Even if I don't agree a thoughtful opinion is a treasure to me. And must admit that is what I would aspire to but as you know I tend to open mouth, insert foot, then duck and run, lol.

I use all of those print resources and, of course, the Net. The majority of print resources are books, clippings, and files that I've accumulated like barnacles attached to my boat. It is difficult to keep the books in manageable numbers. Finally I disposed of the Papiamento Dictionary, as I might never return to the island where it is the official language, Curacao. -- I do try to evaluate my resources as to reliability, using several criteria. And I admit to loving footnotes. Given the choice between reading the main text, and reading only the footnotes but not the main text, I'd choose the footnotes any time. I learned in graduate school that oftentimes there are "violent" battles among scholars which are held in the musty columns of footnotes. I'm peculiar in other ways, too.

I can dig that, Aa, and for want of a "gold star", I'll give you a for that response.

I enjoy a footnote for the reasons you give, so long as it is substantive and not a mere opus citato of an obscure source -- e.g., one glimpsed by the author in a Papua New Guinean cellar.

I like a book which has extensive notes which shed a great deal of light on the material. A case in point is my Penguin paperback Moby Dick. Edited by one, Harold Beaver, in addition to Melville's own notes on Etymology and his "Extracts" from various authors and sources on Leviathan and whaling in general, and his dedication to Nathaniel Hawthorne (to the extent that "Call me Ishmael" is not spotted until one has been under sail for some 93 pages) the edition contains over 200 pages of appended notes which are entainingly infomative, illuminating matters of a philosopical, religious and moral nature, as well as a great quantity of sexual innuendoes, all which might otherwise fall through the cracks as one reads the story of Ahab and his nemesis.

I also like the short footnotes which appear throughout my Bartlett's.

Footnotes, I agree with you both, are not only enlightening and illuminating but, often, fun reading as well. I recall, back in high school days, reading Frank Yerby's The Saracen Blade and being enormously impressed that the author had footnoted a swashbuckling Medieval romance, largely to assure the reader that the historical background and detail were, indeed, accurate.

There is another side to the coin, however. One reason I find T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land somewhat tedious is because the poet has foornoted his own poem. It seems to me that if a bard finds it necessary to do this, he/she has failed to convey the proper poetic sense to one's work. If I can't understand what a poet is trying to say, then please leave me with the illusion that the fault is mine and I am a dolt. Don't compound the obscurity by trying to explain it via glosses.

I think I like the thesaurus best because I
like words... and I like alternate ways of
saying the same thing, or very closely to
the same thing. I took some kind of test
once, and it seems that my "type" is
that of the "word warrior" whatever that
may mean. I enjoy leafing through the
thesaurus just for fun.... it may sound
quite odd.. but I really do love words.
My second love is photography, but I
must admit, I am better at words than at
photography. I am just between amateur
and getting to know what I'm doing, it is
an exciting place to be.

This has prolly been said before, but it depends on the info you're looking for, and what you need it for.

Generally, I much prefer a knowledgable person. Not that I'm too lazy to get out an almanac, but people add depth, insight and interest.

I am so grateful to this site, largely due to being able to "sit at the knee" of people like Craven, Letty, timber, Asherman, roger, georgeob1, blatham, Lightwizard and many others who have either gifts or knowledge in a certain area.

I would get an almanac to cross-reference some facts, or the 'net for recent facts.

I use them all, plus some specialist tomes.

Book references are great for portability but slow to access the data.
Computer/Internet references are not so portable but very fast in accessing the data.

Symbiosis is the key.

On my bookshelf-
Encyclopdia
Dictionary
Descriptionary
Thesaurus
Super Thesaurus
World Almanac 2003
Time Almanac 2003
The Word Detective
Ultimate Trivia Encyclopedia
Cultural Literacy Triva Guide
Super Crossword Dictionary 2000

A wealth of cat, dog, wild animal resource and reference books

It depends entirely on what you need. I can't pass any kind of reference book without being drawn in, and that includes the book called "the internet". If you could weigh words for their value, I would have to say the dictionary is the heaviest. It is the most compact expression of all reference books and covers every conceivable topic.

A couple of years ago on Abuzz, we were all looking for the definition of H.L. Mencken's ecdysiast. It couldn't be found on the internet for some reason, I know I searched and searched. Then I remembered that I sat ten feet from a copy of Mencken's American Language, voila, almost two full pages on the word, its definition and creation. Sometimes this wondrous technology blinds us to simpler solutions.

My favorite reference books are

compact Oxford English Dictionary (comes with magnifying glass!)
Oxford Companion to English Literature
Benet's Reader's Encyclopedia
Ephraim Katz' Film Encyclopedia
Webster's New Geographical Dictionary
New York Public Library Desk Reference
Timetables of History
Great Books for Every Book Lover
Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever
Bookplots
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy


For me it is much more enriching to find the answers with books - I'm more thorough and take the time to savor the information.