If an almost-full set of 1969 World Book encyclopedias were offered to you

[Hyacinth]

Would you take them?

 

My neighbor is offering. On one hand, they're obviously outdated, the set isn't complete, and I don't really have room for them on my shelves (though I've been meaning to another culling.

 

On the other hand, books!

[AK_Mom4]

Nope.

I love old books - the feel, the smell! But I would not give up much-needed shelf space to encyclopedias that would not get used here.

[KungFuPanda]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Obsolete bricks robbing you of square footage. No hoarding! Books are not exempt!

[Mommy22alyns]

Nope!

[EKS]

No.

[Dmmetler]

We used a set of old encyclopedias for the kids to make monster book of monsters in a homeschool co-op. My DD enjoyed reading hers (she had the letter I), as did some of the other kids :). So maybe find an altered book project?

[Daria]

Maybe for a short term thing, if they were going to be thrown out otherwise.  I think you could do a fun study on checking sources, and seeing how much the world has changed in 46 years, using it, maybe comparing 1969 and 2015 articles on things etc . . .

 

But beyond that, no.  We have access to online encyclopedias and other sources of current information. 

[rose]

You could use them for collages but other than that NO WAY!

[J-rap]

No.  We do all of our general research online now.  Plus, those are neither up-to-date or old enough to be interesting.

 

 

[umsami]

I'd take them just for the nostalgic factor.  We used to have an old set of Encyclopedias....and even though they were somewhat out of date, I loved the 1950s/60s photographs and illustrations.  

[regentrude]

No. Outdated, space hogging, impractical. And OTOH not old enough to be valuable.

[Amy in NH]

We took my IL's set which was complete with all of the "yearbook" updates, kept them on a living room shelf for ~5 years where they were never used, and then freecycled them.  Anything we might want to look up is more accessible on the internet, and now we have (a lot) more space for other things.

[Onceuponatime]

No, I'm currently thinking of getting rid of our 1995 set.

[Spryte]

No.

[meena]

I love books, but no.

[SparklyUnicorn]

no

 

 

[Guest]

Nope nope nope.

[MercyA]

I love books and I love free stuff, but no way.

[sassenach]

Another no. 

[Lady Florida.]

No. They're outdated, nearly useless, and would take up too much valuable space in my home.

 

 

[Guest]

At some point, books become paper that needs to be recycled. There is nothing sacred about old encyclopedias.

[Ellie]

Incomplete? No room? No.

 

OTOH, if they had been complete, and you had room, they would still be fun.

[Guest]

Mine is older than that. No way would I part with it unless I could have it digitized and maybe not even then.

 

My grandbabies and I are going to have so much fun with it whenever they get around to being conceived and born. <3

[Luanne]

Yes, I would.  I love encyclopedias and unlike a lot of people on here I don't care about being "politically correct".  The old ones speak the truth and now everyone gets offended if you dare speak the truth.

[Word Nerd]

Nope!

[Robin M]

Yes, Yes, Yes.   We have an old 1970's set and the new set.  Much has changed and it is interesting to compare. What is left out and what is added.   It would be worth it for historical value - both physical and learning wise.  

[Heatherwith4]

If I had the space I definitely would. I'm sentimental about World Books as I used to devour my grandparents' set growing up.

 

I don't have enough space, so I'd have to say no.

[Hilltop]

I would not take them... Especially if I didn't have the space.

[Amira]

I grew up with a set of encyclopedias from the early 1960s and they were seriously out of date thirty years ago. We were always telling my parents they were too old. 50yo encyclopedias are useless to me. Even if I didn't have Internet access or a library, I still wouldn't want them.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yes, I would.  I love encyclopedias and unlike a lot of people on here I don't care about being "politically correct".  The old ones speak the truth and now everyone gets offended if you dare speak the truth.

 

I'm curious as to the truths they speak.

[poppy]

No. Just like I wouldn't take a globe that listed USSR or the Ottoman Empire It may an interesting artifact, but it's useless as a resource.

[Lisbeth]

No - see the thread about Marie Kondo to see why I wouldn't.  ;)

[Lady Florida.]

Yes, I would.  I love encyclopedias and unlike a lot of people on here I don't care about being "politically correct".  The old ones speak the truth and now everyone gets offended if you dare speak the truth.

 

Could you give a specific example of something in an old set that is true compared to the same topic in a newer set that is untrue?

[Okra]

No.  Too much space taken.

[Guest]

Guys, don't expect a response from L. This is her MO. Post an inflammitory statement and then walk away.

[Corraleno]

I'm curious as to the truths they speak.

 

We will win the war in Vietnam, Nixon is going to be an awesome president, Rhodesia will always be part of Britain, King Idris will rule Libya for years to come, and there's no such thing as AIDS or the Internet! Things were so much truthier before 1969, we should really just ignore everything that's happened since.

[Corraleno]

And to answer the OP's question: I would LOVE to have a free set of old encyclopedias, which I'd use for all kinds of cool art projects.

[Hyacinth]

I'm passing on them. Thanks for speaking truth to my momentary nostalgia.

[OneStepAtATime]

I think you made the right choice.  

 

FWIW, I have 3 old sets of encyclopedias (or rather my mom does).  All outdated, some extremely so.  No one wants them.  Why?  Because they take up a ton of space and because they really are outdated.  Would it be interesting to do a study comparing each of the encyclopedias and how they handled various topics (one is from the 50's, one the 70's and one the 80's IRRC), then compare that to the info of today?  Sure.  And maybe I will if Mom doesn't need the space any time soon.  Otherwise, they are just dead weight.  I told her to donate them if she needed to clear out shelves but even the local donation place doesn't want them.

[sunflowerlady]

I am with umsami, Luanne and Robin M. I would take them! I love and collect vintage goods. Of course, I have to keep in mind whether I would have room etc. I declutter fairly regularly.

 

I have the encylopedia set that my parents bought when I was a young child. The 1972 World Book set. I recall using it when I was in school for reasearch and reports. 

 

And, like unsami, I love looking at the old pictures etc.

[SKL]

If I didn't have any other nonfiction books, I would consider it.  However, because I have thousands, that would be a no.  It might be an awkward no, but I couldn't do it.  As it is I am so cramped for space.

[Hunter]

The "Family" articles tend to be very different. Articles on religions have changed a lot.

 

Most of the plant and animal articles are current. Lots of the biographies are fine, unless a more liberal worldview is essential to you.

 

When my boys were growing up, we has several broken sets of encyclopedias from all different decades. We talked a lot about which sets were best for what.

 

Most of us have options now that we didn't have back in the 90's. Collecting free encyclopedia volumes was the cheapest and least bulky option available to us. Once we got a computer and a couple CDROM encyclopedias, we started culling our older hardcopies.

[LucyStoner]

No.

 

Space.

 

Incomplete.

 

Out of date (political geography, science and many other fields have changed so much).

 

Not old enough to be a look into another world.

[Kerileanne99]

I'm curious as to the truths they speak.

I know, right?

Tonight after I get the kids in bed I am going to open each one of the old set gathering dust on the shelves in our library in the hopes that I will be bathed in the golden light of Truths I must have missed out on😄 Who knew the things were so valuable?!

[Tap]

another no vote!

[LucyStoner]

I know, right?

Tonight after I get the kids in bed I am going to open each one of the old set gathering dust on the shelves in our library in the hopes that I will be bathed in the golden light of Truths I must have missed out on😄 Who knew the things were so valuable?!

Maybe it passes our understanding or it is from an alternate universe. The USSR never dissolved and the Berlin Wall is still standing? Also the GDP and economic structure of China hasn't changed from 1970s onwards.

 

These are not the sort of facts that are politically correct or incorrect. The are either correct/current or incorrect/out of date. I don't recall using an Encyclopedia for much that was really a matter of debate. The exports of Peru are the exports of Peru and the flag of South Korea is the flag of South Korea. Until it isn't anymore because it's changed over time.

[Audrey]

I grew up with a 1969 set of World Book Encyclopedias!!  Oh, those are warm memories.  I used them all up through high school and they were among my favourite things to read in between trips to the library for more books. 

 

But, I would pass on taking that set, too.