Words of review
This encyclopedia is amazing! I use it when I find topics I don’t know about when I read! :)
Encyclopedia Brittanica
I For Real Wish I Was Reading Encyclopedia Brittanica!
Good but please make you delete searches
.
Opens search results in the browser, whereas I want search results to load in the app
This is meant to be an app, not a browser.
App off knowledge
This application applies and provides accessible sophisticated knowledge.
Excellent
Extremely Informative
Good
kind for you
Accessibility not considered
Voiceover can’t read anything but the buttons on this app, making it useless for someone with vision impairment. Very poor.
Very nice
👍
Adverts
Too many adverts. Great way to lose customers.
Januaryfebruary
Excellent encyclopedia, I gave it a #5 because there seems to have been only one other encyclopedia like this one that is free. Thank you for bring to the screen an encyclopedia free like back In the day when hard covers where the thing. Thank God your encyclopedia is a joy to use. Keep up the good work.
Show more
A fresh angle on the finite pursuit of infinite knowledge
Encyclopaedias aim to cover all knowledge or else some specialised field comprehensively. These seem curious goals when one considers it and in a time of Wikipedia and seemingly limitless expansions of online cloud based storage and increasingly universal access to it it’s worth contemplating how realistic is the very concept? Farlax has, I thought, cheated because it includes a number of entries with the warning that the article was copied from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). Actually this ‘cheat’ makes it valuable and gives me something additional to (for example) Britannica, Wikipedia and a web search engine failed to provide. Consider the various sources definition of oxymoron at the time of writing and you might see my point. Who is to say that the Great Soviet Encyclopedia’s view of a word that’s been in use and whose use has morphed over time as tends to happen is any less relevant or insightful than say the OED’s today? In my own case I found it gave me very significant insight but then again non-duality is very much a live thing for me just now so perhaps that’s why it seemed worth me writing this review right away to commend the app to others and to thank the app’s authors for making it available to me here and now (and all the countless others who also have made this possible; thank you all 😌🙏🏼).
The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased.
The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased.
Show more
Useful
A useful resource to have at your fingertip. If you haven’t time to examine a lengthy Wikipedia article, the succinctness of this might satisfy the immediate need.
Knowledge is power
The foundation of success is knowing what your looking for once you find it your own your life that’s strength of your app.
Thank goodness it's not that awful W-k-p--d--!
I used to use the (un)mentioned 'encyclopædia' frequently, but over time, I noticed something;
In this age of 'contributing', i.e., doing the work, such sites as W'pedia (and sadly, IMDb) have become 'home' to people who don't understand simple English grammar rules. Some don't understand what simple English words are, yet, instead of doing a little research, they plod ahead.
They're more interested in doing as much as possible - writing as many reviews, articles, so they can - in a pathetic sense, build a name for themselves.
If this sounds like 'nitpicking', it's not.
It's much closer to someone saying to someone who's going too run errands for you (and you're depending on) to get several price quotes on a major job, and to pick up your very fussy partner's favourite chocolate.
When this person you counted in returns, they've engaged for someone to do the major job - and forgetting how much it'll be, and instead of the chocolate they came home with cashews.
If the person doing the work doesn't understand the basics, they're only going to 'contribute' garbage, and some of these 'names' (a very small percent do most of this 'writing', yet, their own CV, their background of why they are a good candidate to do this is nowhere to be found).
The result is much of what's their (and not just in W'pedia, IMDb, but any of these sites which are mostly contributed writing) is garbage, and anytime who goes to such a place is at risk of not leaning, but mis-learning.
In the case of W'pedia, an 'encyclopedia's nothing more than a basic source of information.
It's not - as some of these semi-literates think, a place to write an entire novel on a subject (or steal someone else's published material). It's not - in more esoteric subjects, a place to write in high-level mathematics, nor in computer languages, nor anything else.
It's simply a starting point for the reader.
The READER's the most important part, NOT the ego of some fool 'writer'.
Another - huge - problem is that many of these so-called frequent contributors don't even know basic English grammar.
I'm not trying to sound 'snobbish', but there's simple grammar we all follow (when I mentioned this once in a 'talk' page this very idea, and that there should be some sort of 'gate' to let people who - as an example - use 'filler-words, constantly, such as 'however', and 'basically', I was called out... told by some idiot I was 'mean', and worse. This... person, as many other simpletons don't get, if you allow garbage, your not helping - your hurting).
The point is that even in such a thing as a contributed resource, you want to pass on good simple grammar.
The more esoteric articles are written (more factually, they seem to be copied whole-cloth from copyrighted textbooks and other sources, which the aforementioned 'higher-ups' of this 'commune' choose to ignore).
An encyclopædia should be accessible to people of ALL ages, and ALL levels of understanding.
For me, as I'm sure many others, it was the FIRST place I began to familiarise myself on many subjects that I'd go on to learn about in resources specific to it.
Some of the articles are so dense (no, I don't mean 'stupid'), so impenetrable to anyone without a degree in the subject pertaining to, it's impossible for anyone to even grasp it.
An article should leave you wanting more - it shouldn't leave you, midpoint, scratching your head in confusion.
If anything, these morons have taken things and either made them understandable by only a few, or - due to their own ego and ignorance, have only 'passed on' THEIR misunderstanding, and the point of 'knowledge', of 'teaching' is to pass on information which is CORRECT.
W'pedia's a joke.
That's why I'm so happy to find an encyclopædic source which is much closer to what an 'encyclopædia' is - a place where one can quickly find out the basics a well as a place to begin to explore.
In this age of 'contributing', i.e., doing the work, such sites as W'pedia (and sadly, IMDb) have become 'home' to people who don't understand simple English grammar rules. Some don't understand what simple English words are, yet, instead of doing a little research, they plod ahead.
They're more interested in doing as much as possible - writing as many reviews, articles, so they can - in a pathetic sense, build a name for themselves.
If this sounds like 'nitpicking', it's not.
It's much closer to someone saying to someone who's going too run errands for you (and you're depending on) to get several price quotes on a major job, and to pick up your very fussy partner's favourite chocolate.
When this person you counted in returns, they've engaged for someone to do the major job - and forgetting how much it'll be, and instead of the chocolate they came home with cashews.
If the person doing the work doesn't understand the basics, they're only going to 'contribute' garbage, and some of these 'names' (a very small percent do most of this 'writing', yet, their own CV, their background of why they are a good candidate to do this is nowhere to be found).
The result is much of what's their (and not just in W'pedia, IMDb, but any of these sites which are mostly contributed writing) is garbage, and anytime who goes to such a place is at risk of not leaning, but mis-learning.
In the case of W'pedia, an 'encyclopedia's nothing more than a basic source of information.
It's not - as some of these semi-literates think, a place to write an entire novel on a subject (or steal someone else's published material). It's not - in more esoteric subjects, a place to write in high-level mathematics, nor in computer languages, nor anything else.
It's simply a starting point for the reader.
The READER's the most important part, NOT the ego of some fool 'writer'.
Another - huge - problem is that many of these so-called frequent contributors don't even know basic English grammar.
I'm not trying to sound 'snobbish', but there's simple grammar we all follow (when I mentioned this once in a 'talk' page this very idea, and that there should be some sort of 'gate' to let people who - as an example - use 'filler-words, constantly, such as 'however', and 'basically', I was called out... told by some idiot I was 'mean', and worse. This... person, as many other simpletons don't get, if you allow garbage, your not helping - your hurting).
The point is that even in such a thing as a contributed resource, you want to pass on good simple grammar.
The more esoteric articles are written (more factually, they seem to be copied whole-cloth from copyrighted textbooks and other sources, which the aforementioned 'higher-ups' of this 'commune' choose to ignore).
An encyclopædia should be accessible to people of ALL ages, and ALL levels of understanding.
For me, as I'm sure many others, it was the FIRST place I began to familiarise myself on many subjects that I'd go on to learn about in resources specific to it.
Some of the articles are so dense (no, I don't mean 'stupid'), so impenetrable to anyone without a degree in the subject pertaining to, it's impossible for anyone to even grasp it.
An article should leave you wanting more - it shouldn't leave you, midpoint, scratching your head in confusion.
If anything, these morons have taken things and either made them understandable by only a few, or - due to their own ego and ignorance, have only 'passed on' THEIR misunderstanding, and the point of 'knowledge', of 'teaching' is to pass on information which is CORRECT.
W'pedia's a joke.
That's why I'm so happy to find an encyclopædic source which is much closer to what an 'encyclopædia' is - a place where one can quickly find out the basics a well as a place to begin to explore.
Show more
This app doesn’t work
This app looked like it had a lot of potential When I open the app and look something up, it pulls up a page that says “No internet available. Tap to retry”. I have an strong wifi internet connection and a strong cellular data connection but it is not working. Please fix this.
Great Encyclopedia
I do research all the time, and this is SO useful and handy. Great quality and easy to use for school. I 100% recommend that you get this sourse
Enciclopedia
Very good,love it. 😎
Very good
Great encyclopedia.
Better use of time
I was wasting too much time surfing reddit, watching YouTube or reading news. I decided it was time to make better use of my time by learning as much as I can about anything/everything. This app is awesome for learning facts about whatever you want. Enjoy.
