Talk:Encarta

	This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale
	This article is supported by the WikiProject Software ( Discuss ), dedicated to improving the Software-related articles on Wikipedia.

To-do list for Encarta:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:

Why is the title of an article not simply Encarta? I don't think there is a conflict. If Encarta might mean something difference, the redirect of Encarta to Microsoft Encarta is misleading. -- Taku 23:16 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

I note that this is now fixed. I'm just adding this comment to avoid future confusion arising from this being a seemingly unanswered question. - IMSoP 14:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

==Logo==December 5, 1782 Please see Wikipedia talk:Logos for my explanation of why using the logo of an encyclopedia or other reference work is a bad idea, and why I have reinserted a guideline suggesting that such logos not be used. I've carefully indicated the reinsertion as tentative, and am not doing anything about the logo presently on this page pending further discussion.

In brief: trademark law seems to turn heavily on whether the use of a trademark is by a company that is even remotely in the same business as the company that owns the trademark. Even if nobody in their right mind thinks that Wikipedia is trying to borrow Encarta's good name by using their trademark in the way we're using it, it is, nevertheless, closer to a grey area than using Howard Johnson's logo, because nobody is going to try to buy frozen Tendersweet fried clam strips from Wikipedia. Dpbsmith 20:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus, NPOS-biased Wikipedians

i wrote a full review in the early days of this article and now this article is reduced to pretty much bland empty content. The wikipedians, on the whole, are sticklers to their so-called "neutral point of view", but regardless cannot escape their collective point of "fuck everything non-opensource" view. Xah Lee P0lyglut 01:58, 2004 May 13 (UTC)

I just read the last version you edited, 11 Dec 2003. I agree that what you have said is valuable and that the current article has indeed been made more bland and empty.

It is appropriate for articles about encyclopedias to have (documented, supported, factual, verifiable) statements that help define the nature of and the differences between Encarta, Britannica, World Book, etc. A frequent problem in Wikipedia, of which I think this is an example, is that a contributor adds truthful, valuable, reasonably objective material on his own authority, which then gets removed as being apparently original research or POV. I think the stuff you contributed was probably accurate, but I'm not sure that you presented it in a way that made it verifiable.

Wikipedia IMHO does err on the side of blandness and safety. Never say anything and you'll never say anything wrong. I think too many Wikipedians' model of what an encyclopedia should be is the (ugh) World Book and not the (hooray!) Encyclopedia Britannica 11th Edition.

Judging from the tone of your remark, you probably aren't interested in revisiting this again, but I think it would be very valuable if you cared to put some of this information back, not as "a review," but in the form of statement about how Encarta relates to, say, Britannica, with some verifiable or objective backing for them.

BTW what does "NPOS" mean? Dpbsmith 13:04, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it's true that some Wikipedians have a bad habit of removing POV or "on own authority" or "quality judgment" stuff, rather than refactoring it. (Certainly, I've been guilty of this in the past). I think the difficulty lies in the fact that it's a lot more effort to cite sources than it is to insert your own opinions. For example, it's quite easy to write, "The content of Encarta is not as scholarly and in depth as the 20 or so printed tomes of Britannica", but it's a lot harder for another editor to NPOV it by providing sources and quotes, so it is often omitted instead. I think it is, however, marginally preferable that things are verifiable rather than interesting.

It is clearly preferable, though, to be both interesting AND verifiable. In this particular case, I would encourage P0lyglut (if still interested) to help find some sources and reviews for Encarta, so we can improve this article. — Matt 13:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

e.g. This (published) article — http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_1_2002/alevizou.html — includes the statement:

"[Microsoft] in 1993 offered Encarta, a multimedia product on CD-ROM that was based on the print encyclopaedia Funk and Wagnall’s. Arguably Encarta did not have the deep information of Britannica. However it proposed an alternative value: better search capabilities, portability, entertaining media features, and was much less expensive"

— Matt 13:44, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the article is good now, there's no wikipedian bias or slant at all. --ISeeDeadPixels 22:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link of Encarta on Encarta Website

Hi, I want to put a link to encarta website which describes encarta website. If I make it wrong or it is against copyright please correct me. (I have already entered the number of articles encarta offers for free and for charges) if any of these changes is wrong plz guide me because i am new in wikipedia and want to learn.

just by the way I tried to find wikipedia on encarta and there were no results :)

thanks

The link you added seems perfectly OK. Welcome to WP, and thanks!

Just a quick pointer - You appear to have indented your comments using spaces at the beginning of the line, which does not produce the desired effect. What you need to do to indent text is to add a ':' (colon) to the beginning of the line, which indents the paragraph, as you see here, commonly used on talk pages to seperate replies.

Adding spaces to the beginning of a line produces the stragely laid out code you saw before I removed them, as in this example:

example produced by adding a space to the beginning of the line.

This is mostly used for diagrams and formulae I think. [[User:Akadruid|akaDruid (Talk)]] 12:33, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] oops forgot to enter my username

hi, in last post I didn't know how to insert by name with comments I thought it will appear automatically so I am inserting it now it is Zain 20:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) (hope this works) is there any way that my username is inserted automatically at the end of my everpost along with time stamp. thanks Zain 20:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I think this article has a couple of problems; chiefly, it has sections that would be suitable for a critical review, but not for an encyclopedia article. Specifically:

1. Relatively insignificant information dominates the article, such as the "Contents", "World atlas", "World statistics", "Copy and paste function". It's not a problem including this information, but to make this a balanced and scholarly article it needs reworking, and possibly pruning. Example snippet, from the "Virtual flight" subsection: "...to fly a virtual airplane over the coarsely generated artificial landscape while listening to music possibly unrelated to that part of the world. The quality of the landscape is pretty low and the 480 x 240 fixed window is small. This feature seems to be unrelated to the popular Microsoft Flight Simulator. When the airplane reaches the border of that area, it just stops." — too many specifics. It would be perfectly sufficient to simply say, "The DVD version contains a primitive flight simulator."
2. The "A test search" section. This is original research, full of subjective opinion, and, moreover, far too small a sample size to provide a useful comparison of the encyclopedias. A good part of it is also off-topic, being related to other encyclopedias — "However, with Wikipedia, nothing is for sure." I think we should cut this out entirely.

Before I started hacking away, I thought I'd solicit some comments first! — Matt 09:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] firts edition of Encarta (1993) / Primera edicion de Encarta (1993)

I would like a lot them to provide me some data on the first edition of Encarta in the year of 1993, like exact date of their launching, how it was divided their content, the type of information multimedia that contained, as well as the tools for interactivity that could have.

Me gustarían mucho que me proporcionaran algunos datos de la primera edición de Encarta por el año de 1993, como la fecha exacta de su lanzamiento, cómo estaba dividido su contenido, el tipo de elementos multimedia que contenia, así como las herramientas de interactividad que pudo tener.

gabriel1z1z@yahoo.com-----------------

Yes, this really needs a history section. The Encyclopaedia Britannica article touches on this a bit. --ProhibitOnions 14:33, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

[edit] Misc.

In the Visual Browser section, there is the following text:

It may be necessary to scroll through a lot of irrelevant topics to move to the next level.

I don't know what it's trying to mean. Is it just me, or is the text not clear, even in its context?

eje211 18:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know the Visual Browser first appeared in the 2004 edition.

[edit] Encarta's source?

When I was younger (mid-nineties) we had the computer version of Encarta, and I also had an old set of the Funk & Wagnall's encyclopedia. I seem to remember that, for the most part, the text of the articles in the two sources were almost completely identical. Do we have information on where Encarta gets its documents? -Branddobbe 20:39, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

My old version of Encarta says it *is* The Funk and Wagnall's encyclopedia... 132.205.15.43 20:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is. -- user:zanimum

I added information about the origin of Encarta I got from Ken Kister, renowned encyclopedia expert. In short, Encarta 1993 was F&W with revisions. Then in the late 1990s, MS bought Collier's and New Merit Scholar's and incorporated the best of their stuff. Since none of them prints any longer, Encarta could be considered the successor of all three.

Although this sounds like Microsoft's typical killing spree, Kister visited their operations, and was extremely impressed with the quality of Encarta's editorial staff--this is a guy who has visited all the major encyclopedias, like Britannica and World Book. -- Chitu 16:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-Encarta

From

• http://spaces.msn.com/members/Encarta/ (20:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) version)
• http://beta.encarta.msn.com/encnet/support/encartafeedback.aspx?page=editing
• http://privacy.msn.com/tou/
• http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/05/04/08/1658247.shtml?tid=109&tid=95&tid=8

Encarta is letting users to submit edits to articles. 132.205.15.43 20:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] drastically reducing image quality?

the article says:

"Encarta is also notorious for drastically reducing the quality of images copied using the built-in image copy menu option and adding a copyright notice at the bottom, often covering up important details."

i have copied about 5 or so encarta images in the past. i didn't notice image quality degradation. There is copyright and source notice inserted at bottom of course, but to say "covering up important details" seems defamatory.

Xah Lee 22:57, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

[edit] not only in english language/wikipedia

http://fr.encarta.msn.com/ also in french language, introduction let us wrongly think that encarta is only in english language... another thing : you could mention that encarta doesn't mention Wikipedia in any article, and that wikipedia HAS an Encarta article... --130.83.244.131 01:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) fr:Utilisateur:Moala

Microsoft publishes similar encyclopedias under the Encarta trademark in various languages, including German, French, Spanish, Dutch and Japanese. Localized versions may contain contents licensed from available national sources and may not contain the full English version contents.

This implies that localized versions may be SMALLER than the English Encarta - they could also be BIGGER... Känsterle 10:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

I've just reworded a sentence slightly in this section (I still don't like the repetition of some in "Some Wikipedians have noted that some" but can't think at this moment how to rephrase to avoid it.) and spotted that there is much more criticsim hidden in <!-- --> comment tags. Why is this? If it belongs in the article it should be visible, if it doesn't why is it in the source? Thryduulf 10:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the self-reference, I don't think it's only Wikipedians that have noticed this, and even if it was it shouldn't really be worded like that (Wikipedia:Avoid self-references). As to the commented out stuff, it looks like a couple of random excerpts with no context. Not sure why it would count as criticism. But certainly, if it illustrates, or can be made to illustrate, some percieved flaw, then it should definitely be in. I seem to remember seeing some discussion about it being commented out, I'll have a root around. Worldtraveller 12:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph in question, for consistency with my rewrite of the preceding section. How can it be a reaction to the success of collaborative projects if it does nothing to address that success? -- Tim Starling 03:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh? How about allowing and actively encouraging user feedback? And attempting to keep a centralized authority and control over the material while allowing partial collaborative efforts in the form of user submitted edits and comments on the articles. Encarta has been around for quite some time and their just recent consideration of user feedback is not just a random occurence with no correlation whatsoever to the goings on in the encyclopedia field. I mean come on, i looked at your bio and you are a phd student, you can do better than that. I have reverted your edits, and please try being a little more civil when referring to other peoples contributions, rubbish is not a proper term when attempting collaborative projects. You have also ommited the copyright issue in your rewrite, which is now back.

[edit] Pointless?

Is there any point to Encarta now that Wikipedia exists? It has 10 times the articles, it's totally free (donations help, though), and it can be edited by anyone. Basically, what are the reasons that someone would sign up for Encarta's online encyclopedia subscription? CoolGuy 06:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It's simply a case of trust. People trust an editor and a writer more than they trust 60,000+ registered eyes. -- user:zanimum

ha ha encarta sucks now. Eat it microsoft

I'm not sure about Encarta, because MSN Search only provides limited access to it, but in my experience, pay-service encyclopedias cover many important topics that Wikipedia doesn't. For example, Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Americana both have long articles on the Ebira, a people numbering over 300,000 in Nigeria, whereas Wikipedia has a short sentence on them. The same is the case for the Sahaptin people. Further, even though there's "60,000 registered eyes" Wikipedia still manages to have a higher error rate than one of the least-reliable encyclopedias (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Finally, Wikipedia is harder to read than any single publication I have ever encountered. I imagine if you deleted many of the articles that aren't found in professional encyclopedias, like "Trogdor" or "List of Futurama episodes," Wikipedia would be much smaller. Wikipedia's articles also are about half the size of those in Encyclopaedia Britannica. As much of Encarta is from a fine publication--Colliers Encyclopedia--I would rather reference Encarta for a report than Wikipedia any day. In fact, I've never cited Wikipedia in a single paper I've ever written. When I need information, Wikipedia is probably the very last place I look for it--after Google.--Hterjf 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

To put it simply, Encarta do have better qualities of images and pictures than Wikipedia. It features probably the best multi-media systems (videos and animations) of all the online encyclopedias. --67.2.148.48 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Who needs Encarta anyway? We've got Wikipedia, baby! 71.107.100.235 18:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encarta suggestion do actually work

They finally approved my submission of the fact that Jim Henson was nominated for an Academy Award. It took a few months, but they did it. Anyone else have any success with their tests of Encarta? -- user:zanimum

I'm not sure why you would contribute your work for nothing to assist the multi-billion dollar empire that is Microsoft with the building of their encyclopedia (that readers have to pay for), but each to his own.

I'm just wondering, has anyone considered submitting an artical about wikipedia to encarta? T-rex 21:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is mentioned in the 2006 Premium edition of Encarta, at the very bottom of the Encyclopædia article (spelled Encyclopedia in Encarta). It got a whole paragraph!

In the early 21st century a new type of online encyclopedia, known as Wikipedia, enabled readers to create and edit encyclopedia articles. A wiki is a type of server software that enables users to create or alter content on a Web page. Wikipedia was closely associated with the open source software movement and rapidly expanded to include hundreds of thousands of articles, many on popular culture topics, in a number of languages. The philosophy behind Wikipedia was that a community of volunteers could pool their knowledge and crosscheck their work to create a free encyclopedia. Due to Wikipedia’s openness, it is often the target of vandalism. Mga 04:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I read the same article in the free online version. (Go to msn.com, click on encarta, search for encyclopedia, go to last page.) Is thewhole Premium edition now online for free? AxelBoldt 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article number

The into says 4,500 article are available for free online, while 68,000 are contained in the premium version that requires subscription. Later in the article, the number 41,000 for the "standard and online" version is mentioned. So there are three versions?

• free online: 4,500
• standard pay online: 41,000
• premium pay online: 68,000

Is that correct? If so, it should be clarified in the introduction. AxelBoldt 20:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

Greetings. I am an anonymous reader. I live in South Africa, and have a small knowledge of the Zulu language.

In the traditional Zulu clan structure, an urn called the "inkhata" was located in every village - this urn had the supposed magical power of the village's dead ancestors, and contained ALL WORLD KNOWLEDGE.

The Zulu word "inkhata" and the English word "encarta" are pronounced almost exactly the same, have a very similar meaning, and the Zulus had this word in their daily vocabulary before white settlers arrived.

Does anybody here know of the Etymology of the word "encarta"? This really intrigues me.

For what it's worth, the site smartcomputing.com claims that "The name Encarta is a combination of “encyclopedia” (en) and the Latin word for “letter” (carta)". But they don't give a source, and I can't find that information on the encarta site, so they possibly just made that up. Maybe you could ask around at the Encarta Blog, they should know. AxelBoldt 19:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] encarta_at_conversagent_dot_com

Recently I was told of this (Yes, it works like the Shakespeare Bot indeed). Should we include it in the article? Thanks. 199.111.230.195 07:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technology

I was a developer who worked on the viewer engine used by the first encarta. It was actually sold as a toolkit so that other folks who wanted to make information titles could do so and get decent performance on the then very slow CD ROM drives. The information I added on the engine is verifiable in the following reference:

Microsoft Multimedia Viewer How-To Cd: Create Exciting Multimedia With Video, Animation, Music, and Speech for Windows/Book and Cd (Paperback)- still avaiable in some used bookstores according to Amazon.

I have original information on the technology and I acknowlege my bias, so please feel free to modify. -Mak Thorpe 19:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing process for Encarta

This article gives some inside details on the editing process for Encarta and why it applies hard vacuum. Someone earlier asked if Encarta could be trusted. The answer seems to be you can trust it to be full of easily spotted mistakes. Could this tale be linked in without seeming too anti-microsoft? --14:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] source

The references about scientific articles should be based on scientific references, for example the ones included in the citation index. e104421

[edit] terms of use reference

Before my edit it said like "editors are not credited".... but the Windows Live "terms of service" link did not appear to back that up (IANAL however). In the ref description it said that rights were transferred but in the Windows Live one it says the person gives rights to the public. Also, I wonder why it points to windows live - maybe it was updated? Maybe it is just a link issue... RN 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] number of free articles?

The article lists that there are 68,000 articles in Encarta. Do we have a source which indicates how many of these are available online for free currently? That seems like an important number for partially-ad-supported, partially subscription based software. The article center link provided for finding free articles says there are 4,500 searchable articles, but that number seems low. -- Bailey^(talk) 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Encarta.png

Image:Encarta.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the criticism section?

I ll post it here verbatim from a 2006 version. There's no mention of such blatant errors as ommiting such notable political philosopher's passing (John Rawls) three years after the fact. Instead the critisism section has been renamed as reception. What? Reception for a product that's 10+ years in the market? You gotta be kidding me right? And instead what we are getting is some (supposed) praise from a couple of minor publications dating back to 1997, unanavailable of course for anyone to see on the internet...This, even for microsoft's standards is below pathetic.

Like I said I will past the original criticism section here. I am also retitling the laughable "Reception" segment to criticism, removing the ridiculous pov praises. I will add the disgracefull John Rawl's error too, it deserves more mention than some persons pov review/opinion dating ten years back.

Criticism of the encyclopedia has focused on some articles being slow to be updated. For example, an early 2005 edition of the article about the political philosopher John Rawls opens with "Rawls, John (1921- )", although he had died on November 24, 2002. Encarta failed to note the date of his passing until April 2005—about 2½ years after the event. As of July 2005, the web version of the Rawls article includes his date of death. [1].

Other critics dismiss Encarta as having neither the breadth, depth and authoritative contributors of other encyclopedias such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, nor the currency or open participatory nature of Wikipedia. Criticism has been leveled on Encarta's decision to accept users' editions of the articles to be submitted for approval, a move that is widely seen as a reaction to the success of collaborative projects such as Wikipedia in particular, but falling short of offering users editorial or copyright control over the result. Moreover, since Encarta remains primarily a paid subscription service, the users being asked to volunteer their work not only receive little reward, but may in fact be paying for the privilege.

Robert McHenry, while Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica, criticized [2] Encarta for its policy of 'localizing' versions of Encarta for national markets. McHenry described this as "pandering to local prejudices" instead of presenting subjects objectively.

Microsoft has been unable to maintain some local versions of Encarta. For example, the Brazilian version was published between 1999 and 2002, then discontinued. 84.254.52.80 06:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Before you edited that section, there were three paragraphs. Two criticized Encarta and one praised it. The praise was taken from publications devoted to a neutral point of view. Now, there are four paragraphs that criticize the encyclopedia. One of them says that, "Other critics dismiss Encarta as having neither the breadth, depth and authoritative contributors of other encyclopedias such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, nor the currency or open participatory nature of Wikipedia," but doesn't mention which critics. I honestly suspect that those critics are in reality a single person--you. Unfortunately, such statements are often allowed to remain on pages here on Wikipedia, because our citation requirements are often not enforced. But in this case, I will follow Encarta’s lead and ask that you cite which critics made such statements. Right now, the title of "Criticism" is appropriate, as it is just criticism. But, since I am restoring the praise made by those published (i.e., fact-checked) sources, the title will have to be changed back to "Reception." If you can think of another word that encompasses both praise and criticism, feel free to use it, instead. And, contrary to your insinuation, my sources can easily be checked at your local library. I dare you to check them.--Gnfgb2 06:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not here to argument on the ridiculous, you are citing two sources with appreciative statements on encarta, dating back to more than 10 years where most people wheren't even using a computer or didn't even have a cd rom, pre internet, and from some minor publications which you claim are npov but are very pov to their respective authors who are some pretty much unknown analysts/commentators on computers or encyclopedias and you are asking me to take your claims seriously? If I had the time, which I don't I could site you tens of negative reviews of encarta from that time onwards. There is absolutely no claim to notability to your sources to be quoted on encarta 97 a decade onward, when the internet has made such drastic changes to the dissemination of information. Had this been an article on encarta 97 I could, possibly, be acceptable, that and the "reception title" but this isn't. Let me also add that it's an irony in itself to quote one reviewer saying that the encyclopaedia is "up to date" when refering to a now 10 year old version of it, and to quote a star rating out of its context, with three stars say, but three stars out of what , five? Ten? Twenty? Like I said it's even ludicrous for me to discuss this. Microsoft has plenty of sockpuppets by their own admission in wikipedia no one needs another one. 84.254.51.188 17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I seriously hope that you aren't over 15 years of age, because your primitive personal attacks and English usage are reflecting badly on you. I am not here to argue with someone from Greece who lacks a basic knowledge of how to punctuate their sentences what the word reception means. Like most words, it has more than one sense, and one of them is "response." Obviously, this article isn't just about the 2007 version of Encarta, and repeating yourself doesn't make you seem any more reasonable. I honestly could remove everything you added, because the other paragraph is original research. I only kept it to make you happy. But since I see you aren't here to compromise, then I can probably just trash it. Welcome to Wikipedia.--Gnfgb2 02:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your racist ad-hominem remarks speak volumes about your person. Abiding by Wikipedia's rules I won't stoop to your level. Since you are unable or unwilling to engage in any civilized discource I will request editor mediation in this article. Allow me to distract you momentarily from your habit of insulting other users when you lack any arguments to support your position, by linking this article to chambers' online dictionary of the english language where the word reception is defined. http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=reception&title=21st&sourceid=Mozilla-search In your characteristic petty deceptive way, you failed to mention what follows the word "response" in the dictionary, which according to chambers is "a response, reaction or welcome; the manner in which a person, information, an idea, etc is received". For some reason you've missed that word "welcome". Now isn't that interesting...Let's have a "welcome" section for encarta with ten year old reviews because nothing else stands and we got to please the zealots. This is disgraceful. Like I said I will request mediation here. 84.254.52.103 00:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Criticism. Quite a number of editors feel criticsm sections are usually unjustified. Reception sections is often an alternative. And I agree with Gn here, you cannot ignore 10 year old priase just because you think it's too old. However the mention does need to be worded to make it clear when that comment was made. I do agree that Gn bringing up Greece was inappropriate and unacceptable Nil Einne 01:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Note Gnfgb2 (talk · contribs) is a sock of hard-banned user Primetime (talk · contribs). Any edits he makes to the project can and should be reverted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encarta online

How come this article doesn't talk about encarta.msn.com? Althepal 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC) diapositivas para power point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.131.56 (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Encarta 2008 DOES contain the Mind Maze game, contrary otthe article

When you start Encarta 2008, you simply press ctrl+Z and Mind maze inititalizes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike 302 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that. ctrl+z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.165.150 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)