Terry O'Brien, Deputy Librarian, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland
2007/349
A Dictionary of World History (2nd edition)
Oxford University Press
Oxford
2006
978 0 19 920247 8 (hardback); 978 0 19 280700 7 (paperback)
£20 $45 (hardback); £10.99 $17.95 (paperback)
Review
712 pp.
Dictionaries, History
Reference Reviews
21
7
2007
56-57
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0950-4125
How relevant or useful is a hardcopy dictionary of world history as a reference tool in the twenty-first century library? Who would use such a resource and for what purpose? When asked to review the A Dictionary of World History, one of my first thoughts was, is this really a relevant reference item for libraries today? In the entry on the Information Revolution, the dictionary posits that inter alia, “many questions can be answered quickly by a search of the internet”. Okay, not all questions, but many questions. Essentially this does not tell us anything we do not already know, but it does pose the question, why would I (or a patron in a library) use the this dictionary when a simple trawl of the Internet over a (potentially) high speed broadband connection could give me rapid, just-in-time access to huge amounts of world history-type information?
There are countless free online resources available, many of which are open source with user-generated content. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org), to take an obvious example, contains over 1,815,000 articles freely accessible online. It is highly likely that all the entries in the Oxford dictionary would also be available here, albeit with varying degrees of content, writing quality and accuracy. Wikipedia is a valuable, if imperfect tool, and is undoubtedly here to stay. Its popularity if not critical approval shows little sign of abatement and it is currently ranked around the seventeenth most visited website on the internet. The merits of the wiki or user generated model of collaboration and social networking has generated much discussion (e.g. Long, 2006; Lipczynaska, 2005; Korfiatis et al., 2005). The “Google generation” and emerging Web 2.0 users expect direct involvement and interactivity. A Dictionary of World History although engaging, (perhaps even mildly addictive!) cannot hope to offer interactivity, but in fairness, this would be to ignore its strengths. The philosophy of Wikipedia and the like is of a kind of collective mind, “anyone can edit” approach. Commentators such as Andrew Keen (Keen, 2007) have called this the “cult of the amateur”, arguing that this anything goes approach demeans and undermines existing knowledge. Oxford's A Dictionary of World History offers a more controlled, concise and, some might argue, elitist approach to historiography. Crucially, there is some editorial accountability, compared with the anonymity endorsed by Wikipedia editors. This failing has been recognised by some of the founders, who now advocate a new model with stricter editing rules and a more careful “gentle expert oversight” approach on the website Citizendium (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page).
It would be simplistic, naive and unreasonable to consider Wikipedia the work solely of amateurs and this dictionary solely the work of higher minds. Is it fair to compare A Dictionary of World History to a phenomenon like Wikipedia? Probably not. Are they in competition? Most probably. There is an inherent irony or a dichotomy of sorts however, in all of this. We try to advocate and promote a questioning, critical approach to sources (both online and print) indeed to all learning, amongst library users – question do not accept, query do not assume, evaluate, think critically. If this is the case why is an Oxfo0rd dictionary of world history any more valuable or acceptable than a user-generated wiki? In reality, if you do the things just mentioned you should find your answer.
The new second edition of A Oxford Dictionary of World History offers the reader a no nonsense, no bells or whistles approach to the subject matter. As that awfully irksome paint advert goes, “it does exactly what it says on the tin”. This is not by any means to detract from or undermine the dictionary, or to give the impression of it being workmanlike or elementary. What I am trying to convey is that it that the A Dictionary of World History does not do “filler”; it is 712 pages crammed with wide-ranging information, containing over 4,000 entries, detailed historical maps, biographies and world events covering a period of in excess of 5,000 years (I know this because the entry on pre-history tells us that written history and records began around 3000 BCE in Egypt and Mesopotamia).
With the paperback forming part of the Oxford Paperback Reference series, the book is derived in part from the history volumes in the Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia and it shows. Although a dictionary in name, it is more than a simple alphabetical collection of words. The dictionary is encyclopedic and sweeping in scope and many of the entries are detailed, contextualized and informative. These range from a brief, cursory few lines on Ladislaus I (canonized as St Ladislaus, King of Hungary [1077-1095], and not to be confused with Ladislaus II [also known as Jogaila], King of Poland 1386-1434) to more detailed treatments of major historical events such as the Crusades, the second world war and biographies ranging from Alcibiades (c.450-404 BCE) to Tony Blair. It is as current as a print version of a world history can be with recent events such as the Indian Ocean Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina included. The book uses a traditional, classical design approach, with strong cross-referencing, symbolised by asterisks.
Although unfeasible to be completely definitive, its scope is indeed extensive and international. The criteria for inclusion are always difficult with such publications, the standard being a historically significant figure, event or topic, but a good balance seems to have been achieved. There is no real colour or gloss, save for spot maps on countries and 25 detailed maps of key historical events. The entries on individual countries are especially thorough and really valuable with physical, economic, historical and socio-economic detail. Recently updated biographies and world events are also included.
When reading A Dictionary of World History there is an indubitable sense of re-assurance, of scholarly endeavour, perhaps even of the establishment, much in the way that if you are reading the London Times you are aware that it is the “newspaper of record”. The writing is succinct and concise, and of a consistently high standard. The dictionary represents excellent value – this second edition has been revised and updated since 2000, and costs just £20 for the hardback and only a paltry £10.99 for the paperback edition. It measures up very well in terms of overall value when compared with its competitors in the marketplace – Chambers may be bigger, Greenwood may be cooler, Xreferplus.com more vast and accessible, but the Oxford dictionary carries a gravitas and substance that is hard to match. In answer to the question(s) posed in my opening paragraph, A Dictionary of World History remains relevant in the twenty-first century by virtue of its erudition and its quality content. This volume will appeal most obviously to students of history, the humanities and liberal arts, particularly at undergraduate level and as a ready reference. It will also be useful to the general reader and should end up on the reference stacks of public and academic libraries. The cost is not onerous and on this basis alone, notwithstanding its quality, it is highly recommended. The problem in the long term, however, may be getting library users to use the book, either as a starting point, in addition to or as a complement to, other open-source or freely available online tools. Having it physically accessible on the shelves would be a good start.
Keen, A. (2007), The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture, Doubleday/Currency, New York, NY.
Korfiatis, N.T., Poulos, M. and Bokos, G. (2005), “Evaluating authoritative sources using social networks: an insight from Wiki”, Online Information Review, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 252-62.
Lipczynaska, S. (2005), “Power to the people: the case for Wikipedia”, Reference Reviews, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 6-7.
Long, S.A. (2006), “Exploring the wiki world: the new face of collaboration”, New Library World, Vol. 107 Nos 3/4, pp. 157-9.