My kids are constantly bringing home all kinds of interesting things from the library, and I remember how much cool stuff there is on the shelves from my youth. That stuff is just missing from the web.
I'm surprised traditional publishers, the folks that actually print books, don't start working back through their catalogs building some kind of online library. I suspect that its because of the way contracts are written that don't leave anybody owning the complete book. I suspect you would have to go back to authors, photographers, and illustrators and renegotiate use of assets again.
(Khan Academy, Wikipedia)
Aren't you defeating your own argument in one sentence? Or are you saying that those are examples of low-quality information?
Yes.
This[1] poorly-made Khan Academy video from 2008 recorded in 144p would would not compare with something like the Feynman Lectures on Physics[2].
As for Wikipedia, they acknowledge their flaws.[3]
1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwDJ1wVr7Is&list=PLqwfRVlgGd...
2.https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu
3.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_r...
In the first, the internet wins hands down most of the time (there are specialized areas where nothing has been digitized); but the second it's not clear that browsing the library is worse than doomscrolling, even if you're doomstrolling HN or something relatively "high quality".
A good bookcase still wins. Turns out I don't have time for "everything" anyway (and it's not really got everything, anyway, though The Web is very good at delivering 'everything' when it comes to cheap trivia)