How bizarre. The one claim of your which I mostly agree with is that there are better ways to disseminate new scientific research than through an encyclopedia. Yet this is the one you insist on bringing up again.
What I say is that original scholarly work includes developing new synthesis of how to interpret existing information. This new work definitely has a place in (some) encyclopedias.
Ha! I just looked up the Wikipedia article on "Encyclopedia." It agrees with me, saying "The second half of the 20th century also saw the publication of several encyclopedias that were notable for synthesizing important topics in specific fields, often by means of new works authored by significant researchers."
That directly and explicitly counters your argument that encyclopedias categorically do not have original content.
