^above is an encyclopedia which I often read as a kid.

Are some types of knowledge more useful than others?

This Encyclopedia provides knowledge to the readers in an accessible way as the books use images, diagrams and Encyclopedias often give knowledge on a range of topics. Most of the information in the books are facts, however, there are some things that can be a little biased. For example, Historical facts or information can be misrepresented in order to push an agenda. I feel like the historical aspects of encyclopedias can offer some bias and perspective as it is often said that “history is written by the victors (Winston Churchill). Encyclopedias mentioning the history of Asia could be done in multiple perspectives from the perspectives of the colonizers and of the locals. Overall I feel like the information in an encyclopedia is very general and can be useful to large groups of people. However, I think this gives a surface level of knowledge on multiple topics and includes mostly shared knowledge, rather than personal knowledge of an individual’s experiences. For someone who is trying to understand specific issues in-depth including all of the stakeholders and their perspectives encyclopedias and books may not always be the best resource.