If modern encyclopedias are like Wikipedia, then I can see how you wouldn't find them interesting. Although Wikipedia does have interesting information within it, it's now written so verbosely that my eyes glaze over most of the time. Yeah, there's simple.wikipedia.org, but it's not nearly complete enough.
> Like cells in 1950, right before the double helix structure of DNA was discovered.
I had a textbook in middle school that was so old that it said bacteria were believed to be a form of plant!
The problem with the writing in Wikipedia articles is that they are often extremely detailed in certain aspects, because more and more people kept adding specific bits to it. But then often the overall cohesiveness of the article is lost, and it becomes hard to read.
The problem is that Wikipedia articles usually don't have single authors which would ensure the article as a whole is compelling.
There is actually an encyclopedia which does much better in this regard: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's a free online source, like Wikipedia, and it is limited to topics of philosophy, but it reads so much better. Even though many of its articles are quite long. Each article is written by an expert in the field. It is the encyclopedia in analytic philosophy.
One problem is that sometimes articles are slightly biased because the author has certain views, and this isn't at all obvious unless you're already an expert in this topic. Still, most articles are great.
I just assumed that I hadn't done enough philosophising, and had come to the Wrong conclusion. Glad to see it's not just me!