Wikipedia or Britannica: Which source has better information?

  • Wikipedia
  • Britannica
Please select one to answer and see the result

Answers

Wikipedia - 9Britannica - 8
  • Anonymous . April 2023
I have more experience with Wikipedia.
  • Anonymous . 3+ yrs. ago
More stuffs than Britannica.
  • Anonymous . 3+ yrs. ago
like it'
  • Anonymous . 3+ yrs. ago
Wikipedia is free, it shows an entire article, and it has very many articles.

Britannica, in contrast, is very expensive, shows only a limited number of words in each of its article, and it has far fewer articles.

What is more reliable is Wikipedia. However, some high-school teachers tell you not to rely on the encyclopedia.
  • Anonymous . 3+ yrs. ago
Wikipedia is more accessible and updated more often.
  • Anonymous . 3+ yrs. ago
more information 1 group of people dont know about everthing so allowing public to edit and add pages is one of the best ways to gather information
  • Anonymous . 3+ yrs. ago
It's free, easier to use.
  • Anonymous . 3+ yrs. ago
it is up to date and has a wider information
  • Anonymous . 3+ yrs. ago
Britannica is obviously biased. See articles Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia of two encyclopedias and compare.
  • Anonymous . April 2023
Because Wikipedia is full of lies
  • Anonymous . March 2023
Wikipedia shows a synthetic bias in proportion of articles which treats controversial issues. It ignores its own NPOV policies when it allows contributors to delete "well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a scientist who holds a minority view. It would only be in violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but leftists use "undue weight" like a sledgehammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.
  • Anonymous . January 2021
Because Britannica relies upon trusted and properly educated people to input the data. In the case of Wikipedia it seems anyone who considers theirself an expert can contribute, a little shady don't you think...
  • Anonymous . 3+ yrs. ago
because the writers know about their subject
  • Anonymous . 3+ yrs. ago
Britannica is written by experts, while Wikipedia can be edited by anyone without moderation.
  • Anonymous . 3+ yrs. ago
It is the oldest encyclopedia
  • Anonymous . 3+ yrs. ago
Accuracy, organization, bibliography, wording of articles, reading level.
  • Anonymous . 3+ yrs. ago
Easy! I have been using britannica for a long time and I find that their infomration on a particular subject is more crediable and makes more sense. I go for people who have the knowledge and credentials rather than those who do not and can be edited by anyone. The name or names is not shown on wikipedia but is on britannica most of the articles in this case. Fact is britannica is just a more reliable source and wikipedia had some problems with their accuracy in the past but I just don't trust it. Well first of all why do you think that wikipedia is free which means you do not have a professional who knows the subject inside out versus one who is not? Why won't wikipedia show the name of the person that wrote that article? Becauase the so called experts whoever th

Related Questions

Related Comparisons