Because Wikipedia is full of lies
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.
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...
because the writers know about their subject
Britannica is written by experts, while Wikipedia can be edited by anyone without moderation.
It is the oldest encyclopedia
Accuracy, organization, bibliography, wording of articles, reading level.
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
