Search results
A series of studies from Harvard Business School in 2012 and 2014 found Wikipedia "significantly more biased" than Encyclopædia Britannica but attributed the finding more to the length of the online encyclopedia as opposed to slanted editing.
They found that in general, Wikipedia articles were more biased—with 73 percent of them containing code words, compared to just 34 percent in Britannica. In almost all cases, Wikipedia was more...
Wikipedia, of course, can be very useful as a starting point for many topics, especially obscure ones or those with passing or popular interest not well covered in scholarly reference works. Wikipedia articles often reflect the enthusiasm of their anonymous contributor(s) for the subject.
- David C. Murray
- 2015
Dec 3, 2019 · While the claim was disputed by Britannica, since then Wikipedia has grown 6-fold in the number of articles; is >85 times the size of 120-volume Encyclopedia Britannica, measured by word count; and has substantially improved its quality.
- Dariusz Jemielniak
- 2019
Jun 10, 2021 · According to the encyclopedia, Canadians accessed Wikipedia 387 million times per month in 2018. Some 88 per cent of Canada’s 37 million people can connect to the site. So if the public truly...
Dec 16, 2005 · Dec. 16, 2005 6:29 a.m. PT. 3 min read. Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to...
People also ask
Is Wikipedia more readable than Britannica?
Is wikipedia reliable?
Could Britannica be better than Wikipedia?
Why is Wikipedia a popular encyclopedia?
With the advent of the World Wide Web and collaborative technologies, Wikipedia has emerged as a crowdsourced alternative to traditional encyclopedias, such as Britannica. As of 2017, Wikipedia is among the top five accessed websites globally, while Britannica has a popularity rank of 2,153 1.
