Search results
Generally the rule of thumb is that the older the article is, the more reliable it is, but the issue is because it is crowd sourced, you get inconsistent details that are true, but need more context. They have a great way for senior editors to check and sign off on before the updates go into production.
Archived post. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. I’m sure it’s fine, but it’s a general resource as opposed to a resource dedicated specifically to philosophy. Try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
FYI the Encyclopedia Britannica would not be an acceptable academic source in most contexts either. EB and Wikipedia are both very useful, for slightly different purposes, but neither is intended for academic use. They are instead used to quickly find general information about a broad range of topics.
3 days ago · These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science.
People also ask
Is Encyclopedia Britannica a reliable source for papers?
Is Encyclopedia Britannica biased?
How does Encyclopedia Britannica work?
Should I use a wiki as a source?
LPT: When looking for general information for a paper/project, use the online encyclopedia Britannica rather than Wikipedia. It can be cited as a credible source. : r/LifeProTips.
Precisely. You shouldn't write a paper using wiki as a sole source, but the same goes for Britannica. If anything, wiki cites sources, making it a much more useful tool.
You are correct; any encyclopedia can be used for sources and wiki can offer a great deal. Like any source, source criticism is needed, and an encyclopedia requires the highest level of source criticism because of its nature, but that doesn't mean it cannot be useful.
