Jul 13, 2012 · The question isn’t whether Wikipedia is reliable. No one with a grasp of the situation contends it is, including co-founder Jimmy Wales. Wales justly observes that serious researchers would be foolish to rely on any encyclopedia. (My assistant Little Ed once contributed articles to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which tells you a lot right ...
Jan 19, 2015 · For more than a century, the long, stately rows of Encyclopædia Britannica have been a fixture on the shelves of many an educated person's home—the smooshed-together diphthong in the first word a symbol of old-world erudition and gravitas. So it was a shock to many when, in 2012, the venerable institution announced it would no longer publish ...
Jan 20, 2015 · What's more, much of Wikipedia's bias seems to be due to the longer article length of the online publication, where word count is less of an issue than the historically printed Britannica.
- HBS Working Knowledge
There is no general ‘more reliable’ one. It differs not only with the subject, but also with the cause of lack of reliability you are checking. In general, EB usually will have fewer errors, but it is also less extensive.
People also ask
Why is Wikipedia an unreliable source?
Should you use Wikipedia as a credible resource?
Is wikipedia accurate and reliable?
Is Wikipedia a good source?
Nov 17, 2017 · Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. is a property of the Swiss banking magnate Jacqui Safra. It was established in 1768, initially made in print before adapting to the online version such as Wikipedia. In 2012, The Encyclopedia Britannica announced that after 244 years, dozens of editions and more than 7 million sets sold.
July 13, 2012 - The Straight Dope Dear Cecil: In a column a while back, you told your assistant Una to “quit with the Wikipedia” because “fr...
Nov 17, 2011 · In the end, Nature concluded that Wikipedia “comes close” to Encyclopaedia Britannica in terms of accuracy. Dr. Oliver Downing, a retired lecturer in pharmacology at the University of Aston, England, found that Wikipedia was more reliable in the field of chemistry than both Britannica and Encarta.
- Harvard Study: Wikipedia More Left-Biased Than Britannica. While both are slanted toward liberal views, the study find Wikipedia is more biased toward Democrats.
- Harvard Study: Indoctrination Pushed Harder Left and by Leftists. The same researchers above followed up their study with another one that found the most frequent editors are leftists and they are also far more biased partisans, according to their study.
- Wikipediocracy: Top News Outlets Cited Are Mostly Left-Wing. Established leftist outlets The New York Times and BBC News are the most cited sources, around 200,000 stories.
- Wikipediocracy/AllSides: U.S. Politicians Pages Rely on Left-Wing Sources. Using AllSides and Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) ratings, a Wikipediocracy user found stories on American politicians rely mostly on left-wing media.
The only drawback to this site is that it isn't free. To have full access to Encyclopedia Britannica Online, one must pay a subscription fee of $69.95 a year. This is a sound investment for students, however, as the yearly fee is substantially cheaper than buying the encyclopedic set in book form.
Britannica further stated that "While the heading proclaimed that 'Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries,' the numbers buried deep in the body of the article said precisely the opposite: Wikipedia in fact had a third more inaccuracies than Britannica.
- related to: Is Wikipedia more reliable than the Encyclopaedia Britannica?