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.
6 days ago · Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources. Overall, we rate Encyclopedia Britannica a Least Biased, Pro-Science source.
People also ask
Is Britannica a credible Encyclopedia?
Is Encyclopedia Britannica a good source?
Is Encyclopedia Britannica biased?
How does Encyclopedia Britannica work?
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.
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 . 364K subscribers in the askphilosophy community. /r/askphilosophy aims to provide serious, well-researched answers to philosophical questions.
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.
Britannica - Credible or Not Credible? I'm aware that most websites that end with a .edu or .gov are good sites to be looking for when doing research, but one of the sites that our school encourages us to use is Britannica. It's an encyclopedia with a fairly large database.
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.
