Almost every student, faculty member, and librarian knows from experience how valuable Wikipedia can actually be when looking for quick background information about almost any topic. But what are the differences between Wikipedia and the traditional, scholarly reference works listed and described on the Reference Shelf tab of this guide? In this box I flesh out some of those differences (and similarities) within the context of one of the greatest reference works of all time: Encyclopedia Britannica.
The Encyclopedia Britannica contains carefully edited articles on all major topics. It fits the ideal purpose of a reference work as a place to get started, or to refer back to as you read and write. The articles in Britannica are written by expert authors who are both identifiable and credible. Many articles provide references to books and other sources about the topic covered. Articles are edited for length, the goal being to provide students (and other researchers) with sufficient background information without overwhelming them.
Undergraduates are rarely permitted to cite encyclopedia articles. Ask your professor if you plan to do so. The reason for this prohibition has to do with the function of reference works. Encyclopedias are best suited to providing background information rather than in-depth analysis or novel perspective. The "conversation" among literary scholars and historians—or academics in any other discipline for that matter—does not occur within the pages or pixels of encyclopedia articles.
Wikipedia is "written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world" and relies on the collective wisdom of its volunteers to get the facts right and to balance the opinions expressed. 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. Articles are sometimes too detailed, making it difficult for the uninitiated to identify key takeaways. Another downside of Wikipedia is that articles sometimes paper over unflattering or unpleasant but important facts about a topic near and dear to the contributors' hearts. Struggles sometimes break out behind the scenes as contributors compete with one another to create narratives that, even if technically accurate, might leave readers with partial or even false impressions. In other words, Wikipedia articles, even when written on topics ostensibly uncontroversial, are easily politicized. Wikipedia slants more often than Britannica to the left of the political spectrum.
As with other reference works, most faculty instruct students not to cite Wikipedia. But some go further, advising students not to consult Wikipedia as a background source. Prohibitions of this nature, fairly uncommon nowadays, typically result from the volunteer approach to editing taken by Wikipedia, which can be unreliable. In order to be safe, think of Wikipedia as the first stop on a research road trip. Move on from Wikipedia to edited, scholarly encyclopedias and other reference works.
An interesting compromise between traditional encyclopedias and Wikipedia is Citizendium, a project that continues to limp along but has unfortunately not gained much traction. Most academic work on Wikipedia has focused on making it more like a scholarly reference source through the interventions of undergraduate and graduate students, librarians, and disciplinary faculty.
Acknowledgement: This page was inspired by Rick Lezenby, a librarian affiliated with Temple University Libraries. I have substantially altered and expanded on Rick's original text.
FAQs
For serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, 4 were found in Wikipedia, and 4 in Britannica (1:1). The study concluded that "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries", although Wikipedia's articles were often "poorly structured".
Is the Britannica encyclopedia a reliable source? ›
Britannica's content is among the most trusted in the world.
What are the advantages of using Wikipedia over a traditional encyclopaedia such as Britannica? ›
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.
Has anyone ever read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica? ›
The Know-It-All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World is a book by Esquire editor A. J. Jacobs, published in 2004. It recounts his experience of reading the entire Encyclopædia Britannica; all 32 volumes of the 2002 edition, extending to over 33,000 pages with some 44 million words.
What is the most reliable source of information? ›
Scholarly, peer-reviewed articles and books. Trade or professional articles or books. Magazine articles, books and newspaper articles from well-established companies.
Is it OK to cite Encyclopedia Britannica? ›
Authors of articles in general encyclopedias, or encyclopedias that cover all subject areas (such as the Encyclopedia Britannica), are not always listed. There are few situations in which you would list an entire encyclopedia in your references; you will need to list the individual article(s) that you consulted.
What happened to the Encyclopedia Britannica? ›
In 2012, after 244 years, Britannica ended the print editions, with the 32 volumes of the 2010 installment being the last on paper; future editions have been published exclusively online since.
Who runs Britannica? ›
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Under the leadership of Jorge Cauz, Britannica and Merriam-Webster have been transformed from iconic print brands into two of the world's largest and most trusted digital media platforms, serving a global audience of more than 150 million monthly users.
Why is Wikipedia not a good source? ›
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect.
Why should I use Britannica? ›
Trust Britannica Library as a reliable source with objective, fact-check, and unbiased content that is written by experts and vetted through rigorous editorial process. Take a look at our editorial process which serves as the backbone of our products, experiences, and content.
Critics have questioned its factual reliability, the readability and organization of its articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its political bias.
Did Elon Musk read Britannica? ›
Long before he became the CEO of Tesla, and even before he cofounded PayPal, a young Elon Musk was reading science-fiction novels for up to 10 hours a day. He also reportedly read through the entire Encyclopedia Britannica when he was 9 years old. He still credits a love of books for his vast knowledge about rockets.
What encyclopedia did Elon Musk read? ›
Elon Musk. Like all other successful billionaires, Elon Musk devoted a huge chunk of his time to reading when he was young. When he was in grade school, he read about ten hours a day. He read everything in his library and he even read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica.
Is Britannica more accurate than Wikipedia? ›
The Britannica is more consistent than Wikipedia but both sources are similar in terms of reliability. The virtue of Wikipedia is that articles are continually edited, but new articles are often terrible.
Is it OK to cite an Encyclopedia Britannica? ›
Authors of articles in general encyclopedias, or encyclopedias that cover all subject areas (such as the Encyclopedia Britannica), are not always listed. There are few situations in which you would list an entire encyclopedia in your references; you will need to list the individual article(s) that you consulted.
What is the difference between Wikipedia and encyclopedia? ›
Wikipedia is a crowdsourced project operated by amateurs and volunteers. The biggest inherent difference in that is that the professionals can conduct their own research and include their findings in their encyclopedia, but Wikipedians must seek out professional publications, their reliable sources, and copy them.
What is the ranking of Encyclopedia Britannica? ›
Website ranking helps evaluate the value of a business. Over the last three months, britannica.com's global ranking has increased from 841 to 946.
Is the editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica reliable? ›
Britannica's editorial process
Over the following two centuries, Britannica established its reputation for clarity, accuracy, objectivity, and fairness by drawing on the best authorities of every era, whether the latest published scholarship or the most respected Nobel Prize winners.
