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".
What is the most reliable encyclopedia? ›
Encyclopedias
- Britannica. Highly respected encyclopedia in publication since 1768. ...
- Catholic Encyclopedia. 10,000 articles on Catholic history, interests, and doctrine. ...
- Columbia Encyclopedia (via Infoplease) ...
- Computer Desktop Encyclopedia. ...
- Credo Reference. ...
- Encyclopedia Mythica. ...
- Encyclopedia of Life. ...
- Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
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.
What percentage of Wikipedia is accurate? ›
Wikipedia articles have an accuracy rate of 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy of other sources.
Who writes the articles for Britannica? ›
Britannica's editorial staff is made up of writers and editors who have extensive knowledge in their fields, which range from geography to botany to technology and beyond. Britannica commissions work from experts, including leading thinkers in academia and journalism.
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.
What is the most comprehensive encyclopedia? ›
Some of the most recommended encyclopedias include Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopædia Universalis, and World Book Encyclopedia. These sources are known for their comprehensive coverage and reliability.
Which online encyclopedia is most widely used? ›
Wikipedia is a widely used, free online encyclopedia, funded entirely by donations, rather than by selling advertising or user data.
Is the Encyclopedia Britannica worth it? ›
Encyclopaedia Britannica is an excellent reference for home and a very good starting point for seeking information on any subject. It is useful for the whole family. I strongly recommend it.
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.
Why did the Encyclopedia Britannica stop printing? ›
We had no need for a wake because we weren't grieving. We had known for some time that this day was coming. Given how little revenue the print set generated, and given that we had long ago shifted to a digital-first editorial process, the bound volumes had become a distraction and a chore to put together.
What are two downsides to using Wikipedia? ›
The crowdsourced nature of Wikipedia can lead to the exclusion of some voices and topics. Although anyone can edit, not everyone does. On the issue of gender bias, Wikipedia acknowledges that most contributors are male, few biographies are about women, and topics of interest to women receive less coverage.
Why is Wikipedia not a good source? ›
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia, or as a source for copying or translating content. 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.
When should you use encyclopedias such as Wikipedia? ›
An encyclopedia, whether a paper one like Britannica or an online one, is great for getting a general understanding of a subject before you dive into it. But then you do have to dive into your subject, using books and articles and other higher-quality sources to do better research.
Is Wikipedia bigger than Britannica? ›
Thus, the text of the English Wikipedia is currently equivalent to 3,498.8 volumes of Encyclopædia Britannica. In other words, Wikipedia is approximately 109.34 times the size of Encyclopædia Britannica and that's excluding pictures for Wikipedia.
Which is better, Britannia or 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.
Are the sources on Wikipedia reliable? ›
However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact-checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE).
What is accuracy Britannica? ›
Britannica Dictionary definition of ACCURACY. 1. : freedom from mistake or error : the quality or state of being accurate : correctness. [noncount] Each experiment is performed twice to ensure accuracy.
