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
Encyclopædia Britannica also argued that a breakdown of the errors indicated that the mistakes in Wikipedia were more often the inclusion of incorrect facts, while the mistakes in Britannica were "errors of omission", making "Britannica far more accurate than Wikipedia, according to the figures".
How reliable is the Encyclopedia Britannica? ›
Britannica's content is among the most trusted in the world. Every article is written, and continually fact-checked, by our experts. Subscribe to Britannica Premium and unlock our entire database of trusted content today.
What are the advantages of using Wikipedia over a traditional encyclopaedia such as Britannica? ›
Comprehensiveness and depth
With the English Wikipedia now having more than six million articles, it is already well over twenty times the size of what was previously the world's largest encyclopedia (the largest edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, which contains 65,000 articles).
Has anyone ever read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica? ›
A.J. Jacobs was not the first to read the entire Britannica. The earliest recorded example was Fath Ali, who upon becoming the Shah of Persia in 1797, was given a gift of the 3rd edition of the Britannica.
What percentage of Wikipedia is accurate? ›
Wikipedia articles have an accuracy rate of 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy of other sources.
Is it OK to use Britannica as a source? ›
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.
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 best online encyclopedia? ›
Encyclopedias
- Scholarpedia. ...
- Smithsonian. ...
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ...
- The Canadian Encyclopedia. ...
- Who2. ...
- Wikipedia. ...
- World Book. Trustworthy, professionally-authored encyclopedia in print since 1917. ...
- World Digital Library. Archive of cultural heritage artifacts from libraries, archives, and museums around the world.
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.
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.
Unlimited Access to Trusted Content
Britannica is continuously reviewed and updated, with articles written by experts and vetted by fact-checkers.
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 was raised by books. He often spent several hours a day reading science fiction because it was an opportunity to peer into humanity's future among the stars, per CNBC. “It's said he read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica at age nine and would pore through science fiction novels for more than 10 hours a day.”
Is Encyclopedia Britannica better than Wikipedia? ›
Encyclopedias in general tend to be reasonably reliable sources, but should never be a SOLE source of information. Encyclopedia Britannica was compiled and checked by experts. However, studies have shown that Wikipedia is just as accurate.
Does Wikipedia count as a reliable source? ›
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).
Is Britannica considered a scholarly or popular source? ›
In contrast to Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica is a well-known, centuries-old English-language encyclopedia that seems to have a reputation for scholarly authority.
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.
How do you know if a Wikipedia article is reliable? ›
Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly. An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article.
