Delirium wrote:

From a Wikipedia point of view this looks sloppy and non-neutral, but it does fit Brittanica's historical model of being The Source of trusted information, not "merely" an editor and reporter of information.

I thought I had a good analogy here and forgot what it was, and now remembered, so I'll reply to myself. If you considered making a travel guide, I see Wikipedia as looking at other travel guides, books on other countries, travel documentaries, reviews, and so on, and summarizing consensus opinion, properly sourced. Britannica, on the other hand, is more in the typical style of a travel guide---they send out a reporter who scoops out the places himself, and tells you the "real deal" on what is good and what's bad. Where it differs from popular opinion, they simply assert popular opinion is wrong---"[x] is popular and gets good reviews, but it's overrated and I'd steer clear".

Same with the encyclopedia---Britannica positions themselves as a trusted source that looks into things, cuts through the crap, and tells you what the truth really is, while Wikipedia doesn't claim to have any special knowledge of what the truth really is, so sticks to reporting.

Which of these is better depends on whether you think Britannica really *does* know what the truth is. =]

-Mark