Timothy Shell tshell@bomis.com writes:
One could plausibly argue that Britannica will always have an advantage in quality and reliability, but I don't think this is the case. For one thing, the Wikipedia process results in a high level of quality.
With quality I agree. Reliability is another thing: sometimes I'd want to link with a resource that explains a concept, which *won't* suddenly change from under my hands. Even if we believe that changes to Wikipedia generally go to the better, more detailed, more balanced, etc. that can be detrimental sometimes.
Suppose I write a paper about something that references an Wikipedia article. Now someone broadens the article with much information that is also in my paper, i.e. the papers is rendered a bit useless. Or worse, someone puts information that refute my theory on the page. Oops.
On the other hand, as we can all see now, up-to-dateness is a virtue in which Wikipedia can beat all printed encylopedias hands down. britannica.com also has something by now; I can't judge details from here, though.