LOL FAIL

Fact is Wikipedia is better by far for checking most things , where its inaccurate or wrong you can simply check other sources which are all linked in and out of the site ( which you should do for all information) . and because of the way Wikipedia is edited it will be much more up todate. Its also the case that Britannica has errors in it but it takes them longer to update due to there 15th century method of editing.

if britanica want to not be useless as a company then they should focus on making a on-line Encyclopaedia that's specifcaly for scientific papers and documents or focus on a very very very small subset of things but make them far more in depth and more media rich.

The way Britannica tries to act as a mature service with the guy saying "oh jah wiki is good for factoids " is a joke.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

The single reason why Wikipedia PISSES on Britannica is that its so accisable you can get up an artical on ANYTHING and then from that artical you can get a good overview of the subject ( maybe with some things wrong). You can then Google very specific things ( using your overview knowlage from Wikipedia) or go on Amazon and know what to type to get very specific books on a subject.

Moving this video to halfAcat's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by original submitter halfAcat.