Is it true that wikipedia equals the prestigious encyclopedia britannica? (in terms of quality)?

I think Wikipedia is the most recent encyclopedia there can ever be, and that is good for current-events quality. However, Wikipedia is increasingly prone to pranksters who manipulate entries for fun. For example, imagine what Bill Clinton-haters would do to change his biography in Wikipedia. Though quality overall is great for Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica is much more secure than a site everybody can edit.Is it true that wikipedia equals the prestigious encyclopedia britannica? (in terms of quality)?
Also keep in mind that Wikipedia has far more articles and Britannica has less which means Wikipedia has a far less error ratios than the famed Britannica.





http://science.slashdot.org/ar鈥?/a>

Report Abuse

Is it true that wikipedia equals the prestigious encyclopedia britannica? (in terms of quality)?
Yes, try to use it. Also, it is continuously updated by a lot of people.
In terms of quality, it's almost as good. In terms of scope, it's way better.
All of the stuff I have ever looked up on it both for Yahoo! Answers and other projects the data has been accurate and easy to find.
i think so
i believe it's better
Of course it does! If it dident I wouldent research my but off there now would I?