Britannica vs. Wikipedia

Posted on by

For the first time in about 15 years, I had the chance to check the Encyclopedia Britannica for an entry about a historical figure.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/580776/Hippolyte-Taine

Compare this to the Wikipedia entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippolyte_Taine

I can appreciate that Wikipedia may or may not distort the figure in question; however, at least I have something to go on. Britannica is just a disaster. Imagining a world without Wikipedia is, for the lack of a more descriptive term, depressing!

2 thoughts on “Britannica vs. Wikipedia”

  1. A disaster? I think the Britannica article is actually longer than the Wikipedia one (1800 words for britannica vs 1200 for wikipedia)

  2. Thanks for correcting me.

    I think most of the article was hidden from me because I had noscript enabled. (An attempt to stop site scrapers perhaps?)

Comments are closed.