Editing Encyclopædia Britannica (section)

=== Wikipedia ===
{{Main|Wikipedia}}
The main online alternative to ''Britannica'' is [[Wikipedia]].<ref name="Tancer">{{cite magazine |last=Tancer |first=Bill |date=1 May 2007 |title=Look Who's Using Wikipedia |url=https://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html |url-status=dead |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070303065202/https://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1595184,00.html |archive-date=3 March 2007 |access-date=1 December 2007 |quote=The sheer volume of content [...] is partly responsible for the site's dominance as an online reference. When compared to the top 3,200 educational reference sites in the US, Wikipedia is No. 1, attracting 24.3% of all visits to the category}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Tancer |first=Bill |date=1 March 2007 |title=Wikipedia, Search and School Homework |url=https://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2007/03/wikipedia_search_and_school_ho.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120325220239/https://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2007/03/wikipedia_search_and_school_ho.html |archive-date=25 March 2012 |website=[[Hitwise]]}}</ref><ref name="Woodson">{{cite news |last=Woodson |first=Alex |date=8 July 2007 |title=Wikipedia remains go-to site for online news |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN0819429120070708 |url-status=live |access-date=16 December 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071121104746/https://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN0819429120070708 |archive-date=21 November 2007 |quote=Online encyclopedia Wikipedia has added about 20 million unique monthly visitors in the past year, making it the top online news and information destination, according to Nielsen&#x2F;/NetRatings.}}</ref> The key differences between the two lie in accessibility; the model of participation they bring to an [[Encyclopédistes|encyclopedic project]]; their respective style sheets and editorial policies; relative ages; the number of subjects treated; the number of languages in which articles are written and made available; and their underlying economic models: unlike ''Britannica'', Wikipedia is not-for-profit, does not carry advertising on its site, and is not connected with traditional profit- and contract-based publishing distribution networks.

''Britannica''{{'}}s articles either have known authorship<!--"...identified authors" can parse as verb--> or a set of possible authors (the editorial staff). With the exception of the editorial staff, most ''Britannica''{{'s}} contributors are experts in their field—some are Nobel laureates.<ref name="macropaedia_contributors" /> By contrast, the articles on Wikipedia are written by people of unknown degrees of expertise; most do not claim any particular expertise, and of those who do, many are anonymous and have no verifiable credentials.<ref name="Giles_Nature_study_2005" /> It is for this lack of institutional vetting or certification that former ''Britannica'' editor-in-chief Robert McHenry noted his belief in 2004 that Wikipedia could not hope to rival the ''Britannica'' in accuracy.<ref name="FBE">{{cite news | first=Robert | last=McHenry | title=The Faith-Based Encyclopedia | work=TCS Daily | date=15 November 2004 | url=https://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2004/11/the-faith-based-encyclopedia.html| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101204040824/https://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2004/11/the-faith-based-encyclopedia.html| url-status=dead| archive-date=4 December 2010}}</ref>

In 2005, the journal ''Nature'' chose articles from both websites in a wide range of science topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles—one from each site on a given topic—side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. ''Nature'' got back 42 usable reviews. The journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts: four from each site. It also discovered many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 in Wikipedia and 123 in ''Britannica'', an average of 3.86 mistakes per article for Wikipedia and 2.92 for ''Britannica''.<ref name="Giles_Nature_study_2005">{{Cite journal |last=Giles |first=J. |author-link=Jim Giles (reporter) |year=2005 |title=Internet encyclopaedias go head to head: Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume=438 |issue=7070 |pages=900–901 |bibcode=2005Natur.438..900G |doi=10.1038/438900a |pmid=16355180 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Terdiman|first=Daniel|title=Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica|url=https://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html|work=Staff Writer, CNET News|publisher=CNET News|access-date=5 July 2011|archive-date=9 August 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120809174447/http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Although ''Britannica ''was revealed as the more accurate encyclopaedia, with fewer errors, in its rebuttal, it called ''Nature'''s study flawed and misleading<ref name="fatally_flawed">{{cite web |date=March 2006 |title=Fatally Flawed&nbsp;– Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature |url=https://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181202112822/http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf |archive-date=2 December 2018 |access-date=30 June 2011 |publisher=Encyclopædia Britannica, Incorporated}}</ref> and called for a "prompt" retraction. It noted that two of the articles in the study were taken from a ''Britannica'' yearbook and not the encyclopaedia, and another two were from ''Compton's Encyclopedia'' (called the ''Britannica Student Encyclopedia'' on the company's website).

''Nature'' defended its story and declined to retract, stating that, as it was comparing Wikipedia with the web version of ''Britannica'', it used whatever relevant material was available on ''Britannica''{{'s}} website.<ref>{{cite press release
| url = https://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf
| title = Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature: a response
| access-date = 21 October 2006
| date = 23 March 2006
| work = Nature
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060325124447/https://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf
| archive-date = 25 March 2006
| url-status = dead
}} (nature.com's own archive is under [https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/about/press nature.com] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211119213822/https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/about/press |date=19 November 2021 }}, inside [https://www.nature.com/documents/Press_release_archive_2006.zip Press release archives (zip): 2006] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210827140651/https://www.nature.com/documents/Press_release_archive_2006.zip |date=27 August 2021 }} by filename ''Encyclopaedia Britannica and Nature a response.pdf''. As of 20 November 2021, the PDF creation date is 2 August 2019))</ref> Interviewed in February 2009, the managing director of ''Britannica UK'' said: {{blockquote|Wikipedia is a fun site to use and has a lot of interesting entries on there, but their approach wouldn't work for {{lang|la|Encyclopædia Britannica}}. My job is to create more awareness of our very different approaches to publishing in the public mind. They're a chisel, we're a drill, and you need to have the correct tool for the job.<ref name="econsultancy_20090210" />}}

For the 15th anniversary of Wikipedia, the ''[[The Daily Telegraph|Telegraph]]'' published two opinion pieces which compared Wikipedia to ''Britannica'' and falsely claimed that ''Britannica'' had gone bankrupt in 1996.<ref>{{Cite web |date=15 January 2016 |title=Wikipedia: an old-fashioned corner of truth on the internet |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/12101712/Wikipedia-an-old-fashioned-corner-of-truth-on-the-internet.html |access-date=5 February 2024 |website=The Telegraph |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=14 January 2016 |title=How Wikipedia changed the world |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/12100516/How-Wikipedia-changed-the-world.html |access-date=5 February 2024 |website=The Telegraph |language=en}}</ref> In a January 2016 press release, ''Britannica'' responded by calling Wikipedia "an impressive achievement" but argued that critics should avoid "false comparisons" to ''Britannica'' in terms of differing models and purposes.<ref>{{Cite web |date=20 January 2016 |title=Our Letter to the Telegraph |url=https://corporate.britannica.com/news/our-letter-to-the-telegraph/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210428003754/https://corporate.britannica.com/news/our-letter-to-the-telegraph/ |archive-date=28 April 2021 |access-date=28 April 2021 |website=Encyclopædia Britannica, Incorporated Corporate Site |language=en}}</ref>