Britannica and Wikipedia address this problem in distinct ways. The encyclopedia uses a small group of experts and editors who engage in a back-and-forth dialogue before settling on what to publish for a given entry.

Wikipedia goes much larger scale, depending on the virtual crowd—tens of...

Wikipedia’s political articles are more likely to lean “mildly” Democratic—or to slant left—than Britannica’s. The extent of the bias in Wikipedia entries is greater.

Wikipedia articles with more revision in them had less bias and were less likely to lean Democratic. The largest biases and...

Wikipedia’s popularity as an information source with everyone from grade-schoolers to those in their golden years, led Shane Greenstein, a professor of strategy at the Kellogg School, to investigate how faithfully Wikipedia adheres to a “neutral point of view.”

Newer articles, he has ...

As sources that aspire to provide comprehensive information, Britannica and Wikipedia face similar conflicts over the length, tone, and factual basis of controversial, unverifiable, and subjective content.

Understandably, these conflicts are “pervasive” when it comes to cu...

It is important to remember that Wikipedia positions itself as a jumping-off point rather than a definitive source. Britannica, on the other hand, presented itself as the ultimate authority.

But many people do take Wikipedia as definitive. And that is why it is important to tease out its p...