Wikipedia v. Britannica

The topic I decided to research and compare on both Britannica and Wikipedia was "holography". My group, for the hidden jewels project, is actually attending a holography museum downtown, so I thought this would fit in nicely with both projects. While doing the research, I found that the websites are quite different from one another in presenting their information.

On Britannica, the attributions on the website differ from those on Wikipedia. For example, there is no identifiable author. There is simple citation at the end of each page stating that it is a part of the Britannica Encyclopedia and when and where the piece was published. Now, on Wikipedia several of the authors names are listed and so are the Wiki editors. As a researcher, you are also able to contact the authors by creating an account with Wikipedia. This gives you access to other editors and authors on the website.

Wikipedia also offers specific information on the date and time of each update on the topic the researcher has searched. In fact, by looking at the website, I am able to see that the page concerning holography was last updated on November 26, 2007 at 10:25a.m. Britannica, on the other hand, does not list the last time it was updated. It only states when it was published and when I had retrieved the article. Both websites make it very simple to view information on recent the pages were updated and published though.

Wikipedia includes a list of bibliographies as well as a list of further readings and links. There are many bibliographies due to the fact that other people have edited this page many times from information they have found and cited as editors and authors. There are actually five references and ten footnotes displayed on the web page for researches to view, and nine of these citations are clickable and send you to new websites with more information on holography. Many tell you exactly where they got their information from to prove that it is credible and not made up. Britannica also includes two bibliographies at the end of each web page. One in MLA style and the other APA style, and they are also clickable. When clicked on, these bibliographies send you to the same web page the reader is already at though. They aren't quite as informative at times.

Besides the links found for bibliographies and citations, there are also links to other websites, particularly on the Wikipedia website. As a reader, you will find almost 20 other links on this page. They are helpful links that lead you to new pages to help you better understand the vocabulary and topics that are found throughout the information given. Britannica also has links, but not to other websites. Their links simply lead to other pages on Britannica, but they have the same purpose as those on Wikipedia. They help to inform researchers of background and outside information as well.

Although these sites seem very different they do present the same information for the most part. Wikipedia is a bit more extensive than Britannica at times. I felt that it was easier for the researcher to understand because it went more in depth about each type of hologram and used many visuals, but as a researcher, you do not always know that this information is completely true, and this needs to be taken into account. Britannica was a more simple and more organized version of the same information, but both Wikipedia and Britannica covered my topic, holography, the way I was thinking about it. Both discussed the principles of holography, the different types of holography, where holography was used, and so on.


Even though the information on Wikipedia sounds accurate, it may not be at times, but the website allows readers and researches to edit and discuss what information is put on the page. On Britannica there are only facts; there are no authors who can update the information when they feel necessary. The whole idea of people becoming members in order to talk with the authors on a certain topic is a little shaky and unreliable, at least it is for me.

Due to the fact that Wikipedia can be found with false information, I felt that Britannica is much more reliable, and it is an easy way to get specific and to the point information on any topic, including holography. Both provide a good overview of the topic, but I simply liked how Britannica was set up better. I am not saying that everything on Wikipedia is incorrect, in fact, I feel it can be a very helpful place to begin a research paper, but Britannica simply made me feel more comfortable because I knew that what I was reading was factual information and not just something a Wiki member posted just a few minutes ago.