Wikipedia vs Britannica

If I had to choose between these two sources for information to be the only encyclopedia for the world to use I would have to go with Wikipedia.

Although this encyclopedic source can be less reliable than the Britannica Online Encyclopedia in terms of being factual, I feel that Wikipedia has enough other benefits that are absent from the Britannica format to make up for this common complaint.

Links for Further Research
Though both encyclopedia sites feature hyperlinks throughout their content, connecting them to other related pages it is my experience that Wikipedia has many more of these. But perhaps more importantly Wikipedia generally speaking lists many more external links and long lists of additional resources. For me, encyclopedias have always been a starting point for researchers to obtain a base of knowledge on a given topic and then move forward to other texts produced by specialists in the subject matter at hand.

Greater Spectrum of Topics
When it comes to prominent figures, events, and other well established and widely recognized topics it may be that Britannica is a better source than Wikipedia but when it comes to lesser known subjects they seem to be omitted completely. While Britannica has substantial entries for many historic figures, when it comes to contemporary individuals the site is seriously lacking. Wikipedia, in contrast, provides in depth information on significant figures in a variety of fields. Personally, this type of information has been important for me as I have entered various internships in art museums, with a quick search one can learn the key facts related to the institutions director or perhaps prominent curators. With an openness to anyone as an author, Wikipedia provides an opening for the creation of pages on topics that perhaps only a limited population would know of or think to create but these topics could end up being interesting and of value to a greater population once published.

Low Costs
As mentioned in a 2005 lecture on Ted Talks, Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) explained that while they have a very significant number of authors contributing to the site's content, Wikipedia's actual staff consists of just one individual. In contrast, Encyclopaedia Britannica employs "trained editors and fact-checkers, more than 4,000 experts," according to Dale Hoiberg the senior vice president and editor in chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. as he stated in a 2006 discussion with Jimmy Wales published by The Wall Street Journal. Along with cost of production goes a cost to access the information. While Wikipedia is free for all users, Encyclopaedia Britannica is a proprietary source and users must pay for full access to the information that it provides.

Easier and Faster Correction of Errors
Perhaps the most common criticisms of Wikipedia is the question of the site's accuracy of information. It is true that many more errors or misinformation appear on Wikipedia than on Britannica's site but being an open source, these things can much more easily and promptly be corrected on Wikipedia than on Britannica where errors that do pop up take much longer to see corrections.

Broader Collection of Authors and Perspectives
With such openness in terms of authorship, it is much easier for Wikipedia to combat the sort of bias that the Encyclopaedia Britannica has been accused of often in the past. One example of this bias that has been given much attention is Britannica's portrayal of Hinduism that some have disputed as inaccurate and negative.

Provides a Platform For Information Storage
Wikipedia is a great place for individuals to compile and record information on a given topic that might otherwise be lost. For instance my high school has it's own Wikipedia page where individuals can record various facts and accomplishments of the school that might not otherwise be compiled all in one place.