User:Hemiauchenia/sandboxBritannica

Which of the following options best describes the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica?


 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting;
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply;
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting

Survey (Encyclopædia Britannica)

 * Option 2 Britannica obviously has a long and storied history, and per it is currently cited over 27,000 times on Wikipedia, and perhaps many more times to the physical editions. However, as I have come to read numerous Britannica articles over my time editing, I have become to have serious concerns about it's use as a source on Wikipedia (at least the current Online Edition (OE), I think the 1911 PD version should be avoided entirely). First, as a general-purpose encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not be citing other general-purpose encyclopedias, but should be citing reliable secondary sources to determine current views. Second, when I have read encyclopedia articles on topics that I am familiar with, I have come to notice that the Britannica articles contain obvious errors and half truths, and well as being significantly out of date. The fact that the OE lacks a bibliography means that the reliability of the underlying sources used to write the article cannot be assessed.

Discussion
This RfC was prompted by