[somenameforme]

Wikipedia, unlike more classical encyclopedias such as e.g. Britannica, is not a primary source, by design. On anything tangentially related to topics like politics it's obligated to rely on sources like the US media which make no effort to even feign neutrality or balance. And of course these sources are then cited by editors who, similarly, have little interest in even feigning balance, beyond some minimal pretext.

The ideal of checks and balances keeping the system relatively neutral would only work if there was a relative balance of ideological views among overactive editors. And on that, I'm reminded of that line from the Blues Brothers, 'We have all types of music here - country and western!'

[bazoom42]

Brittanica is not a primary source either. Encyclopedias are considered tertiary sources. Encyclopedias are not supposed to perform original research but to aggregate and condense information from secondary sources.

What sources do you think Britannica can use which are not available to Wikipedia?

[somenameforme]

Among Britannica's authors are Einstein, Trotsky, Asimov, Milton Friedman, and many such others. [1] In Wikipedia, Trotsky himself could not opine on e.g. communism. By contrast, the words of a random junior journalist in an opinion piece published on a newspaper website are perfectly legitimate for publication in an article on communism. Wikipedia is simply a very different sort of project than an encyclopedia.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica#P...

[bazoom42]

Perhaps you misunderstand what “encyclopedia” means? Britannica itself classify Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (https://www.britannica.com/topic/encyclopaedia/The-kinds-of-...)

[somenameforme]

Now you're shifting the goal posts to semantics. You implied Wikipedia and encyclopedias used the same methods, which is incorrect. Britannica is written by field domain experts, many of them world leading. Wikipedia is instead, as you described, a collection of citations of other work, written by random people, and which relies heavily on the US media as a source for any sort of cultural, social, or political topic.

There was a pretty interesting paper written looking at the biases in Wiki vs Britannica. [1] You might find it interesting.

[1] - https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/do-experts-or-collective-intellig...

[bazoom42]

> You implied Wikipedia and encyclopedias used the same methods, which is incorrect.

I just pointed out that Britannica (like Wikipedia) is not a primary source. “Primary source” have a specific meaning and encyclopedias are not primary sources - regardless of the editorial process and the credentials of the authors.

Try citing Britannica in an academic paper and se how well it goes.

[somenameforme]

It'd go just fine. Here's a quick Google Scholar search for the header of the MLA citation standard for unattributed Britannica articles. [1] There are thousands. Encyclopedias are fine sources, but Wikipedia is not. Encyclopedias biggest shortcoming would be that for specialized topics one would of course be far better served by books, papers, and the likes.

[1] - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?lookup=0&q=%22Britannica,...