You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] firecat 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

The Encyclopædia Britannica it has real sources and you can know who wrote the article. There is no "we think" in that site it is just facts with no different viewpoints. Lastly why it is the best is because no one can change the information, it goes through many experts.

if you think britannica is not ok then try Citizendium it has real people adding the articles. It also requires people to verify that it is them, so you %100 know the person who posted the article.


[–] JonReed 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

and wikipedia was praised before because it didn't have central sources


[–] GazeboCathedral 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

My recollection of Encyclopædia Britannica in book form matches what you said. Glad to see they are still pure.

A minor problem is that you have to pay, which is not that big a deal. Hell, I gave Wikipedia $20 once during one of their beg-a-thons years ago due to my constant use of it. Would not recommend again. Stupid, stupid of me. The major problem is that if one is trying to link others information, they have to have paid as well to see it. Kind of a bummer in that regards.


[–] phw 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Good. I recommend the essay WP:CANCER if you're thinking about donating money. Apparently they have plenty and are wasting it.


[–] alele-opathic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Citizendium had a great thing going almost a decade ago (fuck I feel old), but, unlike infogalactic (which cloned Wikipedia), they were having trouble getting enough new pages set up and approved by experts that it fizzled out for want of content. IMO, they had a great article review setup that was far more factual, and thus would have been great for science topics (which should have been their sole focus), but alas.