Brittannica should be a good choice to me. Although Wikipedia and Brittannica have a lots of sources for us to find out and most of it is useful for us, Wikipedia's sources may not completely correct. It is because Wikipedia's information can be edited by anyone even your younger brother. Therefore, the information which found from Wikipedia may not reliable.
Although I said that Brittannica is better choice, I won't say that Brittannica's information must be completely correct and reliable. We know that Brittannica only can be changed by the owner. In order to make the source more reliable, the editor should find more evidence and basis to prove whether the information is proper or not. Therefore,the information should be more neutral.
But I don't think information only can be edited by a person, as some controvertsial information should be combined by both positive and negative opinion. Some people may say that Wikipedia can be combine more different voice from people as Wikipedia can be changed by everyone. I may be true. But I wonder those opinions is true or it's a joke? As Brittannica have more reliable evidences, hence I would trust the information from Brittannica more.
Edith,
回覆刪除I stand with your point also. I think Wikipedia is not reliable because we dont know the reference of those information. Some may be true but some may not be true. We cannot find out the writer of those information. In other hand, Brittannica can give us a source where those information come from, we can judge that source is reliable or not. That's why I think Brittannica is more reliable than Wikipedia.
Wai