DISCIPLINE · 35% of composite
Encyclopædia Britannica vs Wikipedia (English) — Discipline
How rigorously each source backs its factual claims with verifiable evidence.
Verdict
Wikipedia (English) outscores Encyclopædia Britannica on Citation Discipline by 4 points (A+ · 96 vs A · 92).
Reference
Encyclopædia Britannica
britannica.com
A·92
Rank #35 of 130 on Discipline
Editor-supervised; named expert contributors; editorial-board fact-check; corrections logged.
Higher Discipline
Reference
Wikipedia (English)
en.wikipedia.org
A+·96
Rank #2 of 130 on Discipline
Inline citations required by editorial policy on every factual claim; uncited claims tagged within hours.
Global rank · Discipline
Why these Discipline scores
Encyclopædia BritannicaA·92
Discipline · 92/100
Editor-supervised; named expert contributors; editorial-board fact-check; corrections logged.
Wikipedia (English)A+·96
Discipline · 96/100
Inline citations required by editorial policy on every factual claim; uncited claims tagged within hours.
Signals behind the Discipline score
Encyclopædia Britannica
- Editorial boardSubject-area editors review every entry.
- Named contributorsArticles signed by experts with credentials disclosed.
Wikipedia (English)
- WP:V (Verifiability)Core policy mandates reliable sources.
- Citation needed tagActive triage process surfaces gaps publicly.
Other dimensions for Encyclopædia Britannica vs Wikipedia (English)
Other Discipline comparisons
The New York Times vs The Washington PostAssociated Press vs ReutersFinancial Times vs The Wall Street JournalNature vs ScienceNew England Journal of Medicine vs The LancetarXiv vs PubMedDOI (CrossRef Resolver) vs Semantic ScholarForeign Affairs vs The EconomistBBC News vs The GuardianAl Jazeera English vs BBC NewsBBC News vs NPRPolitico vs The Economist