Encyclopædia Britannica vs Wikipedia (English) — Discipline
How rigorously each source backs its factual claims with verifiable evidence.
Wikipedia (English) outscores Encyclopædia Britannica on Citation Discipline by 4 points (A+ · 96 vs A · 92).
Encyclopædia Britannica
Editor-supervised; named expert contributors; editorial-board fact-check; corrections logged.
Wikipedia (English)
Inline citations required by editorial policy on every factual claim; uncited claims tagged within hours.
Global rank · Discipline
Why these Discipline scores
Editor-supervised; named expert contributors; editorial-board fact-check; corrections logged.
Inline citations required by editorial policy on every factual claim; uncited claims tagged within hours.
Signals behind the Discipline score
- Editorial boardSubject-area editors review every entry.
- Named contributorsArticles signed by experts with credentials disclosed.
- 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
Sources & references
Every score on this page is read from the two publications below and graded against the published rubric. No score is bought, estimated or supplied by the source being scored.
- Source evaluated — Encyclopædia Britannica (britannica.com) · verified · full scoring record
- Source evaluated — Wikipedia (English) (en.wikipedia.org) · verified · full scoring record
- Scoring rubric — SourceScore Index, Citation Discipline, Modern Reference, Citation Velocity (methodology v0.1)
- Machine-readable record — /api/compare/britannica-vs-wikipedia-en/discipline.json