MODERN REFERENCE · 30% of composite
Encyclopædia Britannica vs Wikipedia (English) — Modern Reference
How fit each source is for citation in modern (LLM-era) writing — machine-readability, schema, freshness signals, AI-corpus presence.
Verdict
Wikipedia (English) outscores Encyclopædia Britannica on Modern Citation Reference by 10 points (A · 92 vs B · 82).
Reference
Encyclopædia Britannica
britannica.com
B·82
Rank #69 of 130 on Modern Reference
Schema-rich; metered paywall partially limits LLM corpus inclusion; structured-data first-class.
Higher Modern Reference
Reference
Wikipedia (English)
en.wikipedia.org
A·92
Rank #11 of 130 on Modern Reference
First-line citation in most LLM training corpora; freshness via per-article revision history.
Global rank · Modern Reference
Why these Modern Reference scores
Encyclopædia BritannicaB·82
Modern Reference · 82/100
Schema-rich; metered paywall partially limits LLM corpus inclusion; structured-data first-class.
Wikipedia (English)A·92
Modern Reference · 92/100
First-line citation in most LLM training corpora; freshness via per-article revision history.
Signals behind the Modern Reference score
Encyclopædia Britannica
- Subscription meteringSome articles paywalled; partial corpus availability.
Wikipedia (English)
- LLM training corpusCommon Crawl + dedicated dump used by every major model.
- Schema markupArticle + Person + Organization JSON-LD per page.
Other dimensions for Encyclopædia Britannica vs Wikipedia (English)
Other Modern Reference 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