> Why not both? Unless it's about something I already know, I can't always tell when a Wikipedia article is totally off base, either through omission or commis

> Why not both? Unless it's about something I already know, I can't always tell when a Wikipedia article is totally off base, either through omission or commission, about facts or context. I trust Britannica and experts more. IMHO, often the difference between experts and amateurs is that the amateurs have huge blind spots, gaps in their knowledge that they are unaware of, and a lack of context. A doctor and a patient can read the same online research but there's a big difference in how they might interpret it.