The article I chose to compare for my article is about Socrates. Often, Wikipedia is considered an unreliable research source compared to other online references like Encyclopedia Britannica. Yes, there is actually a difference that affects scientific research versus information provided on Wikipedia. The best thing about Wikipedia is that it concisely and systematically provides thematic information on each topic for a “short and quick reference” of the summary of our research topic. , a distinct and easy-to-note introduction. We also credit him with providing information in a very systematic and orderly manner and being far too detailed in providing information and images about an article. Wikipedia is a good source to start with basic information because it gives a summary at the beginning that almost gives the reader a rough knowledge of what they are reading. Wikipedia is not considered reliable because it can be edited by anyone, so we do not know the accuracy of the information or the real contributors of the article. Additionally, due to Wikipedia's random editing feature, information often has to be cross-checked with other sources, thus making Wikipedia an unreliable source of information. Since Britannica authors are more expert and well-versed in their area of ​​expertise, they can be trusted as a true source of information and can be used for research. Wikipedia contributors are always anonymous and free to simply share their share of knowledge on the forum and so we really need to check with other sources to determine Wikipedia's accuracy. Even Wikipedia accepts the fact that it cannot be used for research purposes. Another particularity of Wikipedia is that ...... middle of paper ...... on Socrates, the French version of the document is longer than the English version and contains more information. Therefore, this creates problems because not all readers of the wiki get the same information from it. Britannica, on the other hand, is only consulted when needed for a more accurate source of information and is therefore mainly consulted for information by students, teachers and other professionals, more for professional purposes and counts fewer readers due to its availability. only in English. Therefore, from my analysis, I can say that Wikipedia and Britannica are good in their own way. Britannica is more accurate and better provides research and teaching information, while Wikipedia is useful for quick references.*(1)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socrates#Edit_requestsWorks Citedhttp: //en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Talk:Socrates#Edit_requests