Wikipedia v. Encyclopædia Britannica

Wikipedia is well known throughout the world, and especially to college students. While many professors are cracking down on the use of Wikipedia as a legitimate research tool, the site's breadth of information and categories thereof is undeniable.
Wikipedia supplies "useful information" gathered and refined by numerous person around the globe. Those who use and contribute to the site respect its purpose and most make every effort to provide quality information. What is so unique is the site's contribution method from general users, but such a method allows a much wider array of information overall.
As an example, in this past midt-term election I used Wikipedia to resarch information about candidates that may have been somewhat obscure. But the forum and resource tool Wikipedia provided allowed for an unbiased reasearch of politicians and helped me to make an informed choice. There is a very clear form and structure to Wikipedia, removing distracting clutter for a clear and informative experience.
Encyclopædia Britannica offers much the same information as Wikipedia, and while it lacks at times in breadth of information and user contribution it is superior in its use of experts to provide researched material.