wikipedia and encyclopedia britannica

I really feel like these two aren't so comparable because they are used for two slightly different reasons. Wikipedia is used to obtain information quickly and to have information put in more understandable terms. Encyclopedia Britannica allows you to find more accurate information but doesn't cover as many topics and sometimes isn't up to date. Yes it's true both allow you to do the same thing but usually you have two different purposes in mind.

If someone tells you for instance about a war you have never heard of, for information's sake, you will quickly go to wikipedia to get an idea of what they are talking about and maybe even be able to give input. If you wanted to write a paper for school on that war you will more likely go to encyclopedia britannica for a more in depth or accurate depiction of the war. So to me I think both can easily stick around and while wikipedia might be the more popular choice (for people that just want quick information) it wont always be the only choice. After all anyone can put anything on wikipedia and even with regulation some incorrect facts can be missed by regulators. So technically the more accurate one will always be the one with official information with valid sources and copyrights and all that stuff. But they both are very useful and both serve a purpose people will want to use them for.