what audience does the encyclopedia britannica address?
553977
Hmmm, we have two sets of encyclopedias in our house. One set is a set of Britannicas from 1966, and one is a set of World Books from about 1980. I always used the World Book encyclopedias the most while growing up since they seemed a little easier to read, and they had color illustrations. The Encyclopedia Britannica seemed more detailed but often used harder words. Perhaps you would consider Encyclopedia Brittanica (actually spelled Encyclopaedia on our set) is aimed more at high school and college students on up. There is a section in front saying how the encyclopedias were compiled by faculty members of the University of Chicago, as well as Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Toronto. The World Book is a compilation of articles by a variety of writers, and I think most of the articles aim at anywhere from a fourth grade reading level on up.
563125
Try the encyclopedia Britanica online. If you google it you can find the website and it is a credible source of information, unlike wikipedia.
50407
Here's a good start. Gotta love Wikipedia.
566963
As a university student, I can tell you that at least professors in general will look down on using that as a source of academic info, although some secondary educators may differ on this point. The problem with it is that anyone can submit an article and be published. It is not peer-reviewed either, so the info may not be completely accurate or up-to-date. For a good source of info regarding encyclopedias, consult one that features articles written by experts in their respective fields, those who have solid credentials like PhDs, MDs, etc. Remember that, individually, opinions will vary from teacher to teacher about this topic, though.
13492
depends on your question; for factual information Wikipedia is my favorite place on earth, I could spend days looking up everything under the sun. Thats just the nerd in me talking though. \n\nsearch engines are not that reliable since they are usually biased.\n\nif you are looking to relate with people or get other peoples' useful information or opinions then this is the place to be.
154033
Wikipedia has a good page.
671810
I find both wikipedia.com and epinions.com very helpful.  Both are open forums where anyone can post info about the ecommerce site. Wikipedia has a more objective tone, whereas as epinions has loads of content.
192881
Wikipedia has lots of info and external links.
265658
Yes. Without encyclopedia, I don't think sources online would have came. In public schools, I mean, they use old-fashioned encyclopedias. People are depending things to the electric way, but they should keep in mind how things are first done.
879000
I remember seeing a listing for Classics Illustrated in Toonopedia, with the publisher's name, etc. Get the information right from the horses mouth.\n\n27 NOV 06, 1904hrs, GMT.
546850
Wikipedia has a very well written entry.
627215
Maybe wikipedia.com could help.
388868
Yahoo has a Britannica's Encyclopedia, look it up there, just don't plagiarize.
734989
enclopedia...sorry, wasn't paying attention...thought you wanted me to spell "encyclopedia", but that's not what you asked...my bad....so "E N C L O P E D I A"....There...enclopedia
705599
I haven't heard anything about Britannica, but I am aware of several other incidents where the Wikipedia management have deleted new edits for certain articles, have also locked certain articles so they cannot be edited, and have deleted some articles altogether claiming the person or people concerned are not "sufficiently  well known enough". \n\nWhat this really means is that any articles about people who known to be anti-Bush are deleted and those that are pro-Bush are allowed, and in some cases locked so that anti-Bush edits cannot be added. \n\nThat's just what I have heard.
795977
I think that Wikipedia should continue to be allowed to operate.  It is a private enterprise and to force it to shut down would be censorship in it's purest form.\n\nThat being said, I believe that at the top of every Wikipedia page, IN LARGE BOLD LETTERS, there should be a statement explaining that the definition/explanation/word picture may or may not be factual and that further research should be done on the particular subject.  Anyone who has argued a point with someone who is certain they're "right because Wikipedia says so", knows exactly why I say, what I say.
47327
wikipedia should give you some answers.