Is the information better? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know enough about the country to say. But it's a chore to read. Last updated in June 2013, so that's three-and-a-bit years without updates in a rapidly-changing part of the world.
My mother sold World Book encyclopedias when I was a kid, and we had a set. I grew up reading those cover-to-cover. There's something beautiful about having info at your fingertips that can be consumed at the speed of reading. Paper encyclopedias have it, and wikipedia has it, but online Britannica does not. Well, not from my excursion there just now.
Crowd-sourcing can be a great tool, but not for high-integrity information. IMHO: As the public now widely accepts lies and propaganda, I've come to think that overlooking Wikipedia's accuracy problems was a forerunner to this situation. I'm sure much of Wikipedia's information is good; I just don't know which is correct and which is complete nonsense.
I get a similar differential with 'orchestra', where the wikipedia article goes into much more depth, not just about composition, but also about things like selection criteria. 'Grasses' gets the same kind of results as 'resistors' - one paragraph in EB, lengthy page on WP. At this point, I ran out of free views :)
(I was purposefully avoiding subjective topics like biographies, as no matter what is written in a biography, you can always find something to complain about.)
If it works for you, keep using it, I guess. But I found it slow, poorly laid-out, with fewer pictorial examples, and at least for the selections above, the inferior source.
> As the public now widely accepts lies and propaganda
The public has always done this. Yellow journalism has been there since the start, and propaganda goes back at least as far as Ancient Egyptian steles (damn, should have looked that one up). The only thing that's new (IMO) is the 24-hour news cycle, which has given everyone 'scandal fatigue'. When scandals are coming at you thick and strong, you just can't care about them anymore.
