I would choose Britanica, the trational and well-respected online encyclopaedia when weighted the debate. Though freely and openly-editing style of Wikipedia is, enjoying the joy of knowledge-sharing, its autheticity is not strong enough. Britanica as the proprietary encyclopaedia, contributors and advisers come mainly from scholars and experts, which makes a highly reliable source for all humankind. While Wikipedia having a broad range of coverage, as it welcomes individuals to edit their best sort, is afraid to be too open and dangerous to the edge of propaganda. In other words, it is the matter of neutrality of the free-editing.
It may be true that mass users can enhance input of the database in Wikipedia, but when concerning the "quality" of those information and data, Britanica shows the difference and value in the field of encyclopaedia. We can search any keywords or information that we want as our references and without doubt because they are all proved to be professional, and surely persuasive than those public collective works. We are searching for a wise encyclopaedia to help us solving problems, but not a function of open amendment to keep on polish their information or a flood of false data. So I believe a proprietary source with better control, like Britanica should be remained.