Wikipedia Vs. Britannica

I chose to do my research on the city of Chicago, because my "hidden jewel" could not be found on neither Wikipedia nor Britannica. It's important to note before I begin comparing and contrasting the two that I believe that Wikipedia is a wonderful tool - when used wisely. Entries may be edited, but that is part of what makes it great. As with the Chicago entry, each of the 81 sources listed has extensive knowledge about the city - many of whom have written books on the city or aspects of the city. Not only is it clear who the sources are, but I can choose to read what I believe is reliable, or not read what I feel is unreliable.
The Britannica article cites no author or source given - other than itself. Although it is purely fact-based, the encyclopedia got it from somewhere. The dates that each article post are close together, but again, Britannica cites only itself as a source, whereas Wikipedia has cited many sources. When there are no authors or links to source material it's very hard to trust the information given. The Wikipedia entry includes sources like the Census Bureau, and Chicago Police Department news releases. Britannica only cites itself. The Britannica article contains links to other articles. The other articles, however, also contain no other sources. So, trusting Britannica is based solely upon the fact that it is an encyclopedia. The one link that I will credit Britannica for having is the "Expand Your Research" link. The problem, though, is that a whole new search gets started. When one clicks on one of the 81 sources on Wikipedia one is brought to the article in question, where yet more sources are given. The Britannica article contains links to about ten other articles, whereas the Wikipedia entry contains hundreds of links to other articles. The information given is pretty much the same. The Wikipedia article, however, covers a far more vast array of information. Wikipedia offers all of the information about neighborhoods - with a few left out - on one page.
The Wikipedia article also offers a discussion for Wikipedia readers. Although this is controversial it can sometimes improve the article. For instance, one woman suggested that the article needed to contain a more extensive coverage of the ethnic neighborhoods, which only improves the articles coverage of the city. Britannica does not have this option. So, readers are not even able to suggest a change to the page. Yes, anyone can edit the page on Wikipedia BUT not everything is displayed. Because it is so commonly used when something inaccurate is listed it is usually taken off of the website within the day.
I feel that both are useful resources, but Wikipedia is far more convenient and easy to understand. Britannica had a great short summary of the city, but Wikipedia provided a depth of information that Britannica did not come close to matching. I liked Wikipedia a lot more. Although it can be used incorrectly, one just has to realize that there are ways of reading Wikipedia so that the information being read is accurate. The sources are listed, and if a source seems somehow unreliable then the information does not need to be used. Wikipedia just covered Chicago far more extensively than Britannica, which is what I was looking for.