<templatestyles src="Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/styles.css" />

    {{Shortcut|WP:BRITANNICA}}
<!-- TODO: Add DISPLAYTITLE back when generating actual pages, with correct URL -->
<!-- {{DISPLAYTITLE:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/''Encyclopædia Britannica''}} -->
{{Infobox
| title            = [[Encyclopædia Britannica]]
| image            = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label1           = other names
| data1            = Britannica.com
| label2           = source type
| data2            = foobar ''(not part of original row)''
| label3           = publisher
| data3            = Fooland (state-funded media) ''(not part of original row)''
| label5           = website
| data5            = 
| label6           = classification
| data6            = [[File:Achtung-orange.svg|20px|No consensus|link=]] No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply
}}

There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' (including its online edition, [[Encyclopædia Britannica Online|''Encyclopædia Britannica'' Online]]). Its editorial process includes fact checking and publishing corrections. ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' is a [[WP:TERTIARY|tertiary source]]. Some online entries are written by subject matter experts, while others are written by freelancers or editors, and entries should be evaluated on an individual basis. Editors prefer reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]] over the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' when available. From 2009 to 2010, the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' Online accepted a small number of content submissions from the general public. Although these submissions undergo the encyclopedia's editorial process, some editors believe that content from non-staff contributors is less reliable than the encyclopedia's staff-authored content. Content authorship is disclosed in the article history.

== Prior discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}

<blockquote>''Please add links to other significant discussions.  When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.''</blockquote>


* Simple summary of prior discussions: '''TBD'''

{{DEFAULTSORT:Encyclopædia Britannica, Perennial sources}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
<references />
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Encyclopædia Britannica"
| {{anchor|Encyclopaedia Britannica}} ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' <small>([[Britannica.com]])</small> {{WP:RSPSHORTCUT|WP:BRITANNICA}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|nc}}
| 15{{efn|See these discussions of ''Encyclopædia Britannica'':
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2022}}
| There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' (including its online edition, [[Encyclopædia Britannica Online|''Encyclopædia Britannica'' Online]]). Its editorial process includes fact checking and publishing corrections. ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' is a [[WP:TERTIARY|tertiary source]]. Some online entries are written by subject matter experts, while others are written by freelancers or editors, and entries should be evaluated on an individual basis. Editors prefer reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]] over the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' when available. From 2009 to 2010, the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' Online accepted a small number of content submissions from the general public. Although these submissions undergo the encyclopedia's editorial process, some editors believe that content from non-staff contributors is less reliable than the encyclopedia's staff-authored content. Content authorship is disclosed in the article history.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|britannica.com}}
|}