Wikipedia vs. Britannica: Diners

For our hidden jewels project, my group chose the Eleven City Diner. While I was unable to find a Wikipedia entry or a Britannica entry on this specific diner, I have decided to compare to entries on Diners. It was very difficult to find a Britannica article on diners, and the closest article that I could find was one called, American Contributions to Restaurant Development. Comparatively, Wikipedia instantly gave me a four-page article on the history of diners. With many different pictures, and references to some of America’s most famous diners, Wikipedia far surpassed Britannica on ease of search and information on a specific topic. I felt that Britannica had many different specific articles such as 19th Century French Restaurants, Italian Dining, and Dining etiquette, yet I could not find a simple article on diners.
Finding the author of my Britannica article was very easy and straightforward. When I clicked on the author there was a small page on information on him. George Land is a restaurateur and contributor to multiple dining magazines. He obviously has a vast knowledge of food and the restaurant business; he is a very reliable author. As is usually expected of Wikipedia articles, there are dozens of contributors to the article. I could contract some of the Wikipedia authors who have public profiles, however most of the contributions were made with private profiles.
One aspect of the Britannica article that I really appreciated was the way to cite the article as a source in both MLA, and APA formatting. However, it was very vague about when the article was last updated. The update date can be found at the bottom of the last page of the article within the “how to cite this article” section, but you need to know how to understand the formatting in order to know which date is the right one. According to this section, the American Restaurant article was last updated sometime during 2007, it did not specify when in 2007 these changes occured. At the bottom of the Wikipedia “Diner” article, it the date of modification was clearly displayed. It was the most recently updated, with edits on November 28, 2007. At the bottom of the page there are links to discussion pages and other articles that may also contribute to knowledge on diners such as “Greasy Spoon” and “Coffee Shop.” There is also around eight external links that give more information about diners such as an Ohio Diners website, Dinerrat.com, and the Roadside Magazine website. However, the references page is very thin. I am sure that there were other references used, on the main page, only two of the sources are available. Without a large references page, I am beginning to question the reliability of the article, especially due to the lack of information about the authors of the Wikipedia article. However, I was unable to locate a references page on the Britannica article.
I believe that Wikipedia had the best article. As I previously stated, I was unable to find an article on Britannica specifically about diners. Although, diners and cafeterias were mentioned in the American Contributions article, diners were not explained as in depth as the Wikipedia article. On Wikipedia, they explained what a diner is, the history of diners in America and abroad, the cultural significance, cuisine and ethnicity, and the stereotypical image of diners. This is not just a beginner’s course on the definition of a diner, the Wikipedia article goes in depth on the history of the diner, as well as the cultural significance, which led to other forms of easy dining. On Britannica, the best article only gave a simple history of easy American dining and a short comparison between the comfortable dining institutions and the upscale.
One aspect of the Wikipedia page that I found interesting was the discussion page. It is a great way to share ideas and extra information about the topic. One discussion topic was discerning the difference between coffee shops and diners, as well as where diners are predominately found. I was unable to find a forum like this on the Britannica website, but they did have something called a “Workplace”. However, I was unable to go onto the page because you had to have some sort of subscription.
I feel that Wikipedia was a much more useful information source for this specific topic. The ease of search and depth of information far surpassed the Britannica article, and it also gave me more helpful sources of information for my topic. However, I have to take the Wikipedia article with a grain of salt. Each section is written and edited by dozens of different people, some experts, some who have private profiles. Also, the references page was very weak. The thing that I like about Wikipedia is that it is the easiest way to get a simplified overview of any topic. I am smart enough to know not to use Wikipedia as a source for a project or paper, however it often has great links to other useful websites and allows me to better understand a topic before I begin research. I am sure that Britannica would be a most more useful source for other information such as biographies, or 19th century French cuisine. Wikipedia may not be a completely credible source, but it is an easy, useful way to be introduced to a topic.