Wikipedia vs Britannica

My group is doing the Chicago lakefront bike path. Since the path is about 20 miles long there is no specific neighborhood I could explore so I decided to compare the entries on Chicago.
Attributions
Wikipedia: While there is not a specific author there are many people who have edited the page when you look in the history. It is shocking to see the amount of people that have edited this page and it looks like someone has something to change to it every day. You can leave a message to the person that has edited this and see exactly what they have edited on this page.
Britannica: This website has the authors cited at the end of the article. I didn’t like how they hid the authors all the way at the end of the article because it’s harder to find, since you have to go from page to page unlike in Wikipedia its all on one page. The authors were Perry R. Duis and Cathlyn Schallhorn. There is no contact on either of the author just a sentence with some work they have done. The Wikipedia authors could be contacted more easily.
Recency
Wikipedia: This page was last edited today December 1, 2007 and it was really easy to find right in the history.
Britannica: There was no specific date on when the authors wrote this entry or when it was edited.
References
Wikipedia: There were 81 references on this page and 5 further readings. About half of them were clickable and they would take you to the site of an article.
Britannica: There were no references to this page, but there were additional readings listed. There were many additional reading but none of them were clickable. They were cited so they would be easily found in a library.
Links
Wikipedia: There are some external links that all work and they have different info for the city like the official Chicago page or a map of Chicago. They would be helpful for a traveler.
Britannica: There is a guide of website, there were 191 entries. I clicked on some of them and they worked. Some of them could be references because they are news articles and some are other websites about Chicago.
Consistency
A lot of the information was the same but Wikipedia seemed to have some additional information that Britannica did not, but they covered a lot of the same content.
Bias/Controversy
Wikipedia: There are a lot of entries from people stating things that are wrong with the page.
Britannica: This page has only an email for suggestions.
Overall quality/ impressions
I liked the Wikipedia page more. I like the way that it is set up and I could find everything on one page and don’t have to go through many pages. I like how they have a ton of other websites and a lot more information. I would use this page rather that Britannica if I was doing research on Chicago because of the page set up, even if I knew that it would not be as credible it seems more appealing.