batuhan
I just mentioned Britannica because I personally use it. I am not specifically endorsing them. It can be any other source. My entire point is that we should get a proper source of information, not something that has been proven to be inaccurate again and again.
And yeah, Wikipedia has a lot of pages that proper encyclopaedias don't, like about movie stars or films and stuff like that. So great, like I said, the service can first look for a real resource, then move on to Wikipedia if it didn't find any.
'Wikipedia is very good for finding further reading and context' - depends on the subject. If the page is full of inaccurate or sometimes wrong 'facts', the sources often would be the same. Also, sometimes the citations don't actually say what the page claim they say.
'It's pretty biased and doesn't really use a neutral, third-person voice much.' - I mean... That's my thought on Wikipedia, really. I'm surprised you'd say that about Britannica or any reputable encyclopaedia.
'I couldn't find anything on a whole bunch of controversial topics I looked into.' - no idea what you mean by 'controversial'. If you mean 'things that are internet rumours and topics reputable encyclopaedias don't usually cover' then that's a plus. If you mean other things, like I said, I'm not specifically endorsing Britannica. I just want a reliable source.
'The interface is terrible, like some TikTok-style scrolling thing, useless AI bells and whistles... Wikipedia's user experience is 100 times better.' - dude, what???? I have no idea what AI bells and whistles you're talking about, but Wikipedia looks like a website from the 90s - because it is! And it hasn't changed much. The UI is horrible!.
But let's be fair, that's really a matter of taste. AND, we're talking about the side panel in the search results, it has nothing to do with the design of the actual source of that panel.
'It lacks a basic template, whereas Wikipedia actually has one.' - no idea what you mean by that.
