Wikipedia Alternatives – 20 Best Similar Sites

Wikipedia is one of the most well-visited sites in the world. It’s a massive free online encyclopedia edited by a team of volunteers from around the world.

Anyone can volunteer to be a Wikipedia editor and create or edit content. It averages around 550 new articles a day, with over 6.67 million articles already published.

However, Wikipedia is not without its problems. First of all, the volunteer-based nature of the platform means that anyone can edit content, so you can’t always rely on it to be accurate and without bias.

There are paid Wikipedia editors who accept cash in exchange for writing positive articles on Wikipedia about individuals and companies. While you can usually verify information by checking the provided sources, there may still be a bias, with negative information about an individual entirely omitted.

Fortunately, there are plenty of Wikipedia alternatives out there, including those that aren’t volunteer-based and thus have more checks and balances to ensure that what you are reading is accurate.

The short version: My favorite Wikipedia alternatives are Encyclopedia Britannica, Encylopedia.com, and Scholarpedia. However, there are plenty of other good ones, such as RationalWiki, so continue reading to see them all!

Also Read: Unreliable Sources Examples

Wikipedia Alternatives – 20 Best Similar Sites

1. Encyclopedia Britannica

The first Wikipedia alternative I recommend is Encyclopedia Britannica. The online version of Encyclopedia Britannica has entries for many topics under different categories.

You can use the search tool to find entries for whichever topic you want to learn about. For example, here is an entry on Elon Musk.

Each article on Encyclopedia Britannica is written by an expert in the subject who is identifiable and credible, unlike Wikipedia, which has volunteer editors who often go under pen names. That’s why you know you can trust the information you see on Encyclopedia Britannica.

Read more about the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica.

In an article, Encyclopedia Britannica will link to other entries on the site, when applicable, which will give you more information about an individual, company, etc. It also acts as a dictionary, providing the definitions of words.

You can also check an article’s history. When applicable, the site will also provide news updates about an individual or company you’re reading about, a feature Wikipedia doesn’t offer.

Encyclopedia Britannica is free to use. However, it does support itself with ads.

There is a premium subscription that will remove ads, give you access to member-only content, and provide other perks, such as the ability to listen to the audio versions of articles.

2. Encyclopedia.com

Encyclopedia.com is another amazing alternative to Wikipedia. It has over 300,000 entries and topic summaries that you can cite in your research.

These entries are credible. Unlike Wikipedia, the entries are not available to the public to edit.

Instead, Encyclopedia.com is more of an aggregator that provides references pulled from trusted encyclopedias such as Columbia Encyclopedia and Oxford University Press.

According to Encyclopedia.com, it is used by major universities, organizations, and publications for their research purposes, including Harvard University, The New York Times, and even NASA.

Check out this entry on the Boston Tea Party for an example of what Encyclopedia.com’s entries look like.

In addition to links that help you learn more about topics mentioned in an entry, there is a further reading section at the bottom that will help you discover more about a topic.

One thing that is interesting about Encyclopedia.com is that it will often provide entries from multiple sources on a single topic. If you browse down beyond the first entry, you may see others.

So, for example, you might see an entry from Gale, another from Oxford University Press, and yet another from Cengage. Each entry will list when it was last updated and will come with the option of printing or citing it.

3. Conservapedia

Do you feel like Wikipedia has too much of a left-leaning bias? It’s well-known that a lot of tech companies tend to lean to the left, and many people think that Wikipedia’s editors tend to do so as well.

Conservapedia was founded to combat that problem. The website itself is styled and modeled after Wikipedia, so you will get a similar format and layout.

In fact, if you landed on a Conservapedia entry, you might not realize it is not Wikipedia unless you check the logo in the top left corner.

Like Wikipedia, Conservapedia is edited by volunteers, but it does have certain rules and guidelines.

The difference is that it explicitly says it follows a conservative viewpoint. While it welcomes opposing views, it also doesn’t welcome people who come only to change a page to fit their ideology.

On Conservapedia, you don’t have to worry about left-leaning biases, as the site’s editors tend to be conservative and right-wing. Sometimes, though, entries may contain conspiracy theories or false information.

Media Bias/Fact Check listed it as a questionable source.

Also Read: Zero Hedge Alternatives, History, Reviews

4. Scholarpedia

Scholarpedia is a collection of various encyclopedias or “focus areas.” It uses the same wiki software as Wikipedia, but while it has a similar look and format as Wikipedia, it is very different.

Only verified editors who have been invited by the editor-in-chief, other editors, or elected by a public poll can create content on Scholarpedia. Therefore, you can rely on the information on Scholarpedia to be accurate.

Furthermore, before an article can be published on the site, it must go through a scholarly peer review.

At the bottom of each entry, you can see who reviewed the article. However, sometimes, it is reviewed by “Anonymous.”

Articles also have references, although they aren’t always many. You may also see a recommended reading section at the bottom of an article displaying other resources you might want to check out.

5. Citizendium

Citizendium is an online wiki-style encyclopedia that was founded by Larry Sanger, who was a cofounder of Wikipedia. He was also a cofounder of Nupedia, which was a competitor to Wikipedia that only allowed volunteers who were subject-matter experts to contribute and required articles to go through a review process before being published.

Nupedia eventually crashed, and its content was assimilated into Wikipedia.

However, Larry went on to create Citizendium, short for The Citizens’ Compendium.

His goal was to create an alternative to Wikipedia that had more oversight and was more reliable; for example, it required editors to use their real names to increase accountability.

Users can sign up with this form to become a member, in which they have to provide their real name and some form of identity verification (such as a work email address or a copy of an ID card).

Citizendium, however, has experienced somewhat of a decline and fallen out of popularity. New content isn’t really being added, and there aren’t really any editors still active, probably because it makes the signup process to be an editor quite cumbersome.

It still has plenty of articles and lots of great information, though, which is why I am including it in this list.

6. RationalWiki

RationalWiki is a wiki-style encyclopedia. It has a focus on investigating pseudoscience and is written from a science and progressive/left-leaning point of view.

It is somewhat the opposite of Conservapedia. In fact, there is a bit of a feud between the two sites, with RationalWiki editors critiquing Conservapedia often.

In fact, there is a whole page on RationalWiki called What Is Going on at Conservapedia, with RationalWiki editors listing the latest “bizarre happenings” at Conservapedia.

If you like Wikipedia but want something more left-leaning and progressive for information about certain topics, RationalWiki is a good choice. It currently has over 7,700 entries.

A lot of the articles on RationalWiki focus on exposing conspiracy theories and investigating religion, atheism, the paranormal, etc. That is why you will often find it among other fact-checking websites like Snopes when conducting Google searches about conspiracy theories.

In any case, I think RationalWiki is a great site for skeptics and those interested in investigating the truth behind conspiracy theories and fake news.

7. Infoplease

Infoplease has many resources in one. It is an encyclopedia, almanac, dictionary, atlas, and reference site.

It doesn’t follow Wikipedia’s wiki style, but it’s still a great alternative if you wish to learn information.

You can find topics from the drop-down menu at the top of the page or use the search bar. In addition, it also provides news updates and articles about current events.

According to Infoplease, it has a rigorous fact checking process to ensure that all information published on the site is accurate.

Its sources include the United Nations, various US federal and state government sites, Columbia Encyclopedia, the US Library of Congress, The Red Cross, The American Medical Association, JSTOR journals and articles, and various other trusted sources.

You can safely trust what’s on the site.

8. FactMonster

FactMonster is owned by Infoplease and geared towards kids.

It contains articles and information about thousands of topics, with the content written in such a way that makes them understandable to children, which isn’t usually the case on Wikipedia.

There is also trivia, fun facts, games, and homework help. It’s an educational site that makes learning fun for children.

9. Refdesk

Refdesk is an interesting Wikipedia alternative that calls itself a “fact-checker for the internet.” It indexes websites and provides fact-checking and reference services for free.

It is more of an aggregator than a site that provides its own content. Refdesk provides links to articles and entries published on other encyclopedias and links to newspapers, magazines, and online sites.

Its vision statement is: “Since 1995, Refdesk has been a free and family-friendly web site that indexes and reviews quality, credible, and current web-based resources.”

10. The Free Dictionary Encyclopedia

The Free Dictionary is mostly known for being a dictionary, but it also has a built-in encyclopedia. It has over 100,000 entries, with entries compiled from trusted sources like the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia and The Columbia Encyclopedia.

See this article on obesity for an example of what entries look like on The Free Dictionary Encyclopedia. As you can see, there are two main entries: one from The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia and another from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which has been appropriately marked with an alert saying it might be ideologically biased or outdated.

There is also an entry from The Dream Encyclopedia and two dictionaries.

11. The Catholic Encyclopedia

If you are looking for a Wikipedia alternative that focuses on Catholic and religious topics, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a good choice. The original Catholic Encyclopedia was published in the early 1900s as a set of 15 hard copy books.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a comprehensive resource for all things related to Catholicism and religion in general. It states the official views of the church and imparts records of different views of acknowledged authority.

Entries are divided alphabetically.

12. Credo Reference

Credo Reference is a reference site that includes links to articles from over 100 publishers, including online encyclopedias.

If you like doing research yourself instead of relying on the information provided by anonymous volunteers who may or may not be credible, Credo Reference is right for you. When you research a topic, the site will bring up articles from trusted encyclopedias, scientific journals, and more.

For example, when researching the topic “climate change,” here were some of the entries on Credo Reference:

• Climate Change from The Encyclopedia of Tourism and Recreation in Marine Environments
• Global warming from Philip’s Encyclopedia
• Why climate change is worsening public health problems from The Conversation: An Independent Source of Analysis from Academic Researchers
• Global Warming from Guide to Global Hazard

A downside of Credo Reference, though, is that while you can conduct a search without logging in, if you want to read the actual entries you will need to log in.

If you have a library card from a participating library, it will be easy. Otherwise, things can get a bit complicated – perhaps your best solution would be to copy and paste the entry titles and publishers and try to find them on Google yourself.

13. ComputerLanguage.com

ComputerLanguage.com is an online tech encyclopedia. Ever read a tech article and felt like you couldn’t understand what they were talking about?

Some tech terms are just difficult to understand. Even if you Google them, you might struggle to find articles that clearly explain things.

ComputerLanguage.com has over 30,000 entries that explain different tech terms in IT, computer science, consumer electronics, and more. The explanations are short and to the point, explaining things in simple language without overcomplicating the definitions.

14. Urban Dictionary

Urban Dictionary is an excellent alternative to Wikipedia – specifically, the Wiktionary project, which is powered by Wikimedia, the same company that owns Wikipedia.

Urban Dictionary is the ultimate encyclopedia for slang terms. Ever heard someone say a slang word or saw some slang words or abbreviations in an online forum or chat group but had no idea what they meant?

Perhaps you were too shy to ask what they meant. Urban Dictionary is there for you.

Like Wikipedia, it allows volunteers to create entries for different words. However, it focuses exclusively on slang words.

A lot of times, a seemingly innocuous word might have a totally different meaning when used as a slang term in a specific context. Urban Dictionary allows you to see how people use these words in difficult cultures, regions, and countries.

15. WikiSpooks

WikiSpooks has no relationship with Wikipedia. It focuses on deep state politics, conspiracy theories, and more.

It has entries for the “deep state” in different countries, aiming to document what it considers to be hidden conspiracy theories perpetrated by people in government. As you can see on the Germany Deep State entry, the site follows a Wikipedia-style format.

There are references at the bottom of each article. However, I would urge you to read anything you see on WikiSpooks with a grain of salt.

16. Metapedia

Metapedia is a newer Wikipedia alternative that claims to focus on culture, art, science, philosophy, and politics. Furthermore, according to its homepage, it focuses on topics that are not covered by mainstream encyclopedias.

As of now, it has over 7,700 articles in English, with new articles being added all the time.

However, it’s important to note that Metapedia is extremely right wing and has been accused of promoting racism, xenophobia, and alt-right conspiracy theories. Therefore, do take anything written there with skepticism.

17. Infogalactic

Infogalactic is a dynamic fork of Wikipedia. It retains the same overall wiki style format, but it rejects the ideologies of the Wikimedia Foundation and has taken various steps to help readers ensure they are reading trustworthy content.

As a fork of Wikipedia, much of the content is seemingly the same at first. For example, see the entries for “Vulcan (motor vehicles)” on Infogalactic and Wikipedia – they are very similar, with some minor differences such as the Infogalactic version missing some subheadings.

However, as Wired notes, if you dive a bit deeper into certain topics, you will see that Infogalactic adopts a much more conservative and right wing slant.

18. WikiIndex

WikiIndex is like a Wikipedia for all Wikipedia clones and copycats.

If you’ve been on the internet long enough, you probably have come across various “wikis” on different subjects inspired by the original Wikipedia. A good example would be LibreGameWiki, which is a wiki-style site for all things gaming.

What WikiIndex does is serve as a directory for all of these wikis on the web. According to the site, it has over 21,000 wiki sites, wiki farms, wiki people, wiki software, wiki ideas, and more.

From the James Bond Wiki to the African Music and Dance Wiki, you can find wikis for any subject you wish by using WikiIndex. It also has information that will help you build or improve your own wiki if you are interested in starting a wiki about a certain subject.

Explore: Best Zero Hedge Alternatives

19. Metastem (Wikiless)

Metastem, formerly Wikiless, is focused on privacy. What it basically does is allow you to access Wikipedia but without giving it your IP address, which may be a concern for some if you believe the government is culling IP addresses from Wikipedia and tracking your history.

Type a term to find relevant entries and then click on them to see the full entries.

It also allows you to circumvent local government censorship of Wikipedia, which might be a more solid reason to use it.

Since it’s self-hostable, anyone can set up a private or public instance. Here are some public instances that have been set up in addition to the main site which I already linked to:

• https://wikiless.pufe.org/
• https://wiki.froth.zone/
• https://wikiless.whateveritworks.org/

They are all basically clones of Wikipedia, with the last one using dark mode. You can also check it out on GitHub.

20. Lunyr

Lunyr is a crypto-based alternative to Wikipedia. The platform is downloadable and not available on the web, which is one downside.

It is powered by volunteer contributors who earn points for contributing. They can then withdraw these points for Lunyr tokens, a type of cryptocurrency.

It’s an interesting project, because the fact that people are rewarded for volunteering gives experts more incentive to spend their time contributing. However, it still has a long way to go.

Wrapping It Up

Wikipedia is hard to beat. The site is just so large, with so many entries and volunteers, that you will be hard-pressed to find an alternative that has as much information.

As we discussed in another article, the Wikimedia Foundation is also flowing with cash, so it has enough money to keep Wikipedia going for decades. Other alternatives might find it hard to collect as much money from donors.

Nevertheless, there’s no denying the problems with Wikipedia, including the lack of reliability of the content. Many of the alternatives listed above solve that problem.

If you liked this article, share it with a friend!

Enjoyed the post?

Share on Pinterest