>>8
From that article that you linked:

> the journal claimed that Britannica turned up 123 "errors" to Wikipedia's 162.

I'd call that a significant difference, even when not considering the nature of the study. Your mileage may vary.
I believed I was referring to an earlier article I read (from The Register, I'm sure) when I mentioned the articles chosen for comparison were scientific in nature. My memory may be faulty.

Wikipedia is still the best 'free' encyclopedia that I know of, even if that's no saying much.