Wikipedia vs. Britannica: It's On
There are a lot of people who easily slam Wikipedia. The notion that having a collective knowledge base to which anyone can contribute goes against so many of the practices that have been in place for hundreds of years. This is why it's easy for guys like Robert McHenry to tell you that no, Wikipedia is worthless and you should trust accredited, established institutions for your information, even something like the Encyclopedia Britannica, of which Mr. McHenry used to be Editor-In-Chief. (I couldn't imagine why he'd advocate the EB...) Fortunately, his arguments are bunk, and Aaron Krowne seems to think he can tell you why:

In this article, I respond to Robert McHenry’s anti-Wikipedia piece entitled “The Faith-Based Encyclopedia.” I argue that McHenry’s points are contradictory and incoherent and that his rhetoric is selective, dishonest and misleading. I also consider McHenry’s points in the context of all Commons-Based Peer Production (CBPP), showing how they are part of a Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) campaign against CBPP. Further, I introduce some principles, which will help to explain why and how CBPP projects can succeed, and I discuss alternative ways they may be organized, which will address certain concerns.

He goes on to do so in a well-written, very readable article, which I highly recommend. (via BoingBoing)  ¶ 4:27 p.m.