"The implication is that Wikipedia has a nice
community, but it doesn't have much breadth, depth, or reliability;
so if you want serious information, go to Britannica.
If Wikipedians believed that, we'd bag the whole thing. We think
we are --gradually, and sometimes from very rough first
drafts--developing a reliable resource. So what answer can I offer
to the above concerns?
Part of the answer is already given above: Wikipedia's
self-correction process (Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales calls it
"self-healing") is very robust. There is considerable value created
by the public review process that is continually ongoing on
Wikipedia--value that is very easy to underestimate, for those who
have not experienced it adequately."