I for one look forward to a more reliable source of information than the MOSSAD / US Government infected wikipedia.

i A spokesbrit said that the likes of Google were pretty dumb linking to information as dodgy as Wackypedia as their first result when Britannica would be much more reliable. /i

See http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Ultee'Pedia AKA Commentos@theINQ, is filledwith verbage & Galaore ideas. While Britanica is $400, it is Much More ThoughtOut. Compared to WikiPedia, Britanica is Accurate & insightful. Wiki could be anything, so often less than truth. It is mold your ideas fit within. When Britancia comments, people read, Hope Public dosn't screw it up too much. There still must be form to write from, so maybe more like Britanica Childrens Edition?

Or will Britannica also delete her with some petty, trumped up reason?

There is absolutely no reason to trust Britannica's content more than Wikipedia's, there is no such thing as an authoritative source. If anything, Britannica is more suspect due to possible commercial interests, corporate ties etc. Critical reading is a necessecity in any case. Trust no one, question everything!

Fake-penises against Real-penises.
The consumer always win I guess.

I find the last two paragraphs quite funny. If anything the Britannica staff must be just as guilty, if not even more so, of the things accused of Wikipedians in the last paragraph.

That of course was likely intentional sarcasm, but I have no sense of humor.

Ok, the content maybe good, but Britannica's website design stinks. Ugly, unwieldy and flash laden - Wikipedia is clean and easy to use. Ok, the content isn't quite as authoratitive, but the diversity and frequency of updates makes up for it. I predict a failure here for Brit.