On CNET's Esoterica Blog, Mike Yamamoto writes:

The collaboratively assembled encyclopædia maintains a page devoted to correcting errors in its chief offline competitor, the venerable Encyclopædia Britannica. This doesn't prove Wikipedia's superiority, of course, but it does underscore one crucial advantage: An online research tool can at least issue corrections after initial publication, in real time--even if they involve mistakes made by somebody else.

I found this interesting. I think the discussion about Wikipedia can no longer be about credibility, but about which will become the most influencial encyclopædia of our time. Wikipedia's content may not be created by a number of payed editors of a single publisher. It is more evolving out of various sources, experts from around the world. Who controls Information? Who are the experts correcting the experts at Wikipedia? I know. But the same could be asked for the Encyclopædia Britannica. After all it's a proprietary format that gives space through credibility, for a lot of errors.
Like this one on Hip Hop. Wikipedia:

This may be a bit nitpicky, but EB thinks there is hip hop music (which they problematically call rap) that is either not rhythmic or non-rhyming. I suppose there may be hip hop with no rhymes at all (I've never heard of it), but it's certainly always rhythmic. Also, hip hop as a the backing music for rap, the musical style incorporating rhythmic and/or rhyming speech that became the movement's most lasting and influential art form is a bit odd, I think. They apparently use "hip hop" to refer to the beat/instrumentation behind the rapping, which is not normal, at least -- if "rap" is the "musical style", then the "backing music" is an integral part of it, and "rap" doesn't "incorporate" a kind of speech... it is a kind of speech, and is only a "musical style" when combined with "hip hop". Furthermore, "most lasting and influential art form" being applied to "rap" is silly -- graffiti, breakdancing and DJing have lasted just as long as rapping (early 70s to present); I suppose EB is allowed to be biased and call "rap" more influential than DJing, but I note that rapping is not widely used outside of hip hop, while DJing had a major influence on electronic music. Of course, if by "rap", they are referring to hip hop music, then that would make sense, but that would be inconsistent with the first part. So, it's at best confusingly written and misleading.

It may not be proof that Wikipedia is the better encyclopædia. But it's proving that it is the better format to deliver and maintain information, as our world is growing faster and information is in a steady flow already.