Some web 2.0 sites crumble, others survive. One key to the success is developing algorithm to automate detection and responce. Wikipedia can use a lot more of that. Another is to devise good deal of complaint process for victims of false positives. This is costly and difficult. Wikipedia is not doing well on this, either, I think. The third is to augment "core editors'" perception of what's going on and who is trustworthy. Visualization and algorism in my opinion

Visualization of data is one of the techniques Wikipedia editors can benefit for maintaining and refining their site. But as always, there would be some users who learns the trick and bother to game the system to insert some bias or falsehood to their (or their clients) favor, I think.

Google is once said (perhaps by Sergei, I don't remember) to be democratic in that it is the web users at large who gets to decide which contents are most relevant to a given search keyword. This person from Britannica does not necessarily understand/ agree with it. But then, what happens if Britannica opens up, say, half or one third of its articles, and showed that its quality is better than Wikipedia's? People will link to those pages, and possibly quite few people get convinced that access to Britannica articles are worth paying some money. Is this possibly a more important part of the larger picture that this person is not seeing? I wonder.

But then, there is the other question of if Britannica is really better, and if Britannica can sustain the competitive lead against Wikipedia... After all, Wikipedia might be quickly updated based on information in Britannica articles while Britannica articles sit still for a year or more. Because Wikipedia is dynamic and collaborative, Bricannica might be in a losing position in this race to the top search engine result. Does he see that? I wonder.