Re: Citation needed
"not in the next print, no, the very next time Joe Public accesses the article."
You aren't up-to-date at all. Britannica no longer has a print version.
However, you are assuming that Britannica has an equal number of egregious errors to wikipedia in the main subject areas. It does not.
Jagged85 should be the antidote to any assumption that wikipedia has any concern over errors. Jagged85 made 10s of thousands of edits to more than 8,000 articles. Many of the edits were entirely made up. He even invented an entire school of philosophy. The wholesomeness of his edits were questioned a number of times but his prolific number of edits gathered supporters and defenders. He edit articles in Mathematics, Medicine, History, Literature, and Philosophy and by 2010 it was understood that many of his 64,000 contributions were bogus. So bogus in fact that many people said that the articles he had worked on ought to be taken back to stub status. However, wikipedia just couldn't bring itself to stub such articles as Number Theory and many other core articles. So they made a list of all his edits and asked people to check through them, and so people did for a couple of weeks until they got bored. 10000s of edits remain unchecked to this day. So what happened to Jagged85? He was allowed to carry on editing for a few more years until he was found to have been falsifying articles on Video Games at that point he was banned.
Back to up-to-date-ness wikipedia is not uptodate and can never be. It must always lag behind the likes of Britannica. The reason being is that wikipedia cannot react to new data until after it has been published in scholarly journals, that takes time. Whereas a subject expert in some field of Quantum mechanics can update the Britannica article with the latest research as soon as it is accepted by practioners in the field.