It was interesting seeing how Britannica sizes up with wiki. 3 errors to 4. Though the big fuss about inaccuracies in encyclopedias is over blown. One has to look back on the original intention of Encyclopedias. Pliny the Elder certainly wasn't to be cited as particularly accurate, having included creatures that in actuality never existed. But the book was an interesting vantage point to see the world back then.
Likewise, modern encyclopedias are a compendium of common knowledge, and common knowledge is usually more subjective than factual. I would be curious to see if there are statistics that detailing how many people use wikipedia for actual research. Encyclopedias are fine for first graders wanting to report on bears and how they eat honey, but never a good source for the biologist. Encyclopedias can be used to find sources and get a second opinion.
Britannica's finding that Nature's study was flawed is like watching a six grader yelling at a fourth grader for getting his project on osmosis wrong. Nature had journalists do testing, journalists aren't scientists or staticians of any sort, any they sometimes fail to release all the details in hopes of making a better story. Britannica tends to leave out details in hopes of keeping concepts simple.