Believe me, I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint. But it *is* a viewpoint, a viewpoint which we should not let manifest itself in ramming our own ideas down other people's throats.
This is precisely the issue - how does WP "ram anything down people's throats?" They have a choice - If schools want to use Britannica - because they have content filtering...( or no content needing filtering....). The last point raises the issue - in order for Britannica to keep all of its content in like - it needs a heirachical command structure - entirely antithetical to WP's purported system of consensus. This is precisely the reason why I raised the issue of captainship a long timme ago.
To enforce these kind of constraints on a truly free encyclopedia is unfeasible - and therefore the WP belongs in a different niche than Britannica - and it should not concern itself with competing with Britannica for its marketshare.
The real issue is that to some of us "radical libertarians" - this smacks of a change in direction of the WP as a whole - from Open content, anyone can edit, (come on in the waters fine..) to one where "hey, I feel like this a success, and now I want to mass market this not just to Freewheeling Bob, but to Cautious Nancy and Self-Righteous Richard, too! Its like watching a favorite rock band go sour after winning a grammy.
Respectfully, Steven MacGrieves