This week's "Economist" (www.economist.com) has a survey of New Media. Unfortunately the section about wikis is "premium content". So, to paraphrase:

"When people express scepticism about participatory media, they usually have people like Brian Chase in mind...", there then follows a column-long retelling of the Seigenthaler case

"For the most part, it is much more worthwhile to dwell on the phenomenal opportunities than on the poison pens..." - gives details of en.wikipedia doubling in size last year, 12 times bigger than the print Britannica, more visitors that the NY Times and CNN, and only 5 years old. Describes what wikis are, but also notes that Wikipedia is atypical of most wikis because of its size and number of contributors.

Asks how Wikipedia manages to work, quotes Robert McHenry's "faith-based encyclopedia", quotes Jimbo on <1% of editors doing half the total edits and besides site democracy there's the occasional aristocracy and monarchy when quick action is needed. Reports on reaction to "Nature's" comparison with EB: "Jorge Cauz, Britannica's president, claimed victory because Wikipedia had 'a third more errors'. Privately, however, Britannica's editors were shocked to have to concede that their creation contained any errors at all. Total accuracy, after all, is the main selling point for the old media.". Reports EB's rebuttal and Nature's refutation. "But if it [Nature] did get it wrong, it is not clear why it would have erred more for Britannica than for Wikipedia. Mr Hoiberg [EB editor-in-chief] puts a brave face on it, claiming that 'our model, although not perfect, is the best.'"

Goes on to contrast the reaction to the Nature episode - Britannica instinctively regards Wikipedia as a threat, whereas Wikipedians do not reciprocate. Quotes Jimbo as being a big fan of EB's work and glad that Brockhaus seems to be doing better than ever. The Economist contrasts this to the "joyful reaction of Wikipedia's detractors to Brian Chase, the dodgy biographer (whose article was literally one in a million)". Reports McHenry's public restroom analogy and ends with the rather nice sentiment "One wonders whether people like Mr McHenry would prefer there to be no public lavatories at all."