I assume there will be similar changes in many geographical entries.
there will be changes in nearly everything in the encyclopedia that wasn't historical already, and in some of the historical entries as well (people discover new facts about old events/characters). It's simply not a valuable resource *on its own*, and I'd be disappointed to see the entries scripted into wikipedia. The entries all need a very diligent or expert person to go over them to see that they are still accurate.
I'm definitely with KQ here. Not only do many of the articles lack a lot of important research of the past decades, but they tend to be pretty blatantly Anglo-centric, and written from a point of view that just isn't considered up to academic standards these days.
One of the first things I did was to look at the articles on playing cards and poker; It's surprising how much of the pre-1911 history in those fields is just plain wrong.
It's a great resource, and I've made use of it, but it took two days of work just to make appropriate article /titles/ for the "A" volume, much less bring the articles themselves up to snuff. 0
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org