Spell checkers didn't exist when the first edition of Britannica came out.
If this is meant as "therefore we don't need spell-checkers" then I don't agree.
Spell-checkers are good not because they make possible something that was impossible before (i.e. given enough time, humans can do a very good job at spell-checking).
They are good because they improve the quality of spell-checking process, make it cheaper (in terms of human labour) and faster.
You can't replace a human spell-checker with computer spell-checker but a computer spell-check will help human spell-checker to do a better job. I'm pretty sure that Britannica editors do use computer spell-checkers those days.
Which is why it would be good to have one easily available for helping spell-check WikiPedia articles.
Krzysztof Kowalczyk | http://blog.kowalczyk.info