The Wall Street Journal online hosted a debate between Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica. I've included a brief excerpt (in which Jimmy Wales lays the smackdown on Dale Hoiberg) below:

Mr. Hoiberg: No, we don't publish rough drafts. We want our articles to be correct before they are published. We stand behind our process, based on trained editors and fact-checkers, more than 4,000 experts, and sound writing. Our model works well. Wikipedia is very different, but nothing in their model suggests we should change what we do.

Mr. Wales: Fitting words for an epitaph…

The debate makes for a very interesting read. Wikipedia's popularity has certainly left a sour taste in Britannica's mouth. What do you all think of the debate? Is there a clear winner? Does Britannica look musty and fuddy-duddy in the era of user-generated content? Or is Wikipedia striking out while at bat in the big leagues? Have you gotten sick of my metaphors yet?