this article was referenced by the press extreme blogging matt rand for forbes part of the best of the web glowing report and has this to say about wikipedia we asked frederick allen managing editor of american heritage published by forbes to compare entries from britannica online and the wikipedia he was skeptical about the wikipedia but after throwing several queries at the two encyclopedias haydn millard fillmore warblers he admitted it looks as if wikipedia's gotten a lot better more thorough and more accurate even the wikipedia's james ii of britain article beat britannica in size reach and outside references but allen cautioned that there's still the underlying problem that you can't be sure of the accuracy of what it presents because of the fact that it's open to contributions from the public