In case some of you don't know, my girlfriend is a librarian. And no, she isn't 60 years old...
Anyway, I love wikipedia... it's perfect for looking up obscure things and for quickly settling arguments. I feel like the information there is extremely comprehensive and it does provide insight on topics that you'd never see in Britannica. While the EB is still the single greatest encylopedic resource available, Wikipedia is free and awesome.
My girlfriend on the other hand feels she has a librarian-moral responsibility that a public-peer reviewed resource is going to be inaccurate. When we argue over something obscure, like Mike the headless chicken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_headless_chicken
), wikipedia is my one-stop resource for settling arguments. While she always likes to point out that wikipedia is inaccurate, I have proven her wrong in those statements every time.
Now, she uses (reluctantly) wikipedia for casual reference, but still balks at the prospect of using it as a legitimate source of research. While I agree with that, I could browse wikipedia for hours, looking up the common to the obscure for hours without having to drop $1600 for the Encylcopeadia Britannica.
I will be sure to show this article to her and follow it with a resounding "In yo face librarian!"
Also, I'm almost done reading "The Know-It All" by Esquire editor A.J. Jacobs. The books is great and is subtitled "One man's humble quest to be the smartest person in the world." The book is about him reading the entire Encylcopeadia Britannica, micro and macro. It's hilarious and well written, using EB topic entries instead of chapter numbers.
I highly recommend it if you're looking for something entertaining to read.