We could or we could take the view that sometimes it is better to look at scientific studies rather than relying on anicdotal evidence.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
Intestingly one of the errors was traced back to one of the review's books.
What you're not telling, however, is that the study was too flawed to use as a general survey of quality.
1) It focussed only one one very limited field, scientific information, long acknowledged even by detractors as Wiki's strong point. It's much easier to keep scientific information accurate. Other, less precise fields, such as history and sociology, were not tested, and are far more likely to have significant errors due to author agenda and POV, as well as vandalism.
2) If you read the study, you'll notice that Wiki still had a statistically significant higher number of
profound errors, not total errors, than EB. Minor errors were comperable. In EB's case, the number of profound errors are due in large part to recent advances that have invalidated some of the older information. Wiki has not kept up with recent advances significantly better.
3) Due to vandalism and agenda-pushing; articles on Wiki are not static, but can change daily, even hourly. There is no guarantee that the information you're viewing at any particular moment is accurate, and not the result of changes made shortly prior to viewing. There is also no guarantee that information that may be accurate at the moment will not be altered subsequently.
Oh, remember that experiment I announced a few months back, about those three significant factual errors I have been observing? Guess how many of them have been corrected? (Hint: if guess>0 then guess again.) I also noticed another major error in an article, and corrected it; only to have the article reverted back to it's previous erroneous state. Guess that "infinite monkeys" approach doesn't work as well as the wikivangelists would have us beleive.
