Several months ago, Nature magazine reported that Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica had comparable error rates. Since then, Britannica has defensively asserted its superiority (pdf file).

This heated dispute has surfaced again -- this time in the Wall Street Journal. Today, WSJ.com published a debate between Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and Britannica editor-in-chief Dale Hoiberg.

Personally, I think all this head-butting is a waste. I'm with Jeff Jarvis -- I think both sides are missing a major collaboration opportunity. Recently Jarvis wrote in BuzzMachine:

"If I were a publisher, I'd piggyback onto Wikipedia and put effort into vetting articles there... Britannica could use the work of Wikipedia and its experts to create the world's largest vetted encyclopedia. ...[Also, Britannica] could put up [its] encyclopedia as a wiki and invite people to correct it, add to it, to propose articles that aren't there but ought to be. They could turn it into something the community cares about, instead of merely buys."

That's the spirit! Can't we all just get along?