Basically this is a demand for "certainty theatre", where they don't care if Britannica is wrong, they just want some warm glow that comes from the sense that someone, someone in "authority", is <i>doing something</i>, even if some part of them knows it's ineffective, pointless, expensive and inconvenient (in fact probably the more expensive and inconvenient to them the better. No pain, no gain).<p>The fact that Wikipedia is right in their face about the fact that what they're reading may not be true and they may have to do some kind of evaluation of what they're being told is, bizarrely, taken as some kind of failing.