1. I think that one of the main points Schiff is trying to make is that innovation is good, even though resultant outcomes are not always what was initially intended. Wikipedia is innovative, and while there is a large room for error, it ultimately has replaced Britannica for a whole generation of people.
2. "A twenty-four-year-old University of Toronto graduate is the site’s premier contributor. Since composing his first piece, on the Panama Canal, in 2001, he has written or edited more than seventy-two thousand articles. “Wikipediholism” and “editcountitis” are well defined on the site; both link to an article on obsessive-compulsive disorder. (There is a Britannica entry for O.C.D., but no version of it has included Felix Unger’s name in the third sentence, a comprehensive survey of “OCD in literature and film,” or a list of celebrity O.C.D. sufferers, which unites, surely for the first time in history, Florence Nightingale with Joey Ramone.)"
Here the author uses good supporting detail. She follows up her point about wikipediholism with a detailed reference to the comprehensive linking within wikipedia and how wikipediholism links to a comprehensive page on OCD. I think this is effective because it shows the interconnectivity of wikipedia and how it outshines Britannica.
3. From a design perspective, there is a huge difference between Wikipedia- an online encyclopdiea, and Britannica- a serier of large books (there is of course the online version). Wikipedia appeals to a more fast-paced, younger, more tech savy group that likes instant gratification, where Britannica is more time consuming and appeals to an older generation that relies on books for the most reliable knowledge. Wiki is more behavioral/functional, but Britannica is more visceral.