1) You suggest Britannica’s article on Pluto hasn’t been updated. In fact (like Wikipedia) Britannica’s database was updated within hours of the IAU announcement.

(Due to the policy described at http://www.britannica.com/webmaster, you can read that entire article for free.)

2) You suggest that the errors discovered in Nature’s review were not corrected in Britannica. In fact, Britannica addressed all legitimate issues cited in Nature’s study in about 6 weeks. Wikipedia was updated in about the same amount of time, but not faster. The difference is that while Wikipedians brag about the speed with which those updates occurred, at Britannica we don’t think theyhappened fast enough.

3) For the record, the Nature article (not, but the way, a scientific or peer-reviewed study), suffered from a number of methodological flaws, such sending a reviewer a 350 word introduction to a 6500 word EB article, who then cited the Britannica article for omitting key information. See http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf for a detailed review of the Nature article.