Had the bet been structured around commercial vs. noncommercial content, and they had chosen an average ranking system (which actually seems to answer the question being asked more clearly), commercial content would have won by a factor of more than four.

To be honest, I was sure the Times would win. But I'm enjoying Cadenhead's assessment that Wikipedia wins the bet — isn't that the sort of twist any Webhead would want? Cadenhead has exposed the flaw in my genius idea: I presumed there were only two sides. That's journalist math. Any real techie knows there are never only two values to anything in real life. Even the 1's and 0's inside your CPU depend on where you draw the line between a 0 and a 1. Part of what makes the Internet so fascinating is it constantly proves there are potentially infinite outcomes to any story.