Absolutely.
A convincing argument doesn't simply criticize and dismiss references. Reasonable counterpoint requires that the content of references be shown to be inaccurate. This can be done by providing a coherent logical analysis of your own, or by making reference to more substantial references than the references in dispute that can be shown to contradict the claims made by the references in dispute.
In the case of Wikipedia, there are references to sources, and those sources are in some cases well known and accepted. In other cases they are less reliable, but either way, if you choose to dispute a reference, then the above still applies.
In the case of the Britannica reference, the article was written by two professors of physics at Montana State University. Therefore a successful counterpoint to that content requires something more substantial than declarations of their incompetency, and BTW, there are dozens more similar descriptions out their for what gravity is and how it's measured that agree with them.
So rather than wasting our time on that, perhaps it might be better to simply accept that the equivalency principle is a way of looking at gravity as equivalent to acceleration, but that the two concepts are fundamentally very different. So when you say, "I should also mention that gravity isn’t a force; it’s an acceleration." That can be true in the context of how it's measured in keeping with the equivalency principle, but not in the case of the fundamental force known as gravity.
The logical truth of this is that a non-accelerating massive object still has gravity, therefore if gravity exists in the absence of acceleration, acceleration cannot be gravity. Numerous examples of this are evident in everyday life. When you accelerate in your car, you are not pushed back into your seat by gravity. Acceleration is a constant change in velocity. Gravity has nothing to do with it other than by way of the equivalency principle which draws a comparison between the effects of gravity and the effects of acceleration within arbitrary frames of reference.
For the math geeks out there, you might find this paper worthwhile: Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the general Theory of Relativity
