What is the best article presenting counterarguments to a many-world interpretation? I'd like to see a clear overview of why the many-world interpretation (WWI) of quantum is wrong, written by someone who believes that. 
This would be aimed at a technically aware audience, yet as an overview, would have a broader view than just specific technical details. I'd like it to take on not only on philosopical issues like Ockham's Razor, but mathematical questions like the measurable distinction between entanglement and collapse.
 A: None of the interpretations are right or wrong, since they are interpretations of the same mathematical formalism which predict the same events. Interpretations are a philosophical adjunct that provides a "what is REALLY happening" view. If an interpretation is tested and shown to be wrong, then it is no longer an interpretation - just wrong physics. Similarly, I am not sure if any interpretation could ever be shown to be the correct one.
A: Here are some random references out of the top of my head. I recommend chapter 8 of the book of Schlosshauer - Decoherence and the Quantum-To-Classical Transition. Also in favor of the MWI, see the book by David Wallace - The emergent multiverse, which addresses also open problems and discusses some criticisms. Also see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#6 and references therein. An old article: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9703089v1 . Note: I'm not a fan of the MWI.
A: MWI has issues with how the effect of a measurement causes the world (universe) to split into potentially an infinite number of copies of itself, each slightly different. How fast does the influence "rip" (tear?) through the Universe? At the speed of light? No, it would have to be faster otherwise ERP experiments would not work. So, instantaneously? But in whose frame of reference? 
Also, there would be Universes where every toss of a coin yields a HEAD, but everyone believes in probability theory.
MWI is a great devices for constructing Science Fiction stories, but not really viable IMHO. It confuses the sample space with reality. 
