To me, it depends on what you define as "errata." The massive amount of rule changes and adjustments they made in both 3.5 and 4E do not qualify as "errata" to me; they are significant changes to the game itself that even if they were necessary should never have been classified as errata, which is clarifying language, fixing misspelling and omissions, and similar small things that do not actually change the game in any way, shape, or form. WotC has a bad habit of publishing something without thinking about the consequences just to publish something and than "fixing" it later through "errata" and that tends to annoy a lot of people. Errata is good; there will always be things that need clarified and corrected. Too much tinkering at the level that WotC has done for most of its ownership of the brand, both through drastic changes between each edition and "errata" within each edition, destabilizes the brand and makes it much, much harder to create a consistent, solid identity to build on. Paizo seems to have found a decent balance for this; every once in a while something will pop up that significantly changes an ability, but not very often, and they do a good job of incorporating any errata they do make into the printed product instead of relying just on a separate document that has to be cross referenced continually. I would love it if WotC could find that same kind of balance rather than constantly tinkering with stuff before they know what changes, if any, actually need to be made; of course, better playtesting and actually going over what they are putting out before releasing it to the public instead of simply publishing something for the sake of publishing it would help considerably in that department.
