This is a meta-analytical approach. The formula you provided looks like the standard Q-test (test of heterogeneity; see p. 11f) which tests for $H_0: \theta_1=\theta_2=\ldots=\theta_k$ (with $k$ being the number of studies or independent correlation coefficients).
Most meta-analysis packages in R can do this test, for instance, meta or metafor. I will provide an example for the meta package (differences are due to rounding errors):
library(meta)
library(psychometric)
dfr <- data.frame(r=c(0.2, 0.5, 0.6), n=c(200, 150, 75))
dfr$z <- r2z(dfr$r) ## Fisher's z transformation
dfr$z.se <- SEz(dfr$n) ## SEs for Fisher's z
## recommended approach
metacor(cor=r, n=n, sm="ZCOR", data=dfr)
## replicating the results from your "Correlation" webpage
metagen(TE=z, seTE=z.se, data=dfr)
> metagen(TE=z, seTE=z.se, data=dfr)
95%-CI %W(fixed) %W(random)
1 0.2027 [0.0631; 0.3424] 47.36 35.07
2 0.5493 [0.3877; 0.7110] 35.34 34.14
3 0.6931 [0.4622; 0.9241] 17.31 30.79
Number of trials combined: 3
95%-CI z p.value
Fixed effect model 0.4101 [0.3140; 0.5062] 8.3640 < 0.0001
Random effects model 0.4721 [0.1796; 0.7645] 3.1637 0.0016
Quantifying heterogeneity:
tau^2 = 0.0584; H = 2.92 [1.75; 4.87]; I^2 = 88.3% [67.5%; 95.8%]
Test of heterogeneity:
Q d.f. p.value
17.09 2 0.0002
Method: Inverse variance method