A couple of posters responded pointing out how even if google somehow subverted wikipedia the gpl code, data and more importantly the community would simply rally and route around any such attempts. They pretty much convinced me - along with the fact that an organisation had been organised to guide wikipedia. This is an important point that had alluded me.
Back in 2003 I noted in 'LinuxGazette' + (lawsuit ? '.net' : '.com') that SSC the parent publisher of Linux Magazine trying to assimilate the linuxgazette - even though it was non-commercial and they have no ownership. Their interest is understandable. The brand and 100 or so past articles give SSC free credability to the detriment of the user community. Sure they hosted the site... paid the server costs. Now they want their pound of meat - the brand, articles to enhance their own brand. Its all about control over someone elses hard work - but is it going to be a taking of the commons?. I alluded to this exact point in the slashdot post wrt google and wikipedia. The lesson I learnt is not where there is strong leadership.
- '... Never let a bully's intimidation attempt pass unchallenged
Well put Ben. Keep up the struggle - the rest of us need open resources like linuxgazette - free from commercial interest just as much as software.