unless the consistent goal is "always maximise the use of open source and minimise the use of anything else"?
That's indeed one of the goals of the Wikimedia foundation, it's in their charter. They are a 100% open source shop. After all, it's a "free encyclopedia", and the word "free" has many senses, all of which apply here.
There is nothing in the idea or structure of a corporation that makes them innately evil.
Maybe not innately evil, but certainly innately amoral. By law, a corporation may only perform actions that directly or indirectly increase profits. It cannot do things just because they are "right" or "good", it must always maximize profits, using all legally available means. Otherwise the shareholders can sue.
Lamarck is one of those guys who's name is generally synonymous with bad science (he's about as villified as Darwin is deified).
Let's not forget that Darwin himself believed in Lamarckism; genetics wasn't known at the time.
That being said, the article is rather short in one important area: a suggested mechanism for this sort of inheritance. Without that, it's bound to be mired in controversy for some time.
The whole phenomenon isn't that new; it's called epigenetics and is transmitted most likely by the methylation pattern of the DNA, histone modification, and RNA interference. It's not stable and doesn't last beyond a few generations though, so it won't give a new mechanism for natural selection.
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
