I tend to think along James' lines more than Risker's.
Responding to Risker:
It seems to me that the key point that you're missing is that Burger King
altered Wikipedia content in order to execute this campaign. This wasn't a
simple case of an organization reusing existing Wikipedia content; the
organization appears to have altered Wikipedia content to suit their
purposes regardless of an obvious conflict of interest with Wikipedia's
purpose of being an educational resource rather than an advertising
platform.
It seems to me that entities of varying sizes -- from a start-up brand that
wants to make itself look important by having a Wikipedia article, to large
corporations and government officials -- will continue to alter Wikipedia
content in ways that are inappropriate and do a disservice to our readers
(including advertising, inserting "alternative facts" for medical and
political content, and eliminating negative information that certain people
and organizations find inconvenient) and cost editors' and administrators'
collective time and attention, until there is a financial price that is put
on this kind of behavior that is large enough to deter them. I don't see
why we should stand idly by as our products' quality and trustworthiness
are degraded and our resources are diverted. I'm hoping that WMF's
enforcement actions in this domain would more than pay for themselves
through financial penalties that WMF extracts from the wrongdoers.
Pine