This is a really interesting situation...esp given the complexity of how Wikipedia articles are made, not to mention some confusion regarding open content at large. Personally, I don't think that the lack of attribution owes to a misunderstanding of the open content license used by all Wikimedia projects; I think it's laziness at best - or carelessness at worst. Erik Moller posted an interesting summary of preferred ways of attribution when the source is Wikipedia - (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-March/050686.html) and I completely agree that a gently worded letter that encourages the use of Wikipedia in media reports and broadcasts but which also firmly clarifies that the community would like some acknowledgement, is a great idea. If media outlets benefit from what they've seen on Wikipedia, then it's only fair that Wikipedia also benefit by meriting a mention. One way to do this might be to have a model set of easy references, e.g. if the report is on the www use a link, if it is broadcast in any form in speech, use the project name (Wikipedia, etc.) and so on. Perhaps this can be done as an overall kit for Wikipedia in the media - I suspect that some guidance will be required. On the subject of falsely or inaccurately cited 'facts' from Wikipedia being reported and thus subsequently providing a source for the 'fact' on Wikipedia - this is an endlessly fascinating debate on which there's been much discussion. Personally, it's hard to think how this could change unless we as a community are alert to correct frivolous edits and flag obvious errors before they are reported as fact. But it is also hard to understand why anyone would cite Wikipedia for anything other than short, aggregated descriptions. (It's important to note that reporting un-cited or dubiously cited 'facts' from Wikipedia is a symptom of a similar kind of media laziness as above - anyone who takes the trouble to understand how Wikipedia works will know that while not every single word in an article is cited, any significant assertion has to be, and in that sense, the citation of significant facts will always have to attributed to something other than Wikipedia). The lines between different kinds of words on Wikipedia are certainly thin, and this is by no means something that has an easy resolution. On a lighter note, the American television comedian Stephen Colbert, in his usual perceptive way, has devoted much airtime to the topic of "wikiality" by which he means something like the problem you've described: see http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/72347/july-31-2006/t… or http://spring.newsvine.com/_news/2006/08/01/307864-stephen-colbert-causes-c…