Toby-
Anyway, since you're now saying that Wikimedia policy should require all Wikimedia works to be copyleft, you're now in disagreement with (if I'm remember correctly how this conversation went) me, Erik, Andre, and Anthère. Since they're probably not all paying attention anymore -- we took many detours to discuss theoretical issues -- I'll bring this to their attention (after checking that I've got the correct people), so we can stop you. ^_^
Mav is a reasonable person and he would never use his influence or power in the project to unilaterally enforce his point of view. The rift in opinion between "copyleft" and "attribution-only" likely exists across the whole Wikimedia community. A project-wide vote may be useful.
However, please keep in mind the one-way incompatibility that would result from adopting a copyleft license: for example, Wikipedia content could no longer be combined with such material (unless you want to end up with documents where only part of them is dual-licensed as non-copyleft). This is a huge deal with repercussions many years down the line, so we should consider very carefully if the additional exposure we can gain from a non- copyleft license justifies such a change.
I agree with Mav that first and foremost, we need to work with the FSF towards simplifying the FDL for our purposes, perhaps just as an FDL 2.0, or using his FCL migration clause idea.
Regards,
Erik