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