Hi James :)
(This is my last reply for today, given the recommended posting limit on this list.)
We all agree that NC licenses are exceedingly poor due to the reasons listed, yet we leave a lot of useful content (such as Khan academy videos) less accessible to our readers because we disallow any such use.
I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy, and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default license.
This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism.
I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about altering the incentive structure for contributors. Right now, Wikimedia Commons hosts millions of contributions under permissive licenses. How many of those folks would have chosen an "exceedingly poor" (your words) option like NC, if that was available? And if a nonfree carve-out is limited to organizations like Khan Academy, how is such a carve-out fair and equitable to contributors who have, in some cases, given up potential commercial revenue to contribute to Wikimedia projects?
If a license is "exceedingly poor" and harmful to the goals of the free culture movement, incorporating more information under such terms strikes me as neither idealistic nor pragmatic -- it would just be short-sighted.
Warmly, Erik