Do you mean by wikipedia's definition of stolen? Because some things, like for instance: the description of Lora taken from the website that exists to provide descriptions of Lora to people, has an implicit usability.
Like I said, this irked me more than it probably should. I totally get sometimes stuff will get caught in the margins.
It's not a "free as in free beer" encyclopedia, it's a "free as in truly free" encyclopedia.
(Yes I know that this is only valid for the text content, images (e.g. logos) and screenshots are not free but used under different legal regimes in different countries)
To that, I say [citation needed]. Where in their mission statement do they state this particular stance on lawyer attacks?
that's not how copyright law works. you may argue that it should work that way, but it does not work that way unless you petition Congress to modify it
I'm not saying that Wikipedia should use content without the appropriate licensure, but in practice, copyright is violated as a matter of routine to provide some fairly basic services. Copyright law should be amended to prevent liability for conventional uses.
Come to think of it, that's not too different from how quotations work. So they might be able to deal with them.