Yeah, but it's a relatively safe bet that an organization would rather be represented by their own carefully-reviewed, professionally-crafted verbiage than one hastily thrown together by a volunteer editor, and thus would not pursue action against the publisher.

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.

Multiply that "relatively safe bet" times the millions of times this would happen if Wikipedia relaxed their stance.

Like I said, I don't think it'd be a good idea for Wikipedia to start copying and pasting from random websites without the appropriate clearances. I do think it'd be a good idea to revise the law so that normal uses are not illegal anymore.

Still wouldn't change much because, thanks god, the US law is not global ^^

The U.S. has trade negotiations which tend to include mutual or compatible copyright law with most of the countries in the world.

Yes, they are among the biggest copyright aggressors of the world. Just like L Lessig, I care about common sense copyright policy, which forces me to care about reforming the U.S. campaign finance system so that congress can represent the people again.