I would expect to read such an uninformed comment on Fox News comment section.

Why not?

Copyright is an unnatural right created in the name of encouraging creative output; if the person who owns the rights to control copying a work don’t enforce it, why should the rest of us do it for them?

Maybe we should shift the burden of proof on you? Can you prove that you are not violating copyright with your post? If you can't do it, how on earth can Wikipedia do it?

In the Soviet Union, this was called "Prove that you are not a camel."

But nooo, "I want everyone to hear me and I want them to know it was me who said it. Me me me. I'm important, I want to feel like it". Get the fuck over it.

And if you want to make money off of it, there are plenty of much better ways besides braindead ads. GDPR seems to pander a bit too much to carebears.

And sources are not for the carebears. I mean, too, but they wouldn't be enforced if that would be the only point. It is so that you and I can know where to go to verify or falsify a claim. What would be your alternative proposal?

Ok, let's just give every piece of published source a numeric code or something so we can sort and search and refer too it.

Ok, nobody cares. Let's use the name of the author instead so he has interest that what he says is true and get's used truthfully. Boom, there you have the idea of copyright (in an idealised form)

I literally only know this because my first job contract, my university industrial year, signed that right away for the work I did there.

There is a broader point that centralization of content being found by search engines isn't ideal--even if Wikipedia were more pristine than it is a lot of the time.

As to your second point, I think the combined effect of Wikipedia and Google's popularity-based search ranking is hurting the web. It's not a conspiracy, just a result of the system.