@Coruskate: wikipedia actually is in (a pretty big) part a "scraping" website, one that aggregates texts that were published elsewhere, indexes them, enriches them, updates them, and so on. This is perfectly legitimate when the original content was Creative Common (which by the way is also not always true). So, by many metrics, wikipedia is "better" for the consumer than the (often obscure, poorly laid out, poorly edited, maybe even advertising infested) websites that originally published the content. Being the original publisher doesn't automatically qualify you as "better" from the consumer point of view - even if I agree that original content producers should be rewarded.