Here's a thought.

You write your perfect Boy Scout article on Wikipedia.

Your article is forked onto a Spanking site with proper attribution.

Rinse and repeat for other articles you have written on similar subjects.

You have now written a site that could be illegal, purely by the wrappings around your article. You have authored the majority of the content of a child abuse site.

That is not a good licence to have given...

I'm glad for Greg that Arch Coal is not a hotbed of the spanking community.

It does not seem a problem that Linux, Apache, PHP and MySQL have enabled a swathe of porn sites around the world. It is just software, and we can do the math to convince ourselves that there is no harm done by the software authors - it is sufficiently arms length (don't blame the rifle, blame the shooter).

Here we have text or pictures which ARE the site. Their use directly brings the author into disrepute because, with the licence, he has to be credited. Do you think the average Angry Mum is going to work out that the author of the words on that site had not written them for that site - and understand that your inability to fix the problem is not just you being an "enabler"?

Perhaps this freedom of information licensing might need a little more thought after all.

What other nasty implications might there be that the average contributor might not have grasped. Suddenly, slaving to provide free content for the likes of Answers.com for them to make money on seems the least of our concerns - and the thought of Wikia adopting Wikipedia content does not seem simply a matter of being annoyed that Jimbo is abusing the relationship of the WMF.