So it is brainstorming time again? 
I have already an idea for the next weekend, I’ll create a new thread in a few days. (More ideas are always welcome though!)
And it is done! Comments welcome.
On this page there is a template that can be used when text from Wikipedia is used. It says that:
“We encourage users to make original contributions, since Wikipedia’s text requires that all uses of their text carry a license more restrictive than the license Mises Wiki uses.”
I started a section on the discussion page there asking what license does the Mises Wiki use? What are the differences between them? Anyone want to go there and respond? I’d like to know the differences and see what the communtiy feeling is on using wikipedia content as a foundation for articles.
Answered; in short, see this page.
As for the feeling, check the discussions on Commons or this note. My personal approach is to not base anything on a Wikipedia page, if at all possible; but link freely to it when it is useful.
Thanks for the links. Can you explain what difference the “sharealike” provision makes in this context? If Mises Wiki is released under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license and Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, how exactly are we limiting an article by using content from Wikipedia?
Content unter Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) requires you to put derivative material under a similar licence as the original work. Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) merely requires you to name the creator(s) of the original work. That is, material under CC-BY can be used in proprietary works, material under CC-BY-SA remains at least freely distributional.
So basically we want to allow Mises Wiki content to be sold.
I didn’t know what all that licensing was for, but gotta say, that possibility makes the content more attractive in the long term!