Not sure why you're being downvoted; I completely agree with what you're saying (modulo questionable usage of "sponsor"). If Wikipedia were to try to charge for this use of their data, Google would likely make it a priority to drop the Wikipedia blurbs, either without replacement, or with data sourced elsewhere.
> Google would likely make it a priority to drop the Wikipedia blurbs, either without replacement, or with data sourced elsewhere.
That's an odd way of phrasing things. If Wikipedia were to take away free access to their data, Google wouldn't be dropping Wikipedia, Wikipedia would be dropping Google. This line of thinking "you took this when I was giving it away for free, but now I want to charge for it, so you are expected to keep paying for it" is incorrect.
Given the scale that google already operates at, I don't doubt that they would just take a copy of thr content and rebrand it as a google service, complete with user contribution.
Then, after two or five years, let it fester then abandon it. Nobody gets promoted for keeping well oiled machines running.
