Lessig

One error I spotted - The Google part is almost (not quite, but almost) the opposite of what you say. They didn't succeed because of merely refusing to do paid-placement. There were plenty of other search engines which didn't do paid-placement either. Remember AltaVista? Google had a combination of factors, including bona-fide better technology AND the fact that big companies were uninterested in the market - part of the story is how Microsoft ignored the area until it was too late. Plus, Google then made an associated advertising model work, which now threatens to become a privacy monster (there's a lot of irony that people quote, given their original ideas of integrity). It's not exactly a supportive story for your purposes.

Wikipedia is also a complex case. I doubt whether or not they have ads on the pages make a profound difference for readers, whether or not they "trust" it. The ads on newspaper websites refute that idea thoroughly. It does seem to make important difference in the ability to get people to work for free. So Wikipedia is kind of like a real-life story of the goose that laid golden eggs. You can get people to work for free, but that makes it hard to monetize them (hence the formally-separate but heavily-associated commercial start-up, "Wikia"!). It doesn't prove at all what you seem to offer it as proving (sadly, it's very difficult to write a good examination of what drives Wikipedia - some of which is very problematic cult behavior - because of, drumroll, all the associated "corruption" involved, not in terms of direct cash, but the promise of unpaid labor).

Overall, it's an inspiring sermon, I'm not sure if you meant it to be more than that. I assume Aaron Swartz will be commenting about the system-dynamics issues, so I'll skip that.