Regardless, who do you know that would fit the profile of someone willing to go after Wikipedia because of it? They would look like an asshole and throw away their political career, if they have one.

Unfortunately, this is becoming increasingly the enforcement reality in the United States -- the law at this level is used selectively as an intimidation weapon rather than being applied uniformly.

Examples abound: which "leakers" are prosecuted? The ones "leaking" secret government data which the government wants you to know (i.e. how Iran is supposedly in dealings with Somalia), or the ones leaking government data which it doesn't want you to know (i.e. Bradley Manning)?

When the law is so broad that everyone's a criminal, and enforcement is capricious and politically motivated, we are at a low point in the tradition of a just society governed by the rule of law.

No politician would have to, if the bill passed. The RIAA would do it for them, and Wikipedia's only resort would be to take it to court -- where it would, after spending buckets of money, lose.

Or more accurately, Wikipedia wouldn't take it to court: they'd censor themselves instead, so that they could stay on the internet. Which makes SOPA an existential threat to Wikipedia as a source of knowledge.